It's funny. After decades of supporting presidential candidates whose support never even registers in the polls, the Libertarian Party has finally found a presidential candidate who has both widespread name recognition and a shot of winning 5% of the vote in November. Yet despite my tenednecy to support Libertarian candidates in recent years, I find myself unable to support Bob Barr.

While I admire Bob Barr for speaking out against his former party on a variety of issues (the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, out-of-control-spending during the Bush presidency), I simply feel that he is the wrong guy to lead the Libertarian Party. For one thing, he doesn't have a very libertarian track record on social issues. For another, he's a polarizing figure who has little chance of attracting dissaffected Democrats into the Libertarian Party.

I continue to believe that it was a huge mistake for Ron Paul to turn down the Libertarian Party nomination for president. Given his firm & consistent opposition to the Iraq War and fundraising prowess, I think his polling numbers would be higher than Barr's.

Ron Paul may officially belong to the Republican Party while Bob Barr might officially belong to the Libertarian Party, but I offer this: Ron Paul is a conservative-leaning libertarian capable of attracting considerable support from liberal voters during the general election. Bob Barr is a libertarian-leaning conservative who would have little-to-no support from liberal voters during the general election.