And He Oughta Know

Bob Barr wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed Congress and was signed into law by Bill Clinton in a particularly disappointing moment. Now Barr, who is a born-again libertarian, wants the law that he wrote repealed.

I've wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned. In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party's presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law.

In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.

Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.

In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.

There you have it. That is what consistent conservatism looks like. Instead of screaming "states rights!" only when it suits him, Barr is practicing what he preaches. His motives may not be exactly the same as mine, but the underlying principle actually is - on issues of self-determination those in a community have the ability to decide for themselves rather than have a decision thrust upon them. There is room for a progressive-libertarian alliance around these core civil liberties issues, and I would expect to see it reach a critical mass every now and again. As for this particular case, the right thing to do would be to repeal DOMA.

Paul Army!!

So at that press conference yesterday, Ron Paul urged his supporters to back third-party candidates. Most of them joined him onstage, except for Bob Barr, who then turned around and asked Paul to be his running mate.

Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr, the former Georgia congressman, rejected comparisons to Cynthia McKinney on Wednesday and made a bid for Ron Paul’s undivided support.

Paul, who this year sought the GOP presidential nomination, told reporters at a Washington press conference that the two-party system is broken. He urged Americans to vote for one of the third-party candidates running, including McKinney, who is also a former member of Congress from Georgia [...]

McKinney, the Green Party nominee for president, appeared with Paul at the National Press Club, as did independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin.

Barr, who served in the U.S. House as a Republican from Cobb County, was scheduled to be there, too, but changed his mind.

“Bob had a press conference right after that one,” said campaign spokesman Andrew Davis. “He didn’t want to dilute his message by being on the same stage as people like Cynthia McKinney, who is completely opposite of what a Libertarian is." [...]

Barr sent Paul a letter Tuesday asking him to be his vice presidential nominee. Barr already has a running mate, Wayne Root of Las Vegas. Root said in the letter he would step aside for Paul.

How much of a sad sack is Wayne Root?

I don't think that Paul will realistically join Bob Barr's ticket. But he unquestionably has a strong contingent of supporters, most of them from the paleoconservative Republican side of the aisle, who are receptive to his messages, and who I believe will end up voting third party. And as we know, he's on the ballot for President in Montana, where he could grab as much as 5-7% IMO.

Most amusing about this is that the McCain campaign called begging for his support, and Paul stiff-armed them. I didn't hear him say that Obama was looking for an endorsement. This news definitely hurts McCain on the margins, but that might be all that is needed to sink him.

Puppet Show And Spinal Tap

The Republican Party is not what it used to be.

Citing a lack of interest, the Nevada Republican Party has called off its state convention and will instead pick its delegates to the national convention by private conference call.

The state party broke up its original convention in April when supporters of Ron Paul hijacked the proceedings and tried to elect delegates for their candidate to the national GOP convention in September. Party officials tried to reconvene on July 26, but they needed a quorum of 675 and received only 300 RSVPs, according to local reports.

"With so many people concerned about the economy, it simply wouldn't be fair for us to ask delegates from all over the state to spend money to attend a convention if we know that a quorum won't be present," state party Chairwoman Sue Lowden said in a release.

This is similar to the fact that they held a competitor conference to Netroots Nation in Austin to "confront" the progressive blogosphere, and yet nobody knew about it, the attendance was pathetic, and their keynote speaker (not the Republican nominee, but the Libertarian one) paid to come to NN and wander around.

What a pathetic political party that is right now. Of course, it's up to us to make sure they have many more years in the wilderness.

My Interview with Bob Barr

You may know that Bob Barr has arrived at Netroots Nation. He bought a one-day pass and decided to mingle with the assembled conventioneers. And he drew a crowd. I first spied him when Kate Sheppard of Grist was interviewing him about his environmental policies (a lot of "we don't know if man is causing global warming, we need further study, etc). All of us wanted to talk to him, but we didn't quite know what to ask. But after a couple of minutes it hit me, and my good buddy clammyc lent me his voice recorder and I sidled up to Barr to ask my first question.

Me: Rep. Barr, do you believe the impeachment of President Clinton was a good deterrent to the expansion of executive power and the establishment of the rule of law for the executive branch?

answer on the flip...

Barr: (chuckling) Good Lord no!

Me: So do you regret your role in the impeachment of President Clinton as House manager?

Barr: No, having public officials adhere to and be answerable to the rule of law is very, very important. What distresses me greatly is that Congress has not done, in the case of this President, what they should have done. And that is to inquire into what this Administration has done with regard to breaking the laws, on the electronic surveillance of people without warrants, the improper use of US Attorneys, etc.

Me: Would you have endorsed the impeachment articles that were referred to the House Judiciary Committee last week?

Barr: I'm testifying this Thursday before the House on some of these issues, not in the context of impeachment, but in the context of the rule of law and the separation of powers. So we will be getting into some of these things. But I think it would make no sense at this point to do impeachment--

Me: At what point would it have made sense? What year would it have made sense?

Barr: You're not going to let me answer a question!

Me: I'm sorry, I'm just trying to follow up.

Barr: Go ahead, ask your question.

Me: Well, you're talking about a timeline, that it wouldn't make sense 6 months before the end of the President's term to begin an impeachment inquiry...

Barr: We're getting into the heart of a Presidential campaign. Anything that Congress would do at this point would be seen as totally political, and probably from their standpoint be counter-productive, because the other side would rally around the President, and possibly hurt the other side in the election.

Me: I have one final question. Do you feel that the impeachment of President Clinton, in effect, poisoned the well of the practice of impeachment, and always made it a political act, so that the current executive can always count on the fact that it would be seen as political to call for accountability in this fashion?

Barr: Impeachment is always going to be somewhat political, you are never going to get away from that. One of the things that I learned, and what I wrote about in my book, is that when I filed in November of 1997, the very first inquiry of impeachment, none of us knew anything about Monica Lewinsky. That didn't come up until three or four months later. The basis of which I believed it was necessary and appropriate had nothing to do with that, it had to do with national security matters, improper campaign donations from foreign sources and so forth. But even had we moved in that direction, the Republicans didn't want to, that would have been seen as political. You're never going to get away from that. That's why it's so important in any impeachment to lay your groundwork, marshal your evidence, have those Congressional hearings first, rather than reaching your conclusion first.

Audio is coming in a moment, I'll update.

UPDATE: Audio (it'll show as soon as it's processed):



I think the intellectual bankruptcy of this argument speaks for itself, so I won't say much. Barr believes that the Clinton impeachment did nothing to strengthen the rule of law vis a vis the executive branch, but he thinks he was right to do it because having public officials adhere to the rule of law is important. He thinks that the impeachment he managed was important and necessary, but wouldn't currently do it with Bush because it would be seen as political. He talks about adherence to the Constitution but quite literally makes a timeline excuse for implementing a Constitutional check. And then he endorses the concept of fishing expeditions. I appreciate Barr's work on FISA and other matters, but this was self-protective blather, and mindless blather at that. To me it was instructive. But I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Barr!

Great piece on Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr, who's sick of the GOP Establishment and running on a platform of limited government. Barr has a built-in audience with the Ron Paul crowd, and if he taps into them he can cause a stir. I don't agree with him on a bunch of issues, but there are points of convergence on civil liberties, making us strange bedfellows. Bob Barr, of course, is strange bedfellows with the Bob Barr from Congress:

And some of its own members are asking how they ended up with Mr. Barr, who at the Libertarian Party convention in Denver last month squeaked by with the nomination only after six raucous rounds of votes.

“There certainly are still those,” Mr. Barr said, switching to the third person, “that may view Bob Barr as somewhat of a Johnny-come-lately.”

While libertarian philosophy generally bows to the rights of the individual — and against government intervention — Representative Barr voted for the USA Patriot Act; voted to authorize the war in Iraq in 2002; led the impeachment charge against President Bill Clinton in 1998; and introduced the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

So there's, you know, that. If Paul were running in this space, with his more consistent record, he'd get 5%. I don't know about Barr.

Marriage Ruling Fallout

Yesterday's historic ruling defending marriage from double standards and discrimination, has created wide reaction across the political spectrum, most of it predictable. One reaction was fairly unpredictable, from Libertarian Presidential candidate (and former Republican) Bob Barr:

"Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which ournation was founded.

"Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states' powers should work."

I think Barr is being a little disingenuous about the intent of DOMA, but it's an interesting perspective nonetheless.

On the side of gay rights advocates, there is much celebration, and a determination to forge ahead for a tough fight in the fall. Ellen DeGeneres announced her intention to get married, provoking a long standing ovation from her audience.

On the side of the wingnuts and homophobes, heads exploded. A lot of them focused on how "unelected judges" went over the heads of the will of the people. First of all, the elected legislature, elected more recently than the 2000 marriage initiative, have passed this legislation twice, and frankly that's how democracy works. Second of all, Supreme Court judges in California are, you know, elected:

But, in making their rush to judgment about the CA decision, both Blunt and Feeney have the basic facts wrong about how California’s judicial system works. SmartVoter.org, a resource of the League of Women’s Voters, makes clear that California’s Supreme Court justices are “confirmed by the public at the next general election” after being appointed and “justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms.”

In fact, each of the seven justices involved in yesterday’s decision were approved by California voters by overwhelming margins:

- Justice Joyce L. Kennard confirmed in 2006 with 74.5% of the vote.
- Justice Carol A. Corrigan confirmed in 2006 with 74.4% of the vote.
- Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar confirmed in 2002 with 74.1% of the vote.
- Justice Carlos R. Moreno confirmed in 2002 with 72.6% of the vote.
- Justice Marvin R. Baxter confirmed in 2002 with 71.5% of the vote.
- Justice Ronald M. George confirmed in 1998 with 75.5% of the vote.
- Justice Ming William Chin confirmed in 1998 with 69.3% of the vote.

And 6 of the 7 were appointed by Republican governors.

As for the initiative fight, Peter Hecht has a scene-setter today.

California voters eight years ago overwhelmingly approved a law against gay marriage, but as they prepare to go to the polls again in the wake of Thursday's California Supreme Court decision, the outcome is less certain.

Unlike 2000, when 61 percent voted to put a gay marriage ban in state law, the "California Marriage Protection Act" would lock the ban in the constitution, negating the court's action. The measure is expected to qualify for the Nov. 4 ballot.

Pollsters say voters' views on gay marriage are more complex than the last time they considered the question, as surveys show rising acceptance in California for same-sex unions.

"The vote itself on the constitutional amendment will be wide open," said Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo. "It's all age-related. One generation is replacing another. And the generation that is coming in now is much more supportive of gay marriage than the one that was here eight years ago."

In a 2006 state Field Poll, voters opposed gay marriage 51 percent to 43 percent. But support was much stronger among newer voters.

Kevin Drum has crunched the numbers based on historical data between 2000 and now, and thinks it'll be very close, within 4 points. This is going to be a major battle in the fall. And I have to say, one that can skyrocket turnout on the DEMOCRATIC side. As a civil rights issue that will energize younger voters to turn out in solidarity and support, I think you could see a perfect storm that could help us downticket. It's going to take a major effort.

Bob Barr

I suppose I should say something about Bob Barr's run for the White House. It's quixotic, of course, but it's nice to see such windmill-tilting designed to attract Republicans than Democrats. I don't share a whole lot in common on fiscal issues with a libertarian like Barr, but I do believe he's been on the right side of a number of civil liberties issues over the last few years and could capture some of that Ron Paul magic, which is a non-trivial amount of Republican votes, as Josh Marshall has said. In races out West like New Mexico and Montana and Alaska and Colorado, where his brand of libertarianism will play, that number of votes could actually be determinative.

Dana Milbank wrote a story on Barr's National Press Club kickoff event yesterday, and clearly there's enough difference with John McSame's policies for Barr to make a spirited effort in this race.

"What's your problem with McCain?" one of the reporters asked after Barr's announcement speech.

Barr turned to his campaign manager, former Ross Perot adviser Russ Verney. "How long do we have here, Russ?"

Time enough, evidently.

Barr took issue with McCain's Iran policy. "I'm not going to go around making up songs about such a serious matter as going to war with a sovereign nation, as Senator McCain did," the former congressman said, tut-tutting McCain's "Barbara Ann/Bomb Iran" episode.

He quarreled with McCain's Iraq policy. "These troops need to be brought home," he offered.

He ridiculed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which, he said, means McCain "cannot ever lay legitimate claim, at least with a straight face, to . . . being labeled as a conservative."

He put down McCain's plan to do away with pet-project earmarks, claiming it "would make barely a drop in the bucket with regard to the national debt, the deficit."

And he disparaged McCain's fiscal policy, saying "there are some legitimate questions that have been raised over whether Senator McCain is simply a Johnny-come-lately to the modest tax cuts."

I don't agree with Barr on all of that, but I agree on far more than I might expect (particularly the earmark thing, why can't more politicians say that? It's supposedly in their interest to hang on to earmarks, after all). And that strain of conservatism that agrees with all of this is more robust that anyone might expect. These Ron Paul acolytes are still fighting to take over the GOP convention - it's like 1968 only nobody is paying any attention to it. These people are looking to embarrass Senator McCain on the national stage and impact the party platform - they're not going to run back to him in November. One choice word from Paul and they'd all get on the Bob Barr train. This bears watching.

Barr? Hello?

I remember that when Ralph Nader, who received 0.38% of the vote in 2004, about the same number as Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik, it ran in a loop all over the cable news after he announced on Meet The Press. It was a two-day story.

Bob Barr is running for President as an Independent. He's actually been elected in this country, unlike Nader. He has a paleoconservative message that was good for around 5% of the Republican vote in the primaries, judging by Ron Paul's performance, and may appeal to independents. I don't think he'll do a hell of a lot better than Ralph Nader, but shouldn't a Barr candidacy be worth a mention, considering that the traditional media threw a fit suggesting that Nader's candidacy would imperil Democrats? Just one mention? I mean, when they get time in between reports of Naomi Campbell's abuse of airline staff, that is.

I picked the wrong day to continue to watch the traditional media. Sorry for the harping on this.