That's the question I wanted to answer for myself after following a few discussions here. I mean, I knew he was the Libertarian nominee for President, and a former Congressman. I also knew he authored DoMA because I'd looked up the rollcall vote for other reasons. But that was about it. So I moseyed on over to google and started hunting around... follow below the fold if you're curious.

Why don't we make this short: Barr was basically an awful politician from a Libertarian perspective for most of his political career. In addition to authoring the overreaching Defense of Marriage Act, he pushed the war on drugs and supported a federal prohibition on medical marijuana (an illogical position for anyone seriously in favor of states-rights to take), and, just for a nice bonus, he led the effort to impeach Clinton, tying up the government with various trivialities (which is not to excuse Clinton's actions). The Libertarian Party actually helped get him defeated in 2002. Since then he has reversed his stance on many issues and after leaving the Republican party and endorsing the LP candidate in 2004, he himself was selected as the LP nominee for 2008.

Well ok, he sounds a bit opportunistic but I suppose it's nice to have as many voices speaking out against the folly of our approach to the war on drugs as possible. Let's look at his current positions on the issues. Domestic spending: drastic cuts; Entitlement programs: drastic cuts; Energy funding: drastic cuts; Iraq war spending: drastic cuts; Taxes: drastic cuts. Other positions: anti Patriot Act, anti Eminent domain abuse, pro gun. Some stuff for liberals to like (ending secret surveillance), some stuff for conservatives to like (shrinking government), some stuff for libertarians (isolationism, repeal 16th).

His current position on immigration from his webpage states:

we must end government benefits and services for illegal immigrants. Many local communities and states have begun to reduce payments to those who come here illegally, but a 1982 Supreme Court decision mandates that we provide education to the children of illegal immigrants. This detrimental ruling should be overturned through another Court challenge or a constitutional amendment.

Government and public hospitals also are forced to treat illegal immigrants for all manner of problems (over and above true emergency care). This costs states billions of dollars annually in medical costs. Private charities may support whomever they believe to be worthy of help, but taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize those who illegally enter America. Free health care and education benefits create a powerful economic incentive for illegal immigration.

This strikes me as the sort of thinking that is logical on paper but simply doesn't hold up in the real world. It is in our interests to integrate the children of illegal immigrants into our society; it is unhelpful to deliberately withhold schooling from them in an effort to punish their parents. It is in our interests to treat emergency care, "true" or otherwise, to contain public health threats... and yes, to uphold our standards of moral decency. I plead guilty to using loaded framing here; I guess thinking along these lines is why I'm a liberal and libertarians (who reject my implicit premises) are libertarians.

The conventional wisdom is that Barr in the race hurts McCain :

Take Barr's home state of Georgia. A recent poll by Insider Advantage showed Barr winning 8 percent of the November vote there versus 45 percent for McCain and 35 percent for Senator Obama. Georgia has a large African-American population, and if Obama can generate high turnout in that community, a key part of his base, then that plus Barr could cost McCain the state – and conceivably the election.

If Barr is polling decently it would be nice to see him in the debates. I get that such a standard is a bit of a Catch-22, since it's hard for him to obtain the kind of exposure required to generate interest and help him register on polls. Still, I think it's reasonable to have a certain minimum standard for inviting candidates to participate in a nationally-televised debate, and it's not clear to me that Barr can meet that standard. I hope he does, though, I'd like to see Obama and McCain respond to his arguments.

What's your take on Barr? I'm curious how the liberals, libertarians, and conservatives view him and his candidacy.