I am sure there are some strong Republican supporters who read us who do not understand how we could even compare the two candidates and say they are not all that different. Over the last few days I have been tossing around in my mind what exactly I want out of a President. This is not meant to be entirely a Libertarian view although it obviously is mostly that.
| Issue | John McCain | Barack Obama |
| Repeal parts of Patriot Act | No | No |
| Repeal RealId | No | No | Repeal McCain-Feingold | No | No | Repeal part or all of Sarbanes Oxley | No | No |
| End Domestic spying | No | No |
| Respect States Rights On Medical Marijuana | No | Maybe? |
| Respect States Rights in general | No | No |
| 1st Amendment record | Loathsome | Unknown |
| 2nd Amendmen record | Bad | Worse | Understands Capitalism | No | No |
| Understands Constitution | No | No |
| Strong defense | Yes | Maybe |
| Decrease Spending | No | No |
| Decrease Size of Government | No | No |
| Space Policy | Okay | Excellent |
As you can see, both candidates come out dismally on pretty much everything I am interested in. About the only exception to the overall grimness is that I know personally one of the key space policy folk on the Obama team so I know that area at least would be dealt with competently.
Has a Marxist background.
Senator Obama – Yes.
Senator McCain – No.
Has a record of opposing wild governmnent spending.
Senator Obama – No.
Senator McCain – Yes.
Would use various ways to eliminate conservative talk radio
Senator Obama – Yes.
Senator McCain – No.
Would put pressure on the owner of Fox News to change its content – translation (for example) no more Neil Cavuto doing things like attacking the bail out/ take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And no more Fox News crews to disprove stuff like “Americans killed all these children” (disproved by the Fox News crew, led by Oliver North, who went on the raid and filmed it).
Senator Obama – Yes.
Senator McCain – No.
Is a member of the Chicago Machine.
Senator Obama – Yes.
Senator McCain – No.
Has a record of supporting gun bans.
Senator Obama – Yes.
Sentator McCain – No.
Is liked by the “Netroots”.
Senator Obama – Yes.
Congressman Bob Barr – Yes, cheered when he attended their conference – in the hope that he would draw off the votes of foolish people.
Senator McCain – No.
My first political memories (when I was very young) are
of the left – the traitors going on their anti Vietnam war demonstrations waving pitures of Mao (the worst mass murderer in human history – yes I know Nixon went to see him and made nice, I do not defend Nixon either) and chanting in favour of Uncle Ho and “Che”.
Some libertarians “joined hands” with these traitors, and called the Vietnam war “a legitimate struggle against Western Imperialism” and some (such as Frank Meyer) did not.
Now it seems history has come full circle.
With some libertarians in a de facto alliance with the Marxists – in their campaign to destroy not just the United States but all the West.
If the enemy of my enemy is my friend (and I do not always believe that), then the friend of my enemies is my enemy.
“That is too simple”.
I did not ask Bob Barr to go to the netroots conference – and those people make no secret of the fact that they do not just want to destroy the United States, “capitalism” in general is their enemy. They cheered him – and he either does not know why (in which case he is a fool), or he does know why and does not care – in which case he is a bad man.
The same is true of his supporters. Either you do not know you are serving the left, or you do know and you do not care.
In the end it is a matter of choosing sides.
I made my choice long ago (when I was still a child), others must choose for themselves.
Genuine question:
How sure are you that Barack Obama will be a ‘No’ for the first 5? What gives you this impression.
Also there are several social issues you have not included on which Obama has to score better than McCain (particularly with Palin on board).
One specific to add:
Repeal UIGEA No Maybe
Can I take it you’re a libertarian except you want lots of taxpayers’ money spent on space?
On the specific cases:
States rights.
D.A. gives John McCain a “no”, in fact he even respected States Rights on homosexual “marriage” – even though this stand (saying he would only support an Amendment if the Supreme Court ruled that every State had to accept what one State did) cost him votes in the primaries.
First Amendment.
McCain gets a “no” (because of McCain-Fiengold?)
But Obama gets an “unknown” – in spite of supporting McCain-Fiengold.
And in spite of being involved up to his neck in the “diversity” movement with “diversity” being Orwellian language for only leftist radio and television stations being allowed.
The post goes on in a similar way.
The dishonesty is not on the level of Rothbard and the rest (back in the 1960’s or more recently), but it is not far away from it.
If McCain was genuinely interested in saving the western world, then why the hell he co-wrote a bill that involved giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants is beyond me. That’s TREASON! Of course, Obama has the same views on illegal immigration as McAmnesty. America is fucked.
Ooh, err! Everyone getting a bit heated around here. However, like Ian, it did amuse me that we all get in a zealous self righteous froth about taxes/confiscation and then happily endorse a vast government lump sum to sponsor something like “space”. Brilliant!
M – if you didn’t have a welfare state and gun control, immigration would not be an issue. Think about it for christ sake.
The welfare state isn’t going to go away for years though, if ever.
Wrong on NASA. The people involved know that the NASA will have to give way to the private sector. My rating is on how well I think they will deal with that transition.
Such conclusion jumpers!
Now I would have expected to get hung up for backing defense spending…
As to the unknown on Obama, it meant exactly what it said. His record on the subject is unknown to me, whereas McCain’s is one I have been campaigning against for 4 years.
I understand that what they say they will do and what they end up doing are often two different things, but I have to quibble with the assertions about ‘decrease spending’ and ‘decrease the size of government.’
I listened to McCain speak in Lee’s Summit, MS yesterday (via the excellent XM channel POTUS ’08, which you get FREE even if you don’t buy XM service, I hate the business model of satellite radio but when they do right you should say so) and he spoke directly to both things. It may be that he is late to these ideas and has been schooled by Governor Palin, but I think he deserves a ‘maybe’ on both issues – at least if the comparison is to Senator Obama.
Some of the statements are subjective at best – denying that either candidate ‘understands’ capitalism or ‘understands’ the Constitution is mere tendentiousness.
And I agree with other commenters regarding space policy. Spending taxpayer dollars on space flight is highly unpopular with me and Senator Obama’s enthusiastic support for same is another reason I am disinclined to vote for him. Space flight is an expensive luxury with limited value and should not be funded from the US public purse unless there are compelling public benefits for US taxpayers – communications, weather, GPS and so forth are fine, manned space flight is none of the taxpayer’s concern.
llater,
llamas
QuestionThat: My take on Obama is based on the fact that a Democratic majority has done nothing about it. A President may back legislation but Congress must pass it. As Obama is a Chicago Southsider politician, he will probably not use political capital on such things. If you have reason to believe otherwise, I would be interested in hearing it.
Incidentally, McCain has I believe a C- rating from the NRA and Obama is an F. Thus, bad and worse.
Barr, btw, has an A+ rating and is on the board of directors of the NRA.
Dale, it’s interesting that you’ve left out energy and environment. Last I heard, McCain was planning to put Palin in charge of energy. That seems like a very good likelihood of holding back the environmentalists for the next few crucial years. Obama will give it all up to them.
Plus, McCain/Palin this-a-time might well lead to a Palin presidency next time around. There’s no chance of an out-and-out libertarian getting the job for the foreseeable future. A woman who machine guns polar bears for fun would be a pretty good consolation prize.
You anticipated my question, but I’d prefer a little more specificity in your answer. In what way will they handle the transition? What it the timeframe? I basically agree with Llamas on this: the government needs to get out of space policy in general and space hardware development in specific. NASA should be abolished, or at least converted into something more closely resembling its predecessor, NACA, whose sole function was to promote aeronautical research and disseminate aircraft techonolgy to the private sector. Will an Obama administration do this?
Dale Amon wrote:
‘Incidentally, McCain has I believe a C- rating from the NRA and Obama is an F. Thus, bad and worse.
Barr, btw, has an A+ rating and is on the board of directors of the NRA.’
Yes, indeed – but Bob Barr is completely unelectable in this cycle, so his NRA rating (laudable though it is) is entirely academic. What matters are the relative ratings of the two candidates from whom the next President will be chosen, and in that regard, it is McCain, by several lengths.
Question That wrote
‘Also there are several social issues you have not included on which Obama has to score better than McCain (particularly with Palin on board).’
Like – what? I’m sorry, I don’t see the issue of whether or not online poker should be banned as being of any great importance.
llater,
llamas
I got smit. I bet it was for using the word ‘p*k*r’ in conjunction with ‘online’.
I hear that smite a’comin’
Comin round the bend . . . .
llater,
llamas
Don’t you think it would make much more political sense for the Dems to hold back on anything (e.g. repealing parts of the Patriot Act that should be despised by any civil libertarian), that could be twisted into “Dems don’t care about national security” by the GOP smear machine, until after the election?
“I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn’t say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.” (John McCain, interview by Dan Gilgoff on Beliefnet)
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.” (Barack Obama, keynote address to a conference held by the Call to Renewal)
I’d rather have the candidate who believes in the values of the Enlightenment than the one who doesn’t even understand them. The United States is founded on the Constitution, and far from being an expression of “Christian principles,” the Constitution does not even mention God, and mentions religion only to exclude it from playing a role in government. But then, all the evidence indicates that McCain has only the most cursory acquaintance with the document he has repeatedly sworn to uphold, and that his philosophy is actively hostle to it.
McCain made war against the United States or gave aid and comfort to their enemies?
A few million largely-unarmed Mexicans in the Home Depot parking lot aren’t much of an enemy.
I see NASA’s role as being like I see the FCC’s: in an ideal world, they’d be air-traffic controllers exercising just enough power to keep two rockets from trying to take off in the same place at the same time, just like I see the FCC as being merely band planners, tasked with arranging radio stations to maximize the number that can use the air with zero regard to content and zero power over non-scarce or non-public resources like landlines.
I see little justification for a role beyond that.
Dale,
You get favorable press from the NRA for sucking up to that corrupt ass Wayne LaPierre. Actual performance in office has less to do with it. He endorses his friends and he puts his friends on the board.
Don’t use an NRA endorsement as meaningful.
They have made zero effort to a 922(o) or 922(r)repeal, even though of all currently-extant Federal restrictions these two are the greatest assaults on the 2nd’s actual purpose.[1]
They were nowhere to be found on shall-issue CCW until they realized that they could make money off of it if they shaped the reforms.
They opposed bringing Heller before the Court.
They sit on their hands in the face of state-level ugly-gun bans and other state-level restrictions .
They absolutely refused to get involved in Colorado’s state preemption efforts, or in litigating Denver’s attempt to nullify shall-issue or any of our other reforms. And I have it on good information that they did so in other states, and then took credit for what happened while they sat on their hands.
They have never seen an EBR that they wouldn’t sell-out in order to preserve snowmobile access to public lands. Only one of those things is mentioned in the Constitution, and it is not the right of the people to drive ATVs in National Forests.[1]
(Where were they when Jim Zumbo ran his suck? Why is Joaquin Jackson still on the BOD?)
I’m not one of the zero-compromise-ever purist that normally inhabits the “sane” wing of the USLP, but calling the NRA either effective or even honestly pro-gun is, um, inaccurate.
(No, this is not a GOA endorsement and it won’t be until Larry Pratt opens his books so that we can see how badly he’s been lining his own pockets.)
[1] 18 USC 922(o) is the Federal prohibition on private ownership of machineguns made after 1986. 18 USC 922(r) is the ban on importation of “non-sporting” firearms, or parts for “non-sporting” firearms. “Non-sporting” being left to BATFE to define however they wish.
[2] If one want to have a debate as to whether the Federals should even own forests and parks and other places to hunt or should sell it off to the highest bidder, then we should do that some time. That’s not the point here, though.
I don’t think people really get Barack Obama. He ticks lots of boxes, plays to every audience he can find, but his commitment on many issues is nil.
This is because Barack Obama is not a politician. He is a personality cult. He is a socialist, and like many famous socialist leaders he is totally committed to the present and future greatness of – Barack H Obama.
He will go for all those big policies the left loves – tax the rich, handouts for the deserving, enrich your cronies, regulate everything in sight. He will socialize medicine, institute carbon trading, tax big and spend big. Barack is the man who is destined to be Historic.
Sadly, I doubt Space will feature in any significant way. Barack’s policies are designed to make the people love their Great Leader. Do you think that Hollywood celebrities or marxists like Bill Ayers or racists like Rev Wright give a rat’s ass about space? Do you think people waiting for their next handout will care about space? And what will the eco-left say? Save the planet, f**k outer space – fix this planet before you stuff any others!
And he won’t throw any bones to libertarians since they are no more than useful idiots to the Great Helmsman. Why would he reduce government surveillance of the populace? Do you think BHO cares about freedom? He is a leftist, freedom is suspicious if not down right dangerous. No guns or freedom for you my son!
Besides all those government powers could come in handy when the government controls every facet of your life – only in order to protect you from yourself you understand. The left has decided that the populace are like children. Only government has the wisdom to make decisions for them. You couldn’t get a better example of this then the UK under Labour.
By the way since you mentioned RealId – how’s that ID card thing going in the UK?
If big government is the price you willing to pay for a promise of funding for space – go right ahead, but don’t be surprised when it proves to be number 101 on the top 100 priorities for the Great One.
McCain might be flawed in the eyes of a libertarian, prone to lapses or the occasional idiotic failure that make you dismiss him. But Obama was never a libertarian and has no interest in ever being one, he is a savior and a redeemer. Liberty isn’t his bag. Freedom is trumped by the need of the weak to be rescued by government. Populism and Justice is his thing. And it will be the justice of the left, produced by the usual method – a vast government controlling people’s lives to produce the outcomes required by marxist theory.
Good luck will being a libertarian in the United States of Obama!
That must have been a misprint, right? Surely you meant, “one of the key spaced-out policy folk on the Obama team”?
“The British State isn’t going to go away for years though, if ever.”
It would not be an absurd stretch of the imagination to picture someone saying that to Ghandi in the late 1930s.
The truth of your statement is depends on its’ self-fulfilling nature.
John McCain got into trouble on the 2nd Amendment partly because of his child lock interest (a stupid idea as the old and those with physical problems also need to be able to defend themselves, something that McCain should have thought of at once [for personal reasons] not after months – although, I admit, the “childlock” stuff was theoretical at first and when the things could actually be examined….) and because of disputes over tactics.
This is a very far cry from supporting firearm bans – such as the Chicago one.
On the First Amendment libertarians (including me) include campaign finance. But the vast majority of people do not – so John McCain is attacked for having the same view of the matter as the vast majority of people.
Again this is a far cry from wanting to elminate or castrate every radio and television station (and website?) that does not share the “diversity” leftist point of view.
Congress is presently controlled by people like Speaker Pelosi and Majority Whip Durbin. If the left control the Executive also it is over – period.
If someone is really interested in Senator Obama the books are there.
Obama Nation, The Case Against Barack Obama, The Audacity of Deceit, and so on.
There have also been efforts to refute these works – for example by the 40 odd page document the Obama campaign put out against Obama Nation (and the response the author wrote to it).
This, at the very least, deserves serious consideration.
Saying that Senator Obama is a Chicago Machine politician – as if it was still the machine of the first Mayor Daley (the machine that faught the Marxists on the streets in 1968) simply will not do.
The Machine has changed – and Barack Obama was not born or educated in Chicago.
He went to Chicago to join the comrades.
Although, I admit, this ignorance is widespread.
I suspect that President Bush if asked “what does the Federal government help fund ACORN” would reply “what is ACORN?”
But then George Walker Bush is a moron – so I am willing to give him a pass.
Dale is not a moron – so I am not willing to give him a pass.
Sunfish wrote:
‘You get favorable press from the NRA for sucking up to that corrupt ass Wayne LaPierre. Actual performance in office has less to do with it. He endorses his friends and he puts his friends on the board.
Don’t use an NRA endorsement as meaningful.’
and I will have to quibble – a bit – because the NRA is a political organization and politics is the art of the possible.
Are they perfect? No, they’re not, and there are issues that I wish they would really get to work on. Sunfish notes their silence on the matter of Class III/NFA arms, and as one who loves to shoot machine guns – I agree. But to aggressively press for changes in that law would burn a massive amount of political capital in order to secure a relatively-minor improvement in firearms rights.
But they fought the misbegotten ‘assault weapons’ ban from day 1, they lobbied it right, and it sunsetted. A good win.
Wayne LaPierre as ‘corrupt ass’? Maybe. I’ve met and broken bread with him, and one of the men that I’m most-honored to say is my friend travels with him as a ‘minder’. I did not get that impression – I got the impression that he is a shrewd leader of a political organization, with goals that he aims to fulfil.
The NRA on CCW? Sunfish is largely correct – they were late to the party. But again, see above – the NRA is a political organization and has to pick its battles in a political arena. Like any political organization, they have to be (to some degree) reactive. When CCW became important to the dues-paying members, it became important to the NRA and now it’s a cornerstone of their activities.
I know two NRA directors personally, one of them is another of those men I am honored to say is my friend. Neither of them are LaPierre’s toadies. Both track my own views on firearms issues closely – but the NRA has 80-odd directors, I’ll bet there’s some I wouldn’t agree with on many things.
In short – the NRA is not perfect. As a dues-supported organization of more than 4 million members – what did you expect? It’s trying to cover a wide range of things, because firearms are woven into US culture at so many levels in so many ways. I dislike a some of what they do, but when it comes to promoting my firearms rights and interests, given the choice between having the NRA and not having them – I’ll take them, warts an’ all.
llater,
llamas
Paul Marks and Ian B have said all I wanted to say except for one thing:
It does seem to me that Dr Dale Stadhler has met his Floyd Ferris among the followers of Mr Barak Thompson.
If you are going to compare subjective differences between the two from a Libertarian perspective, at least cover taxation. Albeit late to the party, McCain at least supports renewing the Bush tax cuts. Obama has always opposed this. Giving the government even more money to waste is not a good idea.
William Stoddard stated I’d rather have the candidate who believes in the values of the Enlightenment than the one who doesn’t even understand them. The United States is founded on the Constitution, and far from being an expression of “Christian principles,” the Constitution does not even mention God, and mentions religion only to exclude it from playing a role in government. But then, all the evidence indicates that McCain has only the most cursory acquaintance with the document he has repeatedly sworn to uphold, and that his philosophy is actively hostle [sic] to it.
Will, if you are going to be so judgmental, at least do a wee bit of homework. The Constitution was indeed founded on Christian principles by mostly Christian men. For example, where did you think they got the idea about three branches of government? James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He based this on his reading of Isaiah 33:22, For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king; he will save us. The writers did not feel the need to legislate that their leaders follow Christian beliefs because 1) most of them could not imagine a time when people who did not share these beliefs would be elected and 2) most state constitutions specifically required all representatives to be followers of Jesus Christ and thus a federal requirement would have been redundant. If you actually study the issue, you can find many other examples. When it comes to these issues, McCain is much closer to the mark than you.
On the other hand, McCain simply ignores the constitution when he disagrees with it, such as when he wrote McCain-Feingold. This is a major problem and one of the many reasons why I am leery of a President McCain. I will only vote for him because 1) The idea of a future President Palin is attractive and 2) The idea of a President Obama is so horrifying.
William S.
Now I have heard it all.
John McCain, who has been attacked for decades for not stressing religion enough, attacked for stressing too much.
Plus the old A.C.L.U. mythology about the nonChristian origins of the United States and the nonChrisitian origins of constitutional thinking.
In reality Christian thought is part of the tradition that makes up Western Civilization (including the good parts of the enlightenment – such as the Scottish Common Sense school).
Kick tradition away (as opposed to building on what is good in it, and working against what is bad in it) and you are like a man who kicks away the stool he is standing on – when he has a rope round his neck.
This does not mean that athiest libertarians are not good people.
But stand against the Marxists on your own – not a hope.
Nor a hope against Islam, or much else.
But the above misses the point:
Some libertarians (not all) are not even trying to stand against the Marxists, in fact they have formed a de facto alliance with them.
This was the case when I first came into this world.
It depresses me more than I am able to communicate that now, when I am closer to leaving the world than entering it, some libertarians are making the same mistake – but in a vastly worse way.
In 1968 the Marxists in the United States were, mostly, just rioting student scum – they were not wildly important.
Now they are either in positions of power or very close to them.
Forming de facto alliances with the Marxists in 1968 was disgusting, but even I can not argue it did much harm.
Forming de facto alliances with them now could be fatal.
Paul Marks wrote:
‘But then George Walker Bush is a moron – so I am willing to give him a pass.’
And we’re supposed to give serious consideration to what you say – why, again, exactly?
What is it with this ‘Bush is a moron’ theme, anyway? Don’t like his policies? Fine, say you don’t like them. Think he’s a weak-willed, over-spending RINO? You’ll get lots of agreement here. But this thoughtless dropping of a schoolyard insult – which is especially and partcularly beloved on European commenters, for some reason – adds nothing to the discussion and would lead many people to think that the person making the comment is not to be taken seriously.
llater,
llamas
This is a bit of a repeat, but as Dale mimself has alluded:
A (perhaps the) principal function of the Presidency is to serve as a counter-balance to the excesses (and consensual decision process) of the legislative branch.
Whilst there are only indications so far, it does not appear that McCain has shown a tendency to “go along to get along;” whereas O shows inclinations to “go along to get ahead.”
“Positions” on issues that they can not greatly affect (since those are largely in the control of the legislative branch) are less valid in distiguishing between candidates for the executive slot, than are considerations of that principal function of counter-balance.
On that score, it seems likely that O would become a “rubber stamp” for a Pelosi-Ried type legislatively directed governance (and consensual decisions), with ZERO counter-balance.
After such an administration, it would likely take many, many “Bush-Type” administrations to restore the decision-making and counter-balance functions of the Presidency.
It may be an over-statement, but that executive function of decision is one of the strengths of the U.S system over the parliamentary form; as DeGaul et al. recognized was needed for France.
If it were really a question of voting for a candidate who would support a small government with a small budget, or for one who would support a big government with a big budget, the former would cleary be preferable. But that’s not the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, and it’s not the choice in the current election. Both parties support a big government with a big budget; in fact, it’s well known that government spending grew more under George W. Bush than under any previous president, including his father, who held the previous record. That spending is going to be paid for; government can’t materialize wealth out of the air. The Republican “tax cuts” mean simply that it will be paid for not through an obvious and overt tax, but through budget deficits, credit expansion, and inflation—which are effectively just another form of tax, but one that will be blamed on “greedy businessmen” or “greedy unions” that raise prices or wages. On libertarian grounds, I think an overt tax is to be preferred to a covert one. On the record, the Republicans have set a worse record than the Democrats for fiscal recklessness.
Joining the dogpile, I think the best “space policy” any candidate could have is “get the Government out of overregulating it, and entirely out of ‘managing’ it, apart from maintaining a military capacity for orbital access until the private sector provides one”.
I’m 99.99% sure that’s not Obama’s space policy, which is almost certainly “throw money at NASA”, ie “burn stacks of money”.
(I am, however, gratified that for once it’s acknowledged that only “parts” of the Patriot Act are troublesome.)
Sigivald: You are perhaps not familiar with what is going on in space policy, nor who the players are. I suspect Obama could give a rat’s ass about Space, which means some good people may just get a chance to do some right things. NASA’s budget is not going to change much. That’s politics and pork. But the internal recognition of the changes it must go through are something else. Those changes are to move more in the direction of a NACA and to use the private sector for far, far more than it has in the past.
To be fair, this would be a continuation. Griffin and people under him (whom I know) have been doing what is politically feasible to move in this direction.
Even if Bob Barr were elected, he could do worse than hire the same people whom I know, Republican and Democrat alike.
Let’s cut the gibberish out, huh? You don’t want to soil yourself with McCain? Fine, but don’t pretend you don’t know what you’re doing.
Two quibbles:
1.) Substitute “never” for “foreseeable future”.
2.) Feel free to share the source of the “woman who machine guns polar bears for fun” slur.
And to the main point: sorry, Dale, but your table is way too simplistic — like one of those Internet quizzes which poses questions in such a way that the only possible outcomes are that the respondent is either a socialist or a libertarian.
Frankly, I detest McCain, and it pains me that I will have to vote for him to prevent the socialists from coming to power.
But his addition of Palin to the ticket gives me hope for the future.
I see.. when there is money for “my” pet projects= Space it is excellent!
I laughed at IanB’s comment and then became frightened by it.
Even on this supposedly libertarian site a mention of “space policy” was cognitively translated by the commentariat into “statist funding of space policy”.
Kim: It’s not meant to be a scientific analysis. It is nothing more than what I said it was: a list of how the candidates come out on things which matter to me personally. Nothing more.
Moonbat nibbler: Exactly. I have been rather surprised by this myself. I wonder if that makes the Cato Institute a backer of big spending because they develop comprehensive policy in DC?
Policy is nothing more than looking at where you are, what the alignment of power and interests really is, where you want to go… and trying to plot a path that moves you at least a little bit closer to that goal.
Sometimes the path may even seem to go the opposite direction: I have totally applauded the Ares Program… because I knew when they started it that it would fail or be incredibly late… but in the meantime it would keep powerful forces sated instead of fighting over the crumbs which are all the New Space industry has needed to get a real foothold.
If things play out the way I hope… it will mean NASA will be forced to turn to New Space in the teens of this century and will eventually become just a NACA like entity doing the same useful job that it did for the aviation industry in the 1930’s.
Kim, whatever made you intepret that as a “slur”?
Trade! Trade! Trade! McCain ahs severe flaws, but he rocks on free trade and has boldly stood up to the populists of his own party on immigration.
Senator Obama, by contrast, wants to pull us out if NAFTA, voted against the Columbian and Korean free trade pacts.
McCain also has a free market health plan (see Professor Mankiw’s blog) and — with Governor Palin on the ticket — a free market approach to energy. Senator O wants greatly expanded government involvement in both energy and health care.
QUESTION:
Do these tallies change once the running mates are added? (I’m thinking particularly on McCain’s side, since many libertarians seem a lot happier about Palin than they do McCain…)
Not really. Vice Presidents do not set policy. They have little more than the power delegated to them by the President, which can be a fair amount or sfa; constitutionally I believe they get a tie breaker vote in the Senate and that is about it.
What is good about having Palin there is that win or lose, she is now ‘A National Figure’ and a “Serious Player’ in the GOP. No matter what happens, she is positioned for a run on her own, should she desire to do so, sometime in the teens.
Ordinarily meaningless, I don’t think with McCain/Palin we can assume a ceremonial role for the VP in the Senate. McCain is very likely to advocate she use her Constitutional power and if she does, I think it will be to effect. I have chaired contentious bodies under Robert’s (which is more like the House rules than the Senate rules) and from my experience, the chair has a huge amount of invisible power. But it requires subtlety and timing. From watching the speech, she has the timing skills. I suspect she is more subtle than her public image.
Also, she already has disproportionate power in the pairing. McCain has changed the campaign plans so that he can be on the stage with her. He is already riding on her coattails and is okay with that. I strongly encourage everybody not to underestimate her ability to get things done and to play in the majors.
While very pleased with the direction her policy is from everybody else’s, I would like to know her underlying principles better. She does not seem to have articulated any (that I have found) beyond ‘better government’, but her policies seem to favor transparency, accountability and often enough, ‘when in doubt, cut it out’. She also seems to have a highly developed contempt for business as usual politics and political hacks. People tend to morph into their own legends/narratives and if she does that, it is a good one.
I mentioned judicial appointments in a previous thread. This (courtesy Gabriel, wince) is one glaring difference between the two. Politicians respond to their bases and that is one polarized pair of bases. Neither one seems to have an clear record in the category of judicial appointments but if they just dance with the ones what brung ’em and appoint originalists, things will continue the improvements that have begun.
I don’t see where in his history people are getting the idea that McCain is some kind of militaristic adventurist. Bush, yes definitely. But even Obama sounds more likely to start a war than McCain. FWIW, Obama gives me an LBJ vibe. McCain seems more the type to sort out and clean up other people’s messes. By my opinion, Bush has been driving the military into the ground by using it hard and underfunding and staffing it. McCain will more likely go the other way, a supported military that doesn’t see much hot action. But re McCain is of course speculation on my part. And all of the calls for a draft (to say nothing of ‘national service’) that I have heard have come from the left. Isn’t Rangel one of the leaders of that effort?
I am cautiously optimistic, but want to see how McCain and her relate and he divvies out responsibilities. If they each gravitate to their comfort zones, McCain to international relations and defense, her to energy and the economy, it would be best of both worlds. But so far, there just isn’t a lot to go on. Unlike you Dale, I don’t think their statements mean squat. I don’t even bother to read them. Either good or bad they’re still meaningless. Legislative voting records and executive records are far more telling than anything they promise during a close election.
I have to agree with Llamas; GWB is not the most brilliant of the 43 presidents – and is arguably the most enthusiastic govt expansionist two term executive since FDR – but he’s far from stupid. I’m surprised to see Paul Marks regurgitating that talking point so beloved of the loony left.
That’s because he is not, although the word ‘moron’ may be a bit too strong. Paul has several times expressed his personal opinion that in certain areas Bush is not the sharpest tool in the box. I am not sure whether I agree or not, but it is a legitimate opinion to have.
Quixote:
For example, where did you think they got the idea about three branches of government?
How about from ancient Greece, via the Roman constitution, and codified by Montesquieu?
Let me guess: you heard Obama make the same comments about Pakistan a year ago that I heard. (To me, Obama strikes me as somewhere between LBJ and Carter, with a little bit of Clintonesque sex appeal. I am unenthused.)
Rangel is the ONLY member of Congress who I’ve heard call for a military draft. I’ve heard about conscription into non-military services from others, but I can’t remember whom and I don’t think they had much traction. (One of them actually suggested drafting people into the police and fire services. But I’ve inflicted one thread-hijacking rant on this thread already and I don’t want to piss Dale off with another)
Llamas and I on the NRA:
Yeah, he has goals. I’ve met him as well. My impression is that preventing another Cincinnati Revolt is his primary goal.
It became a cornerstone after the work was largely done. Up until 2000 or so they basically ignored the issue. By the time they even noticed, Colorado was about the only state left that had yet to adopt shall-issue (not counting the 10 that still have not as of today) and the NRA did not take an interest in our reform here. We could have used the help. From talking to people involved on this end, they would have been more interested if our proposed law had given them the same virtual monopoly on meeting the training requirement that they have in other states.[1]
IMHO, showing up after the work is done doesn’t count.
There are plenty who need a nice tall glass of STFU from time to time. Even Ted Nugent every once in a while. But there are no good reasons for a control advocate like the former Texas Ranger who endorsed Fudd-style bans last year to remain on the board.
Hey, I’m a life member too. Okay, it’s on the principle of “piss-poor help beats no help at all.” But I think that the idea that they’re actually controlled by the dues-paying members has become, well, less true than it was prior to Knox’ uprising and the aftermath.
[1] This part is pure gossip: the story is farfetched even though I trust the source: our CCW licensing law allows NRA classes, or a hunter’s safety card, or proof of .mil training, or a POST certificate to meet the training requirement. Or, for that matter, a course cert from almost any pistol class, as long as the instructor is recognized by either NRA or CO POST or possibly another state’s equivalent to POST.
Well, no, he is – a moron is a moron – a stupid person. I stand 100% behind what I said earlier.
Fine, and I’d almost certainly agree with any of Paul’s typically well-constructed and comprehensive arguments about GWB’s failures as president, but the above was not a well-constructed argument – it was ad hominem guttersniping about GWB’s intelligence which is, as I said earlier, a common and inaccurate slur typically employed by the loony left.
Sunfish – fair enough.
I wasn’t aware that the NRA didn’t do enough in re CO CCW. They certainly seemed to do right when MI was getting shall-issue passed in 2001, including some cooperative work with in-state groups like MCRGO and BrassRoots. And they don’t have any kind of a lip-lock on the MI training requirement.
I agree with your concerns about our favourite Ranger. I guess all I can say about that is that it’s a big tent.
Note that I didn’t say that the NRA is ‘controlled’ by the dues-paying membership, but that it ‘reacts’ to it. Like many another political organization, it will often lag behind the feelings of its followers, sometimes by a significant amount. Like tweaking the brontosaurus’s tail, it sometimes takes a while for the head to react.
I agree with your take on Obama and foreign entanglements. I am conflicted on the Iraq enterprise, but happy we are winning. But I could see Obama taking us to another endless, unwinnable conflict like the Balkans. Like Clinton, it seems to me that he would be loath to use US military power to further US interests, but all-too-ready to use it for some fancied matter of ‘principle’ or to cut a statesmanlike dash upon the world stage – or to wag the dog. I strongly suspect that he would send US troops to Darfur (or another Third World sinkhole like it, if that one has already been closed for business) simply for the look of the thing. I don’t get the sense that he places US interests first – he seems to see himself as some sort of supra-national world figure, charged with addressing the world’s issues. That’ll be fine, the day that foreigners start paying US income taxes.
llater,
llamas
James, just to make myself clear: by ‘he is not’ I meant ‘he is not regurgitating’. It was only this specific point that I was addressing. I am far from saying that Paul is always correct on all issues, or even on this specific issue. But one thing no one can say about Paul is that he uncritically repeats someone else’s words. (I will now shut up and let Paul speak for him self, if he so chooses:-))
You might want to add a line item about whether or not the candidate thinks it’s a good idea to require mandatory government-run charitable work by all high-school age students.
I’d have thought that proposal cut a bit against the libertarian grain, no?
The contrast on free trade is also quite sharp.
Since we’re never, never going to get a pure libertarian President, we really need to look more at the differences between the two candidates on the issues, rather than noting that they’re both to our left on basically everything.
Lastly, even on space policy… I was fairly impressed with McCain’s proposal to use government prizes rather than directed research for energy research. This is clearly copied from the successful application of this policy in early space development. More importantly, I’d suggest it warrants a “maybe” or “a bit” in the “Understands Capitalism” column.
Yes, prizes are an excellent way of doing things… and are not new any more. We got NASA involved in competitions a number of years back, and it happened mostly because us crazy space hippies grew up and took the reigns of power but brought a bunch of our ideas with us.
The top people in NASA, and the most of the prospective new top people who either stay or go depending on the victor, all know this.
I think many people are so caught up in the ‘image and sound bite’ campaign rhetoric, where substance has no place, have no real idea that actual policies may change very little (in many areas at least) because it’s all just a small circle of friends in DC.
There is too much bullshit here.
Question: If the last two Supreme Court Justices had been appointed by a Democratic President, what would have been the likely outcome of DC. VS. Heller?
That’s some pretty, umm, allegorical readings of ancient Greek history and the Roman consitution you got there.
Obama taught and studied constitutional law….
Understand the constitution:
McCain No
Obama Yes
Will veto crazed Pelosi/Reid legislation:
McCain – Yes
Obama – No
McCain bad on the 2A? You need to do some research. McCain’s biggest 2A fault is supporting the non-existent “gunshow loophole.” He did vote for that bill requiring guns to be sold with trigger locks, which at worst, added about 5 bucks to the price of the gun. Larry Pratt screamed about it, but then, he’s a lying nutjob.
As for understanding the Constitution, you obviously don’t, or half of the criteria wouldn’t appear there (hint: Review the separation of powers).
Rightwinger: we do not appreciate rhetoric like ‘lying nutjob’ here. It adds absolutely no factual information to a discussion and certainly does not fall into the realm of ‘reasoned logic’.
As to separation of powers, please read my comments. Presidents can, when they chose to expend political capital, get much out of congress. One might add that is one use that a McCain Presidency could use Palin for in the Senate. It’s a shame he doesn’t stand for things I listed in the article because she could probably do a lot for the cause of Liberty if she were her own woman. Backroom deals and horsetrading can often accomplish a great deal. This is also why new Presidents try to get a good bit done during their first couple months because that is when they have the most political capital to expend.
So yes, I understand a great deal about how things are done in the strange world inside the beltway and have on a number of occasions taken part in it. Congressional receptions in the Capital, dinner meetings and nights at the bar with staffers, etc/// which is not to say I class my expertise in that area with those who live that life. I’ve just been there and done that and have lots of t-shirts.
Gabriel –
That’s some pretty, umm, allegorical readings of ancient Greek history and the Roman consitution you got there.
Your problem’s with Montesquieu, not me. Take it up with him.
O.K. I apologize for the word “moron”.
But what am I going to call a man who has been President for allmost eight years and either does not know that the United States government is financing far left groups like ACORN, or does know and has done nothing about it?
I know a President does not make the budget – but if he had given a lead when the Republicans controlled both House and Senate.
Ditto with the “pro life” position of President Bush.
Whatever one thinks of abortion, why has the Federal government given hundreds of millions of Dollars to “Planned Parenthood” (an openly political group) on President Bush’s watch? “But they do not use the tax money for abortions” – so they use it for propaganda and use the private money they do not have to use to pay for propagada to pay for the abortions.
These are not small matters – the Planned Parenthood subsidy shows the “pro life” position is either a dishonest pose, or that President Bush (after almost eight years as President) has not got a clue what the Federal government does.
As for ACORN – along with vote fraud, and agitprop it does other stuff. Such as threaten to sue (under President Carter’s Community Reinvestment act) lenders who refuse to lend in poor areas – can anyone say “subprime”.
President Bush is (to use a British form of words) “in office but not in power” – or “out-to-lunch”.
“He has been very busy hunting down O.B.L.” – well where is the body?
Let us say that President Bush is NOT a moron – that he is an intelligent man who knows all of the above AND HAS NOT DONE A THING ABOUT IT.
Is that not worse?
The majority of people think that McCain-Feingold has nothing to do with freedom of speech – because they do not think of campaign finance in this way.
As a libertarian I hold them to be all wrong.
However, to pretend that it is just John McCain is an error.
The majority of people think that McCain-Feingold has nothing to do with freedom of speech – because they do not think of campaign finance in this way.
As a libertarian I hold them to be all wrong.
However, to pretend that it is just John McCain is an error.
As mentioned above, Obama wants to have National Service, which will be Liberal Indoctrination.
And, also mentioned above, who will appoint Supreme Court judges who will believe in Federalism? McCain (if we believe him).
Dale, you ought to care deeply about those two things.
To be fair I should have given credit to President Bush for his picks for the Supreme Court (apart from one abortive pick who shall remain nameless). And yes I should have given him credit for the cuts in tax rates and for changing tactics in Iraq (after some years of messing it up) and so I on.
I am not a nice man (I have never said I was). If I call someone a “moron” I am actually giving them a pass – I often think a lot worse of people.
Still the Supreme Court.
They were not “good” picks in the sense of people who would declare the Dollar bill unconstitutional and so on – but they were a lot less bad than the people the left would have picked.
Remember to get a job teaching “constitutional law” in most universities one has to not only not teach the Constitution of the United States, one has to hate its basic principles.
Fair enough.
For your further consideration, I also suggest that President Bush is largely responsible for
– phasing out the inheritance tax
– No Child Left Behind – maybe weak in its implementation, but the first effort in 30 years to actually improve US education standards and wrest public education form the vice-like grip of the teachers’ unions and the Democratic Party
– a package of reforms of the income-tax system including enhanced pre-tax savings provisions, HSAs and incentives for alternative models of health insurance.
– HIV/AIDS efforts in Africa.
llater,
llamas
A decidedly mixed bag there, Llamas. I’m fine with #1 & 3.
But NCLB represented a quantum leap of federal involvement with education, which I view as a quintessentially local matter. The concept is questionable; the implementation seriously flawed; and it certainly did nothing to “wrest” public education from the Educrat lobby. That one gets an “F”.
And as far as Aids efforts in Africa, high marks for humanitarianism but low for being a proper expenditure of US tax dollars. Let him work on that after he leaves office.
Obama taught and studied constitutional law….
Understands the constitution (and dislikes everything the Constitution represents: freedom, limited government, different peoples voting):
McCain No
Obama Yes
Fixed your post. “Understanding” is not agreement.
Every first year law student in the US studies constitutional law, so that doesn’t mean much. What he actually taught was a course “in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law” (according to a New York Times article by Jodi Kantor, which doesn’t (necessarily) cover any other sections of the Bill of Rights or, for that matter, anything else in the Constitution (such as the separation of powers, the limits on federal power, etc.). His other two classes were reportedly on voting rights and a seminar on racism and law. Nothing in this record tells you much about his views on Constitutional issues, although I would suggest that his selection of the areas upon which to focus gives a pretty good hint.
The bottom line is that I don’t think Obama’s years teaching at the University of Chicago Law School tell us a whole lot about him (although the totality of his academic record demonstrates that he is a very smart fellow). You have to look to his voting record for that, and in my opinion it’s not a good one.
As stated before.
To get a job at most American universities teaching “constitutional law” one must not only not teach the principles of the Constitution of the United States, one must HATE them.
See “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution” – simple, but generally faithful.
As stated before.
To get a job at most American universities teaching “constitutional law” one must not only not teach the principles of the Constitution of the United States, one must HATE them.
See “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution” – simple, but generally faithful.