Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Day 4 was much mellower and less eventful than day 3, mostly because we slept in until noon after the wild night before. That means we missed Al Gore's surprise appearance at the conference, but I'm not exactly broken up about that. Sleep was far more important. But when I got in to the convention center this morning, guess who was there? Bob Barr.
I got to ask Barr a question I've wanted to ask him for quite some time. He's repudiated and apologized for many of his previous positions and I asked him if he would repudiate his absurd anti-Wiccan crusade of 1999, when he wanted all Wiccans banned from the military. He said yes, with a bit of hemming and hawing.
He said that he had reports from several military leaders that Wiccans doing rituals on military bases were causing problems and that's why he did what he did, but that since that time it's become clear that there are no problems with allowing Wiccans to serve and to practice their religion on military bases like any other religion.
I did ask him for any specific problems that were reported to him back in 1999 by these military leaders, but he said he didn't want to get into specifics. I'm sure that's because there are no specific incidents and those military leaders who complained to him did so out of bigotry, or because the problems it caused were really caused by bigotry against Wiccans. He likened it to his stance on Don't Ask Don't Tell for gays, which he previously supported but now that it's clear that allowing gays to serve doesn't really cause any problems with unit cohesion and good order, he thinks it should be repealed and they should be allowed to serve openly.
After that it was just a mellow day. Went to dinner with the ScienceBlogs crew plus DarkSyd, longtime reader Bill Farrell and his lovely wife, and a couple of other people.
So I know you're all dying for my BBQ report card. I ate at three BBQ places over the last few days: Ruby's, Stubb's and the Iron Works. Iron Works wins by a fairly wide margin. The sausage was great at both Stubb's and the Iron Works, but the brisket and ribs were both considerably better at Iron Works, as was the sauce. I didn't manage to get to the Salt Lick, which is too far out of town, so I can't compare that one. But of the three I did, the Iron Works wins hands down.
So the conference is basically over now. DarkSyd and I are back at the private home we've been staying at and plan to just decompress for the rest of the night. I fly out Sunday afternoon. Austin is a great city and the last few days have been a blast.
Comments
Fromm Barr's lips to God's ears!
Man, if it could only be true, and we did get Wiccans back into the forces, we would have such a kickass military machine that nations would tremble in fear again.
Semper Fidelis!
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 20, 2008 9:55 AM
Ed: I checked Mr. Barr's website and cannot find anything where he reconciles his current stance about Wicca/Paganism and the military with his previous statements. There is a community out there who is still feeling the pain from his words. As someone who has changed from her candidate to undecided with strong ties to the military pagan community (Micheal is pagan whereas I am atheist), I cannot in good conscious vote for him until he publicly declares he has changed his opinion.
I cannot also find where he has publicly said his opinion has changed in regards to DADT. A public statement would do a lot of good for those of on the fence with this campaign-at least in my circle of friends and family.
Posted by: Donna | July 20, 2008 10:08 AM
Get a car and have BBQ at snow's
Posted by: George | July 20, 2008 10:16 AM
Bob Barr. Jesus.
Look, I know you think that Libertarians deserve a seat at the table. But Bob Barr seems to me to be just another right-wing crank. Just like Ron "I didn't know that someone was writing patently racist screeds under my name" Paul.
Yeah, they take positions that a Libertarian-minded person might like. But stopped clocks, Ed, stopped clocks.
Sometimes there are ideas that are just stupid and crazy, and candidates to go with them.
Look, I agree with George Bush that education should be better. But that doesn't mean I will vote for him, because there's too much other stuff that I find a complete disaster.
Ed, you do realize the guy authored the DOMA in 1996? Barr doesn't seem to think much of gay people. Did you ask him about that? Beyond the issues in the military, I mean. I would love to hear his answer, especially given the way he has described homosexuality in the past.
His positions on women are similarly retrograde. Now, I have a bit of a dog in this fight because my mother is an OBGYN. She's performed abortions in her career. Bob Barr and his Operation Rescue pals made it very, very unsafe for her and her colleagues to go to work. As importantly, he voted to make it a crime to perform the misnamed "partial birth abortion" (that isn't what it is), transport a minor across state lines to get one, and to kill family planning funding in US Aid Abroad.
Ed, please, please explain to me, as a man who said you kicked someone out of your house for disparaging gay people, why you give this guy the time of day.
I understand as a reporter you have to talk to him. I got that. I'd do the same thing. But Bob Barr is two steps from the kind of fascism that says "you are free to exercise your rights -- if you can afford it"
It just seems that whenever a Libertarian candidate shows up, it's like you want to support the guy -- I think of your earlier Ron Paul essay. And you always run into these folks who at a fundamental level, don't see people different from themselves as humans -- they just don't.
Help me understand, Ed.
Posted by: Jesse | July 20, 2008 10:37 AM
You'd rather sleep than meet Al Gore, but consider a Q&A with Barr important? Wow, you must have had a lot to drink the night before...
Posted by: dogmeatib | July 20, 2008 10:50 AM
Donna-
That's why I asked him about it, because while I've heard him forcefully repudiate many of his past loony positions I'd never heard him address that particular one.
Jesse-
I've explained this enough times that I don't feel the need to do so again. One of the virtues of voting libertarian is that you know your candidate has no chance whatsoever of winning. That means you can focus on the long-term prospect of helping libertarian ideas get a place at the table without any risk of the particular nut you're voting for getting into office.
dogmeat-
No, I'd rather sleep than hear Al Gore deliver a speech; if I'd had the chance to meet him, that would have been different. Politician's speeches bore the shit out of me. I'm just not one of those people who can applaud vague and simplistic statements. And I don't recall saying anything about a Q & A with Bob Barr being "important." He just happened to show up and I happened to be there and took the opportunity to ask him a question.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 20, 2008 11:28 AM
No, I'd rather sleep than hear Al Gore deliver a speech; if I'd had the chance to meet him, that would have been different. Politician's speeches bore the shit out of me. I'm just not one of those people who can applaud vague and simplistic statements.
Gotcha, given that it was a surprise appearance and that you had a chance to talk to Barr, I (apparently incorrectly) was under the impression that it was a chance to meet and talk to him. I don't blame you regarding a speech.
And I don't recall saying anything about a Q & A with Bob Barr being "important." He just happened to show up and I happened to be there and took the opportunity to ask him a question.
I stand corrected. My take was, given that your progression went from Gore to the importance of sleep to meeting Barr that you considered talking Barr to be important. Also, the impression is given that you accept his modified positions on a number of issues that most of the readership consider important.
Posted by: dogmeatib | July 20, 2008 2:09 PM
Mr. Barr has made a remarkable move towards libertarianism. That being said: he still has a very long way to go.
There are many who consider themselves to be libertarian, who also believe that Mr. Barr does not represent their viewpoints, and that The Libertarian Party has become Republican Light. These persons are often referred to by the "Republican Light" LP faction, as being anarchists. For hard-core libertarians, being called an "anarchist" does not even rise to the level of defamation, although associating the political world view of Bob Barr and to a lesser degree, Ron Paul, does indeed almost rise to the level of personal defamation to them.
Bob Barr has presented anti-libertarian positions, since his LP Presidential nomination. he has waffled on DOMA, at times asserting that this is some sort of States' Rights issue. There is no place for creeping Dixiecratism within libertarian theory. If it is improper for the Federal government to act in a discriminating manner, it is certainly improper for any governmental entity beneath the Federal level to discriminate in that manner. Barr has also waffled on opposition to the drug war, as well as New World imperialism. He recently issued a press release giving support for the Columbian government, and continued provisioning of US foreign military aid, predicated in the name of the War On Drugs.
Bob Barr is a conservative, who has returned to some of the libertarian posturing of American paleo-conservatism, but until he clearly states his libertarian positions regarding social issues, and acts accordingly, he is naught but a conservative.
Posted by: a knight | July 20, 2008 2:32 PM
Ed,
if you run into to Mr. Barr, and have an opportunity to ask questions, would you inquire of him about H.J. Res. 62, which he proposed on the House Floor, September 13, 2001?
Posted by: a knight | July 20, 2008 2:40 PM
Ed--
Look, I know it's a zero chance that he gets elected. I think that attitude is dangerous, is all. David Duke nearly got elected governor of Louisiana in 1992 precisely because a lot of more honest conservatives in the GOP figured, hey, he's one of us. (Democrats aren't immune to this either, but the level of crazy seems less).
I think you are running into the same thinking as a small-L libertarian.
I might point you to the progressive parties in New York (which allows fusion tickets) which have been able to tone down the crazy precisely because they might get elected. It's made the Greens and Working Families and all those folks a hell of a lot more credible, and as a result they've been able to affect the agenda of local Democrats.
A minor party guy doesn't need to be nuts. Bernie Sanders is exhibit A.
I don't throw my support to certain minor-party people unless I can not only say that whatever disagreements I have are less than the agreements, but that they don't actively stand for policies I find abhorrent. I may believe in universal health care but I am not going to vote or support someone who thinks the way to do it is to round up people with AIDS and treat them whilst they are incarcerated.
knight -- your point is well taken, that resolution so ill-defines who to go to war against it would effectively put us at perpetual war with everybody. I mean, who is or isn't a state sponsor of terrorism? What about all those Irish-descended Bostonians who gave money to the IRA? What about our good friend Musharraf's support for various groups in Afghanistan? I doubt highly Bob Barr has a coherent answer.
Posted by: Jesse | July 20, 2008 4:06 PM
@ Jessie
It is exceedingly inappropriate to the '92 LA gubernatorial election for an example here. David Duke was running against Edwin Washington Edwards, who was known to be amenable to bribery at that time, but had yet to be convicted.
David Duke is an reprehensible racist, but:
Vote for Me, I'm Just A Crook
is not a campaign slogan liable to garner much support from the electorate.
Posted by: a knight | July 20, 2008 4:47 PM
i still want to know why more attention isn't given to what is obviously a clear-cut case of possession: bob barr. there is no other rational explanation for his having changed his stance 180 degrees on almost every damn near thing he ever fought for... other than, exactly what dirt did someone have on him to make him swing the other way so completely? and can we get it on youtube? :O
while i think it's great that he's "seen the light" on so many, many, many issues... the only question that i can possibly think of to ask him would be: "how on earth are you able to show your face without self-combusting from total embarrassment and shame?"
Posted by: arin | July 20, 2008 6:18 PM
@ a knight--
yeah, I know his opponent was a terrible candidate. But that's supposed to be what the primary process is for. There are a lot of issues I have with the DLC-led Democrats in the 90s. That's a whole other -- and long -- discussion.
But dang, if the choice is between a guy who can be bought and a guy who wants to kill people like myself -- that's right, that is exactly what Duke is about, no question -- then screw it, I'll take the crook. Ideologues are far more dangerous.
Call me oversensitive if you want. The fact that 32% of the electorate of Louisiana -- in 1992, not 1932 or 1852-- thought he was OK makes me weep for this country's future.
Sorry. It's just that people like Barr, and Duke, and Paul scare the living shit out of me. Because too many of the people I love are simply not human beings to them.
Posted by: Jesse | July 20, 2008 9:44 PM
@ Jesse
Thanks for not taking my heavy-handed response personally. David Duke has masked his prior associations well, and the reconstructionists (Civil War revisonaries) have made great inroads into what should be a cut-n-dry realisation.
The 32% figure should be taken with a grain of salt though. Isn't that also about the base level support for GW Bush?
To an "anarchorealist" (just made it up...), like myself, this is not a reason to despair, but is instead evidence of the great quantity of work which still needs to be done at the level of human nature/nurture before the dream of Henry David Thoreau can be brought into reality. (1st paragraph of "Civil Disobedience")
Posted by: a knight | July 20, 2008 10:12 PM
dogmeat wrote:
I have been told by more than one person who has spent a considerable amount of time with Barr recently, people whose views I take seriously, that they are convinced his conversion is sincere. But even if it was not, since he isn't going to be elected that's not really the point of voting for him.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 20, 2008 11:45 PM
Jesse wrote:
Okay, but that has virtually nothing to do with this situation. Barr is going to get about 1% of the vote. If things go extraordinarily well, he might get 2%. In fact, 2% would be a monumental number to get and, if he got it, we might actually see a tiny crack in the two party system - which I'm all for.
Again, this has practically nothing to do with Barr. He doesn't think that, or anything even remotely close to it. Yes, he wrote DOMA; he's also repudiated that quite strongly and changed his views on it. But even if he hadn't, supporting DOMA is hardly on the level of wanting to round up AIDS patients in internment camps, for crying out loud. And again, even if it was, he has zero chance of getting elected. He's a far better candidate than Michael Badnarik, who was a complete lunatic. I vote for the party to help them reach a point of support where the good ideas in libertarianism get taken seriously, as I think they should be. It doesn't have anything to do with who the candidate is. I get that you disagree with that approach, but your disapproval isn't going to change my mind on it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 20, 2008 11:54 PM
Regarding Ironworks BBQ.
Although I didn't eat any since I had an upcoming reservation at Gumbo's, the brisket and ribs looked great. I nearly capitulated on the spot and dived into the table.
First of all, the smoke penetration, the pink layer, was, like, a quarter inch. That's fantastic. The ribs were fall-off-the-bone perfectly cooked.
Yeah, next time I'm in Austin, it's Ironworks BBQ. Thanks, Ed, for good company and good advice on good food!
Posted by: Doc Bill | July 20, 2008 11:54 PM
Bob Barr has not repudiated DOMA clearly. His interview with CNN on 05/26/08 clearly contradicts what he stated the night before at his LP nomination acceptance speech.
Posted by: a knight | July 21, 2008 1:33 AM
Ed, I realize that Bob Barr isn't going to get elected.
But f'r chrissakes, I was using those examples to show what can happen, without us always realizing it, when we want something badly (a crack in the 2-party system) and are willing to settle to get it.
No, I don't think Barr is as bad as David Duke. But don't you have any sense of what happened in the past when people didn't look carefully at who they were voting for, and what? I can think of a few cases where people thought "Hey, this guy will mellow out when he's actually elected." It almost never happens with the crazy people.
Are there any limits, Ed? I mean really. Look, I know you want to have a third party make inroads, and I would like that too. But there's a reason I didn't vote for Ross Perot -- because he represents (as Alexander Cockburn put it) "fascism without the growth."
And frankly, seriously considering a guy like Ron Paul, who has demonstrated that to me and mine he has nothing but hatred, just isn't worth it.
I understand your approach, Ed, I do. But I will agree to disagree with you here because I think it's just bloody dangerous. Be careful what you wish for, you know?
And I brought up David Duke as an example because while he didn't come out and say he was a neo-nazi, he didn't go to great lengths to hide it either -- it took the CNN boys about 10 minutes to find it. Ron Paul's newsletters weren't exactly secrets. And early on nobody thought he had much chance. (His initial poll numbers were pretty bad).
Bob Barr is little better. And while I am all for breaking the two party monopoly I am unwilling to compromise that much.
Posted by: Jesse | July 21, 2008 8:11 AM
Bob Barr is a sleazy shyster who preys on people's fear and ignorance. He raises funds for "conservative" causes, but spends only a few percent of it on those causes. He spends nearly 80 percent of the money he raises for his PAC on raising more money. Only a fool would support him.
http://www.ajc.com/health/content/news/stories/2008/05/19/barrpac_0518.html
Posted by: Mark P | July 23, 2008 8:51 AM
http://www.wildhunt.org/2008/07/bob-barr-kinda-sorta-recants.html
A very weak, limp-wristed recanting. It was all about mysterious commanders making classified comments about how it is bad for military order, which is why Barr said during his jihad:
"A print of the painting, "The Prayer At Valley Forge," depicting George Washington on bended knee, praying in the hard snow at Valley Forge, hangs over the desk in my office. If the practice of witchcraft, such as is allowed now at Fort Hood, is permitted to stand, one wonders what paintings will grace the walls of future generations,"
And he also said:
"And we wonder why we have kids that are drifting around aimlessly when the United States Army allows not faith in God, but witches to worship on military bases by active duty military personnel; and the best that we can tell our young people and our service people is that we have to struggle through this."
Posted by: Ayn R. Key | July 30, 2008 12:25 PM