Obama’s speciality is shaping up to be particularly dangerous because it’s hard to dispute given the average American’s sensibilities. No call for liberty and constitutional principle seems convincing when Obama is arguing that those relying on government giveaways should have to follow government-set rules. That is, once you’ve allowed them to go ahead with the handouts, the political game is almost over. Under the guise of “managing the taxpayers’ money”, Obama and his crew are rewriting mortgages, deciding executive compensation, tossing out CEO’s. And note carefully that his plans for where taxpayers’ money should go continue to swell, from healthcare to the environment to energy policy to expanded “national service” programs. When taxpayers’ money is everywhere – and Obama is doing his best to make sure it is – then Obama’s control is everywhere. The Octo-potus is claiming his space and flexing his grip. As far as he’s concerned, it’s Barack Obama’s country. We’re just living in it.
If all those ‘libertarians’ who dallied with The Community Organiser had been reading our own Paul Marks, who was onto Mr Obama’s agenda months ago, they would have saved themselves a lot of buyer’s remorse.
Welcome, Instapundit readers. Some rather grumpy folk out there wondered where there was a link to one of Paul Marks’ comments (the archives on the side of this blog, so please use them!). Anyway, here is one reference.
Quite frankly, if you were paying attention at all, you didn’t need Paul to point out that President Obama is a Marxist at heart.
Saved themselves the buyer’s remorse — the ignominy of having personally voted for him — perhaps, but the combined votes of all the libertarians (and “libertarians”) in the US would not have spared us Obama himself.
Or, at best, they might — might — have delivered McCain, whose strewing about of the taxpayers’ money would have reasonably provoked equal outcry.
When Obama does “his best to make sure” that “taxpayers’ money is everywhere” he’s hardly writing anything new into the old SOP.
The most insidious form of this phenomenon is Federally funded research (e.g. everyone’s darling NASA or NOAA or even defense research) in that if the taxpayer’s paid for the research then it should share communally in the results. This has been going on for decades and the likes of super-progressive Ralph Nader trumpeting it for years.
It is the spending that takes the form of “investment” that is the most to be feared because it is multi-generational and when Paul has been robbed thirty years ago its hard to argue against squaring him up on someone else’s back later. The Feds get their various Ponzi schemes off the ground and gets to be the great fairer and sharer in perpetuity.
A couple of points;
1: When you run up debts to be paid by the next generation you are effectively engaging in taxation without representation whether you call it such or not.
2: Libertarians are reaping the whirlwind from the conniption fits they threw about the very mild and inconsequential actions the Bush administration took in the war on terror. By any historical standards the war on terror has been remarkably free of civil rights abuses. FDR would have had all of the Muslims in a concentration camp. All of the actions Bush took were towards defeating Islamic Fascism since that was his goal. Obama on the other hand has no instinct other than that towards tyranny….. of every sort and in every way. I am not sure the word freedom ever makes an appearance in his speech and I am quite certain that it means something totally different to him than it does to any rational person.
Libertarians played a big role in bringing us Obama by not taking military matters seriously and assuming that libertarian principles can be applied to battlefields. They cannot and Libertarians as a party will never be taken seriously until they can make this basic distinction between how you treat your citizens and allies, and how you treat your enemies.
As a libertarian myself I can only say that we have gotten what we deserved.
Republicans played a huge role in bringing the US Obama. It was a Republican admiminstration that bailed out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion, that tried and only narrowly failed to give citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants (most of whom will vote Democrat if they do become US citizens), gave the US its first $2 trillion and $3 trillion budgets, and it was Republican appointed Federal Reserve Chairmen (Greenspan/Bernanke) who are most responsible for the monetary policy that has brought about the current economic crash.
Just as Herbert Hoover’s maniacal interventionism allowed FDR to get into power, Bush’s insane Keynesianism gave Obama an easy way into the White House.
Being a libertarian is like being beaten by two guys with bats, both of whom keep telling us we’d be suffering far less if we only hung out with them.
Which I suppose is true, but being beaten with only one bat isn’t really much of an improvement.
Unfortunately, I agree with Linda. Obama is pretty transparent. Nobody who was paying attention is surprised by the type of president he is. But when the alternative is McCain, what is one to do?
McCain, whose strewing about of the taxpayers’ money would have reasonably provoked equal outcry
That’s a blindly ignorant statement. There are plenty of reasons for libertarians to dislike McCain, but he’s a longtime budget hawk.
When Obama does “his best to make sure” that “taxpayers’ money is everywhere” he’s hardly writing anything new into the old SOP.
He’s quadrupled the deficit. If 4==1, he’s not doing anything new.
I am a self described libertarian who voted for McCain. I really believe that the whole libertarians for Obama phenomena were not due to policies or even anger on the war. It was, I think, a class thing. McCain was a broken down old war vet while Palin was a country girl with a blue collar husband. Both were one of “them.” Obama is well educated, well spoken, well dressed. In short, he was one of “us” or at least how we like to think of us.
So they went with Obama.
Now I know McCainw as no libertarian, but who really in our political class other than Ron Paul is?
I am a self described libertarian who voted for McCain. I really believe that the whole libertarians for Obama phenomena were not due to policies or even anger on the war. It was, I think, a class thing. McCain was a broken down old war vet while Palin was a country girl with a blue collar husband. Both were one of “them.” Obama is well educated, well spoken, well dressed. In short, he was one of “us” or at least how we like to think of us.
So they went with Obama.
Now I know McCainw as no libertarian, but who really in our political class other than Ron Paul is?
I am a self described libertarian who voted for McCain. I really believe that the whole libertarians for Obama phenomena were not due to policies or even anger on the war. It was, I think, a class thing. McCain was a broken down old war vet while Palin was a back woods girl with a blue collar husband. Both were one of “them.” Obama is well educated, well spoken, well dressed. In short, he was one of “us” or at least how we like to think of us.
So they went with Obama.
Now I know McCainw as no libertarian, but who really in our political class other than Ron Paul is?
“Republicans played a huge role in bringing the US Obama. It was a Republican admiminstration that bailed out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion…”
And so this led libertarians to vote for someone who was demonstratively worse on spending and immigration? This is what confounded me during the election cycle. Libertarians saying they were fed up with Republicans – so they were going to vote for Obama. I always asked them, “Have you actually listened to what he is saying about government expansion and income resistribution?” They didn’t want to talk about it. Not that McCain was great – but Obama? Good Grief these people were delusional.
This whole election was fraught with people sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting LA LA LA LA LA…
The media were so in the tank for the Big O that they failed to do their job–due diligence. They got the thrill up their leg and that was it.
No wonder viewership is down and subscribers are bailing. The dead tree media too.
Go in the tank –> shut down your papers.
We live in a cause and effect world and the media people forgot that.
Actually, I think it led to more libertarians and other people disgruntled on the right just not bothering to vote.
Try being a start-up third party. That just means that everyone with a bat is after you. But what else can you do besides grab a bat and join the melee? Libertarians will get nowhere as long as they’re seen as weaker on defense and holding the borders than the Democrats.
It’s a shame that the government does not take such control over other entities that it routinely doles out money to, i.e., welfare recipients.
Anyone with brainpower would have known a long time ago what BO was all about. That there were still those that voted for him after the Wright, Ayers, community organizing and ACORN things just goes to show how uneducated so many people are. They either cannot distinguish the differences, can’t understand the lexicon and are blind to the reality in their faces. Now, of course, it’s too late for many things. The “change” he is implementing is not only at the top, but underneath where it takes decades to change….what he and his cohorts are doing throughout this country using our money may make it impossible for us to get rid of him next term and the candidate of the Uberleft thereafter. Welcome to what the BDDers forced on us with our help and God help the future, we can’t!!
The last libertarian I voted for was Harry Browne in ’96. However as a libertarian leaning Republican, I have never ever voted for a Democrat. Democrats are tyrants, and are beholden to every constituent group that any sane person would not associate with.
Obama was very transparent about his intents, and anyone who voted for him did not listen to what he was saying. Evidently from being in a trance over his special teleprompter reading skills.
From my perspective Obama is the most dangerous President since FDR. Likely the most dangerous ever. He is after all a Marxist, he didn’t pal around with W Ayers by accident.
While that is correct, it would have given Obama smaller leads in a number of states, and taken some of the air out of his messianic sails.
If I should be reading Paul Marks, should Samizdata provide me with child safety proof uniform resources locators?
Link your readership to Paul’s writing. Keep me on the site. Do editor stuff.
“Or, at best, they might — might — have delivered McCain, whose strewing about of the taxpayers’ money would have reasonably provoked equal outcry.”
Such naivety counts among one of the reasons that, while my philosophical bent is largely libertarian, this past election caused me to vow to never be associated with what passes for libertarianism as a movement. No longer do I describe myself as libertarian less that be misunderstood as something I’m not. I have come to the conclusion they are libertarians are often no less hypocritical than the dems and repubs. Pulling the lever for Obama because of the failures of republicans was ideological Russian Roulette and you shot us all. Such libertarians seem to have no unsellable convictions or have no common sense or are stunningly naive.
The GOP made Obama inevitable. The voters elected Republicans to control congress and got deficits, corruption and a sickening “pay to play” atmosphere. While we were being being raped by the GOP the economy collapsed. Not hard to understand why many people voted for O. Or why the GOP had no cred in opposing him with a tired old man with no history of standing for anything. Former Speaker Dennis Hastert will be crucified in history books.
“””””But when the alternative is McCain, what is one to do?”””””
HUH? Seriously?
When the alternative is McCain and you claim to be a libertarian, you vote for McCain. How hard is that? If you don’t like that answer, you vote for Ron Paul. One thing you do NOT DO, EVER, is vote for Obama. Ever.
Never. Get it?
Could somebody tell me what exactly is “fascist” about Jihadism? We overuse and misuse words so they are not there when we need them. Fascism is a word we could use right now, but it has had the meaning beaten out of it. We are left with “progressive corporatism”
Sharia is an alternative to the three main western ways of Capitalism, Fascism, and Socialism.
Funny how we never heard such subtle criticism about Bush. It is pretty clear to me that the teabagging racists here and elsewhere can’t stand it because the darky is making the decisions now.
I’m not sure anyone in their right mind would call Jihadism ‘Fascism’.
One of the reasons that this happens is deliberate. Once Bush is Hitler, conservatives are Fascists and libertarians are anarchists, then anything can be framed as anything else.
Control the language, control the message.
Incidentally, calling fascism ‘progressive corporatism’ is falling into the trap. Next thing we know, we’ll be calling these bastards ‘liberals’.
Oh. Wait!
Vinny,
I guess you’re new around here. We’re often subtle and usually critical of statists whatever their stripe. It’s what we do.
Funny how we never heard such subtle criticism about Bush.
You probably weren’t listening.
Republicans did play a huge role in bringing about Obama. But let’s not forget three things:
1. that they were criticized for doing it by right-leaning libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives (the left criticized what it was being spent on, not that it was being spent, and that is not a distinction without a difference, given that privately-funded militaries are probably not a great idea)
2. the last two years – the most spendy of all – had Democrats holding Congress
3. we need to keep beating them with their own stupidity
I dont understand why people are having remorse. He who pays the piper calls the tune and BHO believes this to the very marrow of his being.
Libertarian support for Mr. Obama and the entire notion of liberaltarianism in general very much reminds me of a piece I remember from “Our Stupid World”, an anthology of fake front pages of The Onion throgh the 20th century. The “article” lauded the genius of the Empire of Japan for forging an alliance with a government of white supremacists. Libertarians have done much the same thing. Conservatives can be inconsistent, even hypocritical in their support for individual liberty. But, conservatives at least claim to believe limited government is a virtue. The left has never stopped advocating expansion of the state as an end in and of itself. A libertarian supporting a conservative has to hope like hell he’s being honest. A libertarian supporting a liberal has to hope like hell he’s lying.
bgates, referring to my comments above:
His last great act, before losing the race, was to throw all his weight behind the $700 Billion Bailout One.
Nonetheless, I didn’t — and don’t — dispute the distinct possibility that he would have been a less prodigal president than Obama. Most everyone without a “D” behind his name is less prodigal than he.
But McCain wouldn’t have reversed the course of our runaway federal spending or even have applied the brakes. Dispute that all you want. He might have talked about slacking off the accelerator a tad here or there for political effect, but I doubt he would ever have accomplished the feat or worried too much about it.
Still, even with that knowledge and those doubts, I cast my vote for McCain because it was the only thing I had to cast in the way of the inevitable Obama victory and ensuing socialist onslaught. I just don’t kid myself that there’d be nothing to wring my hands about if Obama’s only real opponent had won.
The main thrust of my comments above, however, is this: The only real chance that libertarians in America had of stopping Obama was to vote en masse for McCain. I don’t see how even that could have worked, but even if it had, why we’d still be stuck with McCain, who’d be doing what presidents do, only moreso in all probability, given the collapsing economy and the pressure on politicians to Do Something.
What I don’t get is why anyone who claims to be intelligent would want to continue to support Obama. Anyone reading this who falls into that category, please explain to me how it makes you feel superior to those Sarah Palin hicks to be hanging with a guy who is moving us at warp speed toward everything that you are against except perhaps abortion rights and global warming? It doesn’t make you even a little uncomfortable that he is asking for ANOTHER 100 billion? It doesn’t make you a little uncomfortable that he is ramping up domestic spying? It doesn’t make you a little uncomfortable that he is chumming with tyrants? Doesn’t it make you a little uncomfortable that he is personally getting involved in the hiring and firing of CEOs? Doesn’t it make you a little bit uncomfortable that he has provided none of the transparency that you thought was so important less than 6 months ago? Doesn’t it make you a little uncomfortable that it has become clear that he has no realistic plan to fund national health care without printing even more money. Doesn’t it make you a little uncomfortable that he has brought Chicago style corruption and influence peddling to the White House? Doesn’t it make you a little uncomfortable that his administration is willing to use the word “terrorist” only for veterans and your neighbors who may disagree with you on social issues? Jeesh. I could go on.
I guess I just have one question. Is there ANYTHING that the Obama administration would do that would make you stop and question this man? Because at this point, it seems that the Obama supporters have nothing to boast about except that that, for reasons unclear, he makes them believe that they are better and smarter than those Fox watching, Palin hicks. Sadly, that seems to be enough.
Okay, actually, the Onion book was “Our Dumb Century”.
I can’t tell if this letter is from the British or American ruling class. It does seem to have an American accent.
From: Ruling Class
To : Public
Re : We must tax and spend now, or we are all going to DIE!
We don’t want to tax and spend (cough), but we must react to the crisis that we have identified. We are going to borrow, spend, and tax reluctantly to support our actions. The alternative is DEATH. No one wants that.
So what if you are poor in the future? At least you will be alive, and we will continue to guide you through supportive government to help you out of poverty.
We Must Spend or We Are Going to DIE!
Given that everybody knew Mr. Obama was a typical Chicago Democrat, no better or worse than any other of the breed including Rod Blagojevich, this should hardly have been a surprise to anyone who cared. But then again, who can deny that Mr. Obama’s supporters are all so easily pleased that they are still the sort of people who would cheer someone merely for blowing his nose in public? ^_~
This is why I left the Republican Party after the 2008 primary. Who the fuck cares what you CLAIM to support? Republicans seem to think that all they have to do is be a hair better than the Democrats on one or two issues and then talk a good game and then they’re free to piss all over my liberty.
Frankly I prefer someone who openly admits to being my enemy to someone who poses as a friend whilst stabbing me in the back.
There is absolutely no excuse for supporting Obama if you paid attention. There was plenty of information and history available on him prior to election day. The only excuses for an Obama vote is ignorance, if you can call it that, or a shared anti-Americanism.
If you are one of the suckers who voted for him despite being aware of the numerous warning signs and dismissed them, then you have a hell of a lot of penance to pay. You actively, and knowingly contributed to the deconstruction of America. I suggest with profusely apologizing to your family.
The logical fallacy is:
Let’s punish the R’s for not being fiscally prudent, by electing D’s who are worse.
Giving incentive to the people who are worse to be even worser.
Brilliant!!!!!
—–
How ’bout pick the lesser evil each time, and eventually you get someone pretty good (because to win, a politician has to trend toward “less evil”).
The country is screwed and its only going to get worse.
The demographics are tilting away from any reasonable
chance for future Republicans in the White House for
quite a while, and ditto for controlling Congress. Obama
is going full tilt now so he can sew up all his liberal
constituencies by the 2010 mid-terms. It wouldn’t have
made enuf difference in the 2008 outcome if every
Libertarian had voted for McCain because the MSM went
so far out on a limb to make sure that Bush was very unpopular and they were certainly aided by Bush’s and the Republican’s own stupidity in handling the economy.
Fasten your seatbelts, its going to be a bumpy ride.
“No call for liberty and constitutional principle seems convincing when Obama is arguing that those relying on government giveaways should have to follow government-set rules.”
Only applies to corporations. Can’t violate the civil liberties of people living off of governmental handouts by requiring them to look for work.
I consider myself a libertarian conservative, but these days those words are almost as tainted for me as the modern usage of ‘liberal;’.
Count me in the ‘disgusted with Libertarians as well as Republicans’ camp — the latter for blowing it fiscally and the former for being clueless purists on national defense, immigration and other issues.
The last straw for me with most ‘libertarians’ is an utterly naive faith in ‘principles’ that will let them only look at them one-at-a-time rather than seeing the full, messy complexity of how the different libertarian principles interact and, yes, in our imperfectly free world often conflict in practice. Any attempt to grapple with the complexity of policy decisions in order to create a country that is, on the whole, more free and prosperous *than what we have now* (as compared to some Smithian anarchocapitalist utopia) is seen as un-principled. WTF?
Prime example: favoring wide-ass open immigration in the context of a welfare state republic that is sliding further toward mob-, uh democracy. That is a dangerous positive feedback loop, the recognition of which is in no way un-principled pragmatism. The suggestion that a less-than perfect liberty in one domain may be necessary to preserve or extend liberty overall is met with horror by too many would-be purists ready to cast others out.
This is similar to that in engineering problems of ‘search’ when there are multiple dimensions to a model and simplistically optimizing on one axis at a time can lead to a false [local] optimum and missing out on the global one. Worse, the simple approach can lead, thanks to chaotic behaviors, to a *worse* situation.
Far too many libertarians would rather stick with their holier-than thou bumper-sticker purity than deal with complex, messy reality.
P.S. Putting your otherwise reasonable desire to be able to smoke a bowl unmolested by the law on the same priority — even same order of magnitude magnitude — as national defense or not ruining the economy is another strike in my book in the seriousness department.
Pardon me, but I don’t know any “Libertarian” who voted for Obama. Some voted for our own candidate (quick: who was he?*), some held their noses and voted for McCain, and many simply didn’t vote. I suppose it is possible that there are a few people who claim to be libertarians (or to have libertarian leanings) who voted for Obama, but in my opinion those people aren’t libertarians. So where is this red herring coming from?
* Answer: Bob Barr
Simple question: Did McCain support or oppose the bailouts? If he supported them, he is not in any meaningful way preferable to Obama.
And yes, he did indeed support the bailouts.
The HUGE upside of Obama for ‘our’ side is that he defeated John McCain and as a consequence gave us at last some chance of creating an opposition that will eventually be worth voting for. Had McCain won, he would have done much the same as Obama with the extra long term damage of making it clear the Republicans would never again be the party of Goldwater.
The only thing as nice as finally seeing that point in this thread — as a counter to the “budget hawk” bit — would be seeing it at the head of the response I submitted hours ago, held back and possibly smitten to flinders by now, despite its gentleness and charm, possibly to be joined in its fate by this very whine.
Oh, I get it, Perry!
It was a tough-love approach! First the pain (a Democrazy President), then the gain (a reinvigorated Republicanter Party). I didn’t know the average voter went in for such long-term planning!
I suppose the signs were all there. Americans, after all, were the first to read about Cook’s voyage around the world, and decide that Britain should colonise that other continent as well. They got quite revolting about it, in fact.
Stormy Dragon,
Well, I guess congratulations are in order. As a result, libertarians have cast aside imperfect allies in favor of perfect foes.
Newscaper at 2:55am: “Far too many libertarians would rather stick with their holier-than thou bumper-sticker purity than deal with complex, messy reality…Putting your otherwise reasonable desire to be able to smoke a bowl unmolested by the law on the same priority — even same order of magnitude — as national defense or not ruining the economy is another strike in my book in the seriousness department.” Please scroll back and read this comment – it’s worth it, especially on the border issue.
This is why I regard libertarianism as a fundamentally self-absorbed and silly philosophy, unsuited to the considerations of a mature member of a free society.
Funny how we never heard such subtle criticism about Bush.
Because the criticisms about Bush were never subtle. They were printed first page on the NYT, Washington Post, Newsweek, Times… And broadcasted round the clock on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC…
I cannot actually believe that anyone who claims to be a libertarian could have voted for The One. I mean, McCain made for an appalling choice, but sheeesh: when you have the choice between “Pure Evil” and “Occasionally Evil”, the occasional one should always get the pick.
Well, all those folks who thought that they would “hasten the reckoning” (and similar bullshit) by voting for Obama are now reaping the whirlwind — and unfortunately, so are the rest of us who knew that Obama was a statist of the first water, but were outnumbered.
The real gift the libertarians gave us, however, was: Senator Al Franken. (Seriously: had libertarians not split the vote in Minnesota, Franken would have lost by at least a few thousand votes.)
And libertarians nearly got the Democrat challenger into the Senate in Georgia (Bob Barr country) as well.
Oh well. 3.75 years of this stuff to go…
Perry
By the time the ‘opposition worth voting for’ comes around it will be too late. O is not a typical Democrat–he’s worse–and has in three short months put his tentacles into so many areas of our economy, politics, and society that it will be impossible to reverse the damage done.
Besides, the release of those memos IMO are an impeachable offense. He should have read his Oath of Office again before doing so.
We.Are.So.Screwed!
Syl, under the US Constitution’s 8th Amendment, torture is banned, so the POTUS is obliged, by his oath of office, not to allow torture. Hence Obama, whatever his other many faults – and I share you worries – is not in breach of his oath by releasing these memos. Where he is behaving dishonorably is in not ruling out such practices in future and punishing those responsible for recent acts.
As a blog author who defends classical liberalism and the rule of law, so-called “harsh interrogation techniques (ie., torture) are things that I consider to be an outrage, quite apart from the fact that although torture can sometimes be used to verify information, as often as not it yields misinformation or no information. That is why it is frowned upon.
I suggest you get a copy of The Federalist Papers and read what the Founders said about this sort of thing.
Actually, I think it led to more libertarians and other people disgruntled on the right just not bothering to vote.
I stayed home in ’06. What did I get for my lack of effort? Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid.
Truly, people get the government we deserve.
It is already too late…
We are long past that point and all you need to see was the selection of Big State Fucktards proposed by the Republicans to run against Obama. When you have an election in which the choice was between Bigger State and Much Bigger State, if you want a smaller state, as opposed to the state growing ever so slightly slower, then voting for the lesser evil becomes an exercise in self delusion.
The systems is rapidly starting to devour itself.
Good.
Hopefully out of the ruins someone better will come. A McCain victory would gave just slowed the process of ‘what comes next’ without in any way avoiding the process by which ‘We.Are.So.Screwed’.
Voting to put off the hard choices into the future was what gave us George Bush. Well the Republicans got what they voted for and guess what? The future has arrived.
When GOP policies agree with libertarian principle it’s a coincidence and not a plan. While I’ll agree the magnitude of the gov’t scope creep will be greater under the Dems it’s not like the GOP practices any sort of restraint – it just has different priorities.
Vinny F – if you think your comment shows even a glimmer of intelligence think again – or for the first time. Calling people you don’t agree with names is what children do on the playground. The crazy thing about libs is they spend so much time trying to find racism in other people when all they have to do is look in the mirror.
Perry:
I think the penchant to hope for a savior to arrive and be advanced into a position from which to put the house in order is central to our very large and ongoing problems.
What to do and what will happen I really don’t know. But I can’t get behind the idea that true goodness will fit — or survive — where lesser and greater evils have so long held sway. Do heads of states and fiefdoms and gerrymandered districts ever voluntarily conspire to contract their realms or curb their aggregated powers?
If the system devours itself, we best not build it back.
Quite!
If the history of the last 30 years shows anything, it suggest exactly the opposite. Voting for the ‘lesser evil’ simply requires the lesser evil, say a Republican for example, to be slightly less evil that that the other guy because he knows that is all it takes to get your vote. he is evil because your vote says “you are evil and here is my vote for you”.
If this evil Big State Republican just has to increase the size of the state by 15% rather that the 20% suggested by a Democrat, for people who actually want less government to hold their nose and vote for him anyway, well, why on earth would be bother listening to what you really want if you will vote for him regardless?
That is not just some idle theory, that is exactly what has been happening. The problem is not Democrats voting for people who give big government, the problem is Republicans voting for big government. Did you vote for Bush as the ‘lesser evil’? Well you voted for big government and that is exactly what you got. In fact he moved the goalposts so far that it made everything Obama is doing possible.
You want to know what the people to blame for making that possible look like? Go look in a mirror.
Perry:
There’s no denying this frequently noted dynamic by which the two-party system degenerates into a contest between The Fast Lane and The Faster Lane to perdition.
But this is also true: A candidate — whether of a major, minor, new or old party — who lavishes his attention and promises on a constituency pining to see government retracted will lose. Big. Actually, he will fail even to advance far enough to be recognized as a loser. He will be invisible, at least at the national level. Think Ron Paul and whoever they are who run as Libertarian presidential candidates.
This is not because those candidates fail in their ability to communicate or because their supporters fail in their enthusiastic support. It is because there is no way to carve from the electorate a majority of persons who will vote for a candidate promising them nothing but relief from large government.
The vast majority of people who vote don’t want to be relieved of government. They want to benefit from it or, at this late stage of the game, to be assured that they will not come to harm – or even inconvenience — for lack of it. Assuring them of all varieties of protection and every promise of increase is how candidates transform themselves into office holders – beneficiaries more than their voters on the perquisites of powerful government.
You and I are in a permanent minority, and one that will certainly not be enlarged through the castigation of people whose votes you think, erroneously, can change the course on which we are fixed.
I will say again that I don’t know what precisely is to be done about our plight. But I think it has more to do with defending the borders and sovereignty of the individual realms we each head than with trying to collaborate on shuffling into power a new slate of encroachers.
But they aren’t allies. They’re just the enemy that likes to lie more. The only thing I’ve cast aside is my delusion that there’s a way to win a rigged game.
Politics is like three-card monty: the only thing you can do is refuse to play and the sooner you realize that and walk away from the table the better off you are.
The criticism of a certain government-expanding Texan was NEVER subtle. From the right, he basically ran out of friends when he signed Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and McCain-Feingold, allowed the Jose Padilla case to happen, hired an AG who’d shill for warrantless wiretaps without even the thin pretense of Constitutional compliance suggested by FISA, etc.
When I compare that stroke to LBJ, to the intelligent reader I am being neither subtle nor complimentary.
Besides, the release of those memos IMO are an impeachable offense. He should have read his Oath of Office again before doing so.
Fuck that noise. I am a citizen, voter, and taxpayer of the United States. Both the people who wrote those memos and the worthless ward hack who released them are my employees. Whoever tried to hide the memos from me is the one who needs to be prosecuted. If my employees are doing illegal acts on company time, it most certainly is my business.
I’m also a public safety professional. Guess what? We don’t get to keep that sort of thing secret forever. Legal advice to Sunfish (in his individual capacity) is privileged. Legal guidance to Officer Sunfish of the West Fuzzball Police Department as to how to proceed with an investigation…that can become public record. It definitely becomes public record if I need it to show what I did to make sure that I stayed within the law in the performance of official duties.
And BTW, if you’re a self-proclaimed libertarian who stayed home because there was no difference between a McCain-Palin ticket and a Soetoro-Biden ticket, you’re somewhere between ignorant and naive. If you actually voted for Soetoro-Biden in a protest of McCain being imperfect, you’re too damn stupid to live.
(And if you voted for Bob Barr…you voted for a guy who endorsed Eric Holder for AG. But that’s okay. We all make poor choices of friends sometimes. I once ended up married to a choice of about the same quality.)
First a “small” point – Al Frankin did lose by thousands of votes.
However, the left has rigged the election – and that should not be forgotten.
We should not leave it to Ann Coulter to point this stuff out – and more than it should be left to her to point out that “conservative Wall Street” mostly backs the Democrats (with lots of money – and for years).
As for me.
I wish I deserved those kind words that J.P. put my way.
However…..
When Barack Obama won the Iowa caucus (January 2008) did I do a basic background check?
No.
No more than the American voters did.
I waited for months before I did anything – and, therefore, deserve to burn. I dimly remembered Obama from the 2004 campaign – and had him pegged as just another Dem. In reality his extremism was easy to find out about – but people would not have found out about it from me till about March or April last year (and even then in only a limited way at first – I should have been writing articles every day and trying to get the warning out – we all should have).
After all the information was there – for example Accurancy in Media were crying out warning from at least Feburary 2008 (the Obama and Frank evidence for example).
So there we are – a man who (quite rightly) would not pass even a low level security check is now President of the United States.
The destruction of the United States and the West (if that is what happens) is (to near quote my near namesake) is farce as well as tragedy.
As for “libertarians” or “conservatives” who not only did not do any research after (or before) the January Caucus – but who actually voted for Barack Obama in November 2008.
I have nothing to say about, or to, such people.
One could side to the present evil.
We are no longer divided.
There is no longer a division between people like me (who support people who are not up to much as the “lesser evil”) and people like Perry.
My approach is dead now.
Obama and the other collectivists have power now (and, yes, Bush paved the way for them – and McCain throw away the last chance of stopping the horror when he supported the TARP bailout) – we will have economic collapse (although, hopefully, not a total collapse of civil society).
So the question is no longer “gradual reform or breakdown and try and rebuild”.
We are going to have breakdown – there is no longer any way of avoiding it.
So it is a matter of trying to rebuild afterwards.
Is it time to start hoarding gold coins?