KANSAS CITY, Mo., April 5, 2008 /PRNewswire/ -- Addressing Midwestern activists at the Heartland Libertarian Conference today, former Congressman Bob Barr announced the launch of the Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee (BobBarr2008.com).

In his speech, Barr noted that, "America today faces a grave moral and leadership crisis, and those of us who care about our country's future can no longer sit on the sidelines and remain neutral." "As Dante Alighieri said many centuries ago," Barr observed, "the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." Continuing, Barr stated that, "some say it is not now expedient or politically pragmatic to do the right thing, for the right reason." But, he then asked his audience, "When has there been a better time? When has the risk of inaction carried more serious consequences? When will it be appropriate to take extraordinary steps? What must happen to our Constitution before we set aside our complacency and expediency in favor of principle?"

Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, where he served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. Prior to his congressional career, Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and also served as an official with the CIA for nearly eight years.

Since leaving Congress, Barr has been practicing law and actively advocating American citizens' right to privacy and other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. He serves also as a board member for the National Rifle Association, and works with the American Conservative Union and other groups.

Barr's speech to the Heartland audience touched on the issues the candidates for the two major status quo parties have not addressed sufficiently, namely: the urgent need for truly cutting the size of the federal government, protecting our civil liberties, securing our borders, and fundamentally reforming our tax code.

"Removing 'earmarks' but not cutting the underlying spending is simply government as usual and is nothing more than a cynical shell game," Barr stated; adding, "and that's the high water mark in the debate thus far." Barr said this is not adequate, and that America's voters deserve better than a choice between the lesser of two evils."

The Libertarian Party, America's oldest and largest third party, formed in 1971, is on track to achieve ballot access in at least 48 states. Its nominee will be chosen at the Libertarian National Convention which will be held in Denver, CO May 22 through 26.

Paid for by the Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee 900 Circle 75 Pkwy. Suite 1280, Atlanta, GA 30339 Not printed at government expense BobBarr2008.com

Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

This 'har prezeedenshal race jus' gotten intrestin'.

You don't think he has any impact other than this year's Perot, do you?

I don't. But I might vote for him anyway. I thought Ron Paul was supposed to be the Libertarian candidate, no?

Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the popular vote in 1992, most third-party vote in recent history.

Barr is interesting because he has a long history among conservatives (Clinton's impeachment) AND he has a more recent reputation as a libertarian. He doesn't have the "kook" image that Paul did, either. I think he presents a credible choice for conservatives who don't like McCain.

I don't know how it's going to play out, but I think it's very possible he gets 10-15% of the popular vote, most of it coming at McCain's expense.

Also remember that Perot was the result of dissatisfaction among conservatives about the liberal policies of the first Bush. Fiscal conservatives form the libertarian wing of the GOP, and here they are again pissed at the leader of their party and not happy with their party's candidate.

Meanwhile, you have a young, charismatic Democratic candidate running on a change platform that will benefit from a tanking economy.

It's starting to look like 1992 all over again.

Also, Barr should get a huge chunk of Georgia's GOP vote, which combined with GA's large African American population might be enough to put the state in play for Obama.

Perot got 13% of the vote in Georgia, which gave the state to Clinton. I have to imagine Barr gets closer to 20-25% of the Georgia vote (possibly more), which would swing it to Obama for sure.

Barr on the Libertarian ticket could swing two or three southern states and lock it up for Obama.

And therein lies my problem. I'm sick of feeling like I'm voting for the lesser of two evils, as Barr was talking about. Yet still, it's hard to vote your conscience if there is a particular candidate you feel strongly about NOT being the next president. I have tried to like Obama, and really given some thought about voting for him. But I just don't see myself voting for him. My family is pretty strapped financially, and we honestly can't afford any higher tax deductions from our income. That's truth. And the whole "first thing I'll do as president is start Universal Health Care..." thing. Nahhh, I'm not for that at all. He's given way too much lip service to getting this enacted w/seemingly little thought on some other way to just get healthcare costs under control. To me, doing something about the costs associated w/it is far more important than trying to set up some flawed system, especially a government sponsored and managed system, that will burden taxpayers even further.

I'm not high on McCain's foreign policy angles at all, but if it comes down to him or Obama, and the 3rd party guy having zero chance, I'll probably end up voting for him.

If you're middle income then your taxes won't increase under Obama. In fact, you'll wind up with a tax cut. You should also have gotten a tax cut THIS year thanks to Obama and the Dems in Congress. Bush's plan was to cut the capital gains tax, not give rebates to middle and working class families.

If you're making $150k and you're still financially strapped then...well...I'll swap places with you any day.

As far as third party having zero chance of winning, every vote is a wasted vote. Even if the Georgia election is decided by 4%, your one single vote will still have almost zero chance of altering the outcome of the race.

And since your vote has zero chance of influencing the outcome (e.g., the winner is going to win regardless of who you vote for), why not just vote for who you like best?

Also, if McCain keeps us in Iraq for another two or three years then they're going to have to hike income taxes anyway, or run even deeper deficits that will further drain the economy.

So again, unless you're in the upper 10% of income earners then you don't have to worry about your taxes increasing.

Barr could seriously get my vote in this election.

Which is to say, McCain could seriously not get it.

We'll have to see how it pans out.

I know this, there was NEVER an election in the 7th District where I DIDN'T vote for Bob Barr while he was running. Liked him as a Republican, like him one hell of a lot more as a Libertarian.

I think ATL_Bear raised some thought provoking questions about exactly what Obama considers "middle income" when we've had previous discussions about this. (btw, he'd be another good poster to recruit) :) According to the links that he provided, if I remember correctly, our family was over his definition. Not by much, mind you, but over all the same. I WISH we were in the $150K bracket! More than taxes & health insurance costs, our financial woes have come more from illness in the family. My wife has had some issues over the past couple of years, unfortunately... but even if she wasn't out of work now, we would make well under 80k this year between us, I'm pretty sure. Dang I gotta find a new job... But I digress.

Good point about the vote. I don't pretend to understand much at all about how our election process works, but I'm not sure I agree w/the whole electoral vote thing. Is it really so hard just to tally the individual votes for each candidate, and put the one w/the most votes in office w/out complicating the whole thing??

Be careful relying on people spinning stuff about Obama. We saw where that went on the OMB. If you're well under 80k then your taxes won't go up and they'll probably go down under Obama's plan. People like to spin things he has said to scare you into thinking he'll raise everyone's taxes (just like they did with Bill Clinton, btw), but those same people are the ones telling you that Obama is a closet socialist and communist conspirator and black militant and Muslim spy. Just a bunch of crap.

I'm very sorry to hear about your wife's illnesses. I hope everything works out.

By the same token, be careful pooh-poohing talk of Bill Clinton's tax policy as "scare" tactics. Bill Clinton is the one who gave the famous "we said we wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, but gosh, we're just gonna hafta" speech.

I TRUST Obama not to do that, but saying that people saying that Obama will is the equivalent of saying Clinton would is not right. They were right about Clinton. I believe they are wrong about Obama.

And the difference is the character of the man involved. Obama is a man of principle. Clinton is a lying douchebag.

And so is her husband nr6

:lol:
True dat, Dave. And I don't take all that spin ish from other posters as gospel. Obama's no more a socialist than McCain, IMO, and even if he did try to push the country in that direction, I seriously doubt he'd ever be successful. I do remember following a link that was posted to one of his campaign websites though, that at least had him quoted on commenting on that tax stuff. And if I'm remembering correctly, it was around 75-80K. I'm not going to go over to the OMB and dig up the link, but it registered with me at the time. By the time I change jobs (hopefully soon) and my wife goes back to work, we will probably be right around 80 or a little more, if everyone stays employed, which btw, is another huge concern of mine right now. I can't open my browser on any give day w/out reading a headline about recession, rising unemployment, or the next corporation to cut 1000s of jobs. It's not encouraging, to say the least.

How are you defining the "middle class"? Because Clinton's tax increase was targeted at the top income earners.

My point was that in 1992 the GOP was using scare tactics to try to convince Americans that Clinton was going to raise everyone's taxes. That's their standard talking point -- EVERYBODY is getting their taxes increased. It's simply false.

You're right, I got it wrong, but just barely.

He didn't say he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class, he said he'd actually cut them.

And he didn't come back and apologize for raising them, he apologized for not cutting them.

Either way, the critics were correct. He had a huge zeal for raising taxes, but very little for cutting them. On anyone.

How do ya'll even remember all that ish? Or are you just expert researchers, like some of our other members? ;)

BTW, the Wall Street Journal makes a very credible argument that Bill Clinton did raise taxes on the middle class. He just did it in the form of a time bomb set to explode in about 2 weeks:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/?id=110009705

I remember the speech vividly.

It was pretty much an "I told you so" moment with my more left-leaning friends.

Ramen was there, too. And he hated Clinton for it. But that was before he got "educated" nr6

Just dug up some details of Clinton's 1993 tax hike:

"Higher income taxes: The top tax rate would be raised to 36% rate for for people filing joint returns who have a taxable income over 140,000, or single filers with a taxable income above $115,000. In addition, the plan proposes a 10% surtax on taxable income over $250,000, excluding capital gains; would increase the alternative minimum tax rates for people with many deductions, and extend the limits on itemized deductions. The capital gains tax rate would remain unchanged at 28%. Revenue in billions 1994: $27.7 1997: $26.3 1993-98: $126.3"

$115k in 1993 is equivalent of about $165k today, and that is just for single filers. That's about $190-220k in today's dollars for joint filers.

That's not middle class.

Read above.

Yep, that's before I took an economics class and realized why tax cuts for the rich and huge budget deficits is a bullshit way to handle fiscal policy. ;)

Yeah, he increased taxes on the rich to pay down the deficit, and the result was pretty darned good.

I wouldn't have a problem with Obama doing the same thing today, and freeing up some money by ending the Iraq War in the process.

His whole position on the Iraq War is just about the MOST attractive thing to me as a presidential candidate. And probably the thing I hate the most about McCain. But I also agree w/some of the other conversations going on on this board about the whole REAL reason we're there in the first place. It's time for someone to admit that it's about the oil, and to get busy w/the energy crisis that this country is staring in the face.

Ignoring that he lied does not change the fact that he lied.

He never had any intention of cutting middle class taxes.

Halfway through his campaign he was saying things like "the press always made more of the middle class tax cut than I did," when early on he had literally made it the centerpiece of his campaign.

So you keep talking about what a great thing he did. The man lied. Period. His critics -- who said he was lying -- were correct. You accuse them of smear above. You're wrong. They were right.

BTW, just as an aside, $190K-220K might not be the middle of the middle class, but it sure as hell ain't rich, either. I know people in that tax bracket. They're comfortable, but they are NOT wealthy. That's upper middle class, so if we want to scrape the semantics away, yes, Clinton AND Obama are raising taxes on "the middle class." Just the tippity top of the middle class, that's all.

Bill Clinton...lie? Never.

Read the thread again. I never said "Clinton's critics accused him of lying about middle class tax cuts and they were wrong". I said that the GOPers smeared Clinton by falsely claiming he was going to raise everyone's taxes, including the middle class. They tried to scare middle income earners into thinking their taxes were about to get hiked under Clinton when that was never going to be the case.

The critics lied about Clinton's tax increases. Clinton lied about middle class tax cuts. The latter doesn't negate my point regarding the former.

And GOPers are yet again trying the same scare tactic against Obama, trying to convince people who earn middle class wages that their taxes are getting hiked. Just like Clinton, the tax hikes are targeted at the upper 5% of income earners.

Oh, and btw, $190k is the upper 5% of income earners in this country, and is probably getting close to the upper 2-3% of income earners. I don't know how you define "rich", but how can you consider someone who makes more than 95-98% of Americans to be in the "middle" of income earners?

Okay, perhaps it's link time. Who accused him of this specifically?

"The GOP" could be the National Party and George H.W. Bush. Or it could be David Duke.

And again, I agree as to Obama, I just disagree that they are "the same scare tactic." With Clinton, it wasn't a scare tactic. Whether he raised them or failed to cut them, he demonstrably did NOT do what he promised to do, which was raise taxes on the rich and cut them on the middle class. Why? Because the numbers didn't work.

Which was the bulk of the criticism I recall in the first place. "The GOP" as I recall it was saying "you can't raise taxes on the rich, cut taxes on the middle class and pay for all of your spending while still reducing the deficit." And they were right, too.

You'll also note that despite giving Clinton credit for "cutting the deficit" these days, it took a Republican Congress to drag him kicking and screaming to a balanced budget. That same Congress forgot who it was in the last 8 years, and that's a damn shame, but it doesn't change history and it doesn't take away what was accomplished over Clinton's kicking and screaming. When Clinton had a Democrat Congress, he didn't balance crap, and even after Republicans took over, he fought them tooth and nail on balancing the budget.

One other thing, here are the income percentiles according to the US Census Bureau:

INCOME GROUPS IN THE U.S.
Median — $25,076
Top 10% — $87,334
Top 5% — $120,212
Top 1% — $277,983
Top 0.5% — $397,949
Top 0.1% — $1,134,849
Top 0.01% — $5,349,795

Remember that "median" means that exactly half of the population makes above that amount and half of the people make below that amount.

So half of the American population (that would be 150 million people) make below $25k, and we're defining $150k as "middle" income? That makes no sense to me.

Look how fast the numbers go up when you reduce 5% to 1% and you'll see why I don't consider them rich. They are not independently wealthy, they do not own their homes, they do not drive $100K cars and wear Armani suits. They are middle class, but they are not that much better off than I am. And I make roughly half that. With 3 kids and student loans, it doesn't go as far as you'd think.

So no, I don't define $190K as "rich" by a damn sight. I know too many people who make exactly that.

You know at least one who has been lurking in this thread tonight, too. And while he doesn't mind having his taxes increased, to his credit, I doubt he'd tell you he's "rich."

I think there's a difference between median income and middle class.

But I'd agree that $150 K a year is getting right near the top of what I'd consider middle class income.

Define it how you want. $150K OR $190K ain't "rich." Not by a long shot.

Perhaps in light of your objection, it's time to drop the "middle class" and "rich" distinctions and go with something else. I know this -- people making $150K a year struggle to pay their bills and send their kids to college too.

I can see the "paying their bills" part, as a higher income usually leads people to a higher quality of life, which comes with a price. But the sending their kids to college... yeah, there's some expenses there, but it shouldn't be tuition. Their kids can get loans and grants to go to school w/out mommy & daddy footin' the bill.

I'll agree that people working good jobs and making decent money aren't rich (I define rich as independently wealty - FU money), but if they have any trouble at all paying their bills it's because of personal decisions they've made that made paying the bills tough.

At $150K a year, the basics and then some are easily covered.

They struggle to pay bills on a $250-300k house and to pay off credit cards from eating out most nights. You can't possibly compare that to a family of four renting a small apartment struggling to pay bill with $35-40k.

Put the people making $190k a year in a small apartment and let them eat ramen noodles four times a week and they wouldn't struggle at all.

Just because they choose a more expensive lifestyle doesn't mean they are "struggling" to survive, as compared to the 150 million people who live on less than $25k a year.

C'mon.

Uh . . . ever since we built the place in Blue Ridge, I've pretty much resigned myself to the label.

But I'm still cheap.

Plus, my income has gone up 50% the past three years. Plus my wife works at a pretty big firm (but she's on the mommy track)

ON THE OTHER hand. . . we still buy used cars, I ain't getting the super cool new sram "red" groupo with my new Orbea Orca SL frame (I'm recycling my 3 year old Dura Ace) and I wouldn't dream of having someone else work on my bike, even though I should.

Just because you have to think about how you spend money doesn't mean you're not "rich".

I've talked about this before, but ALL of my income that will face higher taxes under an Obama administration goes toward investment or fun. I am very happy to have 4% less "fun/investment" money so that folks have a better opportunitty to pay for health insurance, education etc.

The G's are both making some good points.

We haven't had a good intrafamily argument in awhile. Long overdue. ;)

They are always a pleasure.

BTW . . . rich is typically defined as anyone making 20% more than yourself.