Bob Barr - how one president set the precedent for another

4 years ago Bob Barr wrote an intelligent book on how President Clinton set the precedent for President Bush in the accelerating erosion of our civil liberties and due process. Here he describes how an FBI "wish list", which included many of the things Democrats complain so vehemently about with Bush, came to light and how the Clinton administration "drafted a massive anti-terror package and sent it to Congress," some provisions of which Barr successfully defeated in 1996 "by banding together with libertarian-leaning conservatives and civil libertarians in the Democrat ranks. (p. 87)"

Tomorrow at the National Press Club, Bob Barr might announce that he's running for President.

----------------
Now playing: Snowden - Victim Card
via FoxyTunes

Update (May 12, 2008, 9:50 am Central): Minutes to go before Barr speaks. I just read a critique of Newt Gingrich by The Other McCain.

Ralph Z. Hallow of The Washington Times has a story about Republicans who fear the potential impact of a Barr LP candidacy:

Republicans, both publicly and behind the scenes, are saying that a Barr run could hurt him financially and sink Mr. McCain's Republican candidacy in the general election, likely against Sen. Barack Obama.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told The Times today that "Bob Barr will make it marginally easier for Barack Obama to become president. That outcome threatens every libertarian value Barr professes to champion."

Electing the co-author of McCain-Feingold would threaten no libertarian values?

I'd add what Barr wrote in his book on p. 223,

When Republicans finally waved the white flag of surrender and caved in to Clinton's budget demands, the approach taken by our leaders was particularly disturbing. Through late fall and early winter 1995 as the "crisis" played itself out, in meeting after meeting Newt had been urging us to hold tough. Newt repeatedly reminded us that principle had gotten us where we were and must always be our ultimate guide. In the end, however, Newt changed course suddenly and completely, telling us we were going to give Clinton what he wanted, and we had by-God better support it. He even told us—for the first time to my knowledge—that he was going to keep a list of every member who did not vote to cave on the Clinton spending package and that the list would later be used to punish us.

Update (May 12, 2008, 10:20 am Central): Why is Newt's cave an important issue for everyone, all Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike? Ask David Walker, the recent Comptroller General of the United States of America. See - Thomas Jefferson and the Barbarian Invasions

There is a way forward - part 1

Liberty and anarchy are opposed. I have written about this elsewhere. Suffice it to ask, as I did tonight, where is there a market for due process? The election of 2008 is at its heart about civil liberties and due process, principles I, for one, believe Lady Liberty loves, Americans love, and dare I say voters would love if they could get past identifying religiously with one Party or Another and brave their fears.

There is a way forward I'm gleaning from the turmoil I'm seeing. In a series of posts, I hope to give words to what I see.

Related posts:

• Hey hipsters, liberty is the New Left
• Liberalism, socialism, and conservatism
• The difference in being a liberal

What are Bob Barr's positions?

And why is Bob Barr even thinking about running for President with only 6 months to go? Bob Barr answers on Reason.tv

The driving issue this year is due process, our only hope for putting a brake on the accelerating breakdown of our American civil and natural liberties, an emergency brake perhaps.

Due process not only applies to the microcosms of a business being wiretapped, a person being rendered, a home being disrespected, but it also applies to the larger events. It is Congress's job to hold a trial of sorts before the dog of war is unleashed, before the President is sicced on any land. They failed in restraining President Clinton, and they continue to fail with President Bush. Instead they try to vest the power elsewhere childishly, namely with the executive himself, contrary to the Constitution, per Federalist 69.

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature

Both parties have failed to stop government anarchy. Barr speaks of the rule of law, applied to government.