Comments:Libertarian National Committee in fierce deadlock over how to address growing Bob Barr controversies

The Libertarian party should never have nominated Bob Barr, and should get rid of him. He is a neo-con.
 * I CONCUR. Fephisto (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It should have been Ron Paul. Spacehusky (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

They Should Leave Him in Charge, but He did Make the Wrong Decision
I think they should leave him in charge, for he has the most experience and he believes in a lot of things I agree with. But if third parties ever want to go anywhere, they should try to at least help defeat they two main parties before bickering with each other, for they do have a lot in common. Duckwariorrandom (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am ashamed to say that the LP membership does this every election cycle. We vote on a candidate and then spend the rest of the time trying to prove how UN-Libertarian they are. We did it to the late Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik and now Bob Barr. We don't need any other parties to run against; we're too busy beating ourselves.

Moot point
It's a moot point. The Libertarians are going nowhere, with or without Barr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.23.38 (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice
If Ron Paul got behind Bob Barr and visa versa. However, since it does not seem likely perhaps then the Ron Paul supporters should get behind Barr. While some of the Ron Paul supporters are republicans, many are Libertarians and we need those votes to get a Libertarian in office. Set aside the one up manship and unite behind a chance for some real change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.215.64 (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)