Reason Magazine

Site Search

The Weekend Political Thread

I'm trying something new: An omnibus political thread with some analysis of the week's horse race news. Ninety-nine percent of the important stuff is (still!) contained in the Evans-Novak report, but hey, this is an open thread.

Democrats On The March: The Democrats were pummelled on the national stage all week, and yet they end Friday in position to expand their majority in the Senate. (Note that I just said "Senate." More on that later.) On Monday Sen. Chuck Hagel up and quit, making former Sen. Bob Kerrey—a pro-war Democrat, the anti-Hagel—the frontrunner to replace him. On Thursday former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner entered that state's open Senate race with polls giving him massive, groaning leads over well-known Republican candidates. And today former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen entered the race against Sen. John Sununu. He beat her narrowly in 2002; she leads him by 22 points now.

I wrote in late 2005 that the GOP's failure to recruit good candidates in most of that year's most promising Senate races, especially North Dakota and West Virginia, indicated a fatigue and a pessimism beyond what showed up in public polls. We're seeing the same thing now, although Republicans (*cough* Newt Gingrich *cough*) are far more open about their pessimism. Robert Novak reports that the GOP is prepping for a five-seat Senate loss: Colorado, Virginia, and New Hampshire look gone, Oregon, Maine, and Minnesota look dicey, Nebraska could fall if Kerrey jumps in. How many bright spots do Republicans have? One: Louisiana. And that's only because tens of thousands of black Democrats have left the state. New Jersey's octogenarian Sen. Frank Lautenberg would be a prime target for a confident party, but after debacles in 2005 and 2006 the GOP's only been able to recruit a state legislator from the Assembly. And he's on the fence.

Democrats In Retreat: The picture for the House of Representatives? Less clear. Massachusetts' Lowell-centered Fifth District is holding a special election that should be a sure thing for Democrat Niki Tsongas, the wife of the late senator Paul Tsongas. Yet the first poll in the race shows Republican Jim Ogonowski, the brother of one of the pilots killed on 9/11, only ten points behind her.

Smart lefty blogger Matt Stoller calls shenanigans: Ogonowski isn't even running as a Republican, but as a non-politician who muddies his stance on the Iraq War (stay there forever) and bemoans partisanship. But compare the Ogonowski ad to the chintzy ad Tsongas ran in the primary. Every local Democrat has endorsed Tsongas, but all the energy is with the desparate Republicans (who hold no federal or statewide office).

An Ogonowksi victory isn't likely, but it's not impossible, and it would dramatically change the political debate. A proud pro-war Republican will have won by attacking both Bush and the congressional Democrats. Independents will have swung back to the GOP. The Democratic aura of inevitability would be battered, maybe enough to perk up Republican fundraising and keep one or two from retiring. No Republican has flipped a Democratic seat in a special election since Virginia's Michael Randy Forbes in 2001, and no Republican has flipped a seat in New England since Rob Simmons won Connecticut's second district (New London, Norwich) in 2000.

McCain's Overrated Surge: A good indicator of John McCain's new momentum, his first taste of the stuff since before summer began, was Newt Gingrich's interview with National Journal's Linda Douglass. Gingrich had been writing McCain off for months, rattling off a list of possible Republican nominees and conspicuously leaving off the Arizonan. But he told Douglass "I think there are three or four possible Republican nominees—Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, and, based on his recent re-energizing, McCain."

How much has McCain re-energized, and why? Second answer first: He came out swinging at the last debate and planted one on Mitt Romney's glass jaw. And a slight uptick in optimism about Iraq—which was bottoming out at around 20 percent—validated what McCain had been saying about the war since, oh, April 2003. (The stuff about how we needed more troops, not the stuff about how we were on our way to victory.) But how much? Before the debate he had slipped to high single digits and fourth place nationally, behind Mitt Romney. Now he's at 15 percent and a solid third place.

But this isn't a national primary and it didn't start a few weeks ago. It started in January when McCain was polling at double his current numbers and was signing up every smart Republican strategist and donor who wasn't already with Mitt Romney. He's shed a lot of those strategists and he shed three more low-level ones this week. And his small recovery in national polls is meaningless as long as he's not recovering in early primary states. Right now he's not leading in any of them. He's not in second place in any of them. He's 8 points behind Rudy/Thompson in South Carolina, 17 points behind Romney in New Hampshire, and 24 points behind Romney in Iowa, where he's in 5th place overall.

Some more assorted links:

- Dana Goldstein reports from that Newt Gingrich speech I went to and hones in on his worrying about Iran.

- Ryan Sager rides Fred Thompson's bus through Florida, into a 60,000-person retirement community and Disney's Celebration village, and encounters a man who won't support Rudy because "his voice is too thin... It doesn't have that deep, ‘I'm sincere' feeling."

- Jonah Goldberg watches Hillary Clinton triangulating on Iraq, which looks about as comfortable as enduring the Crucio curse.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Send this article to:

« Friday Nudity News | Main | New at Reason »

Comments to "The Weekend Political Thread":

JasonC | September 14, 2007, 5:40pm | #

encounters a man who won't support Rudy because "his voice is too thin... It doesn't have that deep, ‘I'm sincere' feeling."
disenfranchise this man, please.

Timothy | September 14, 2007, 5:40pm | #

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Sorry, that was premajure. Just like everyone of his climaxes! *ZING!*

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Nigel Watt | September 14, 2007, 5:54pm | #

Fuck Eric Dondero.

That pre-emptively said, if the GOP's only possible bright spot is one seat in Massachusetts, we're heading for Hilllarycare.

J sub D | September 14, 2007, 6:00pm | #

Nigel Watt, don't sugercoat it, tell us what you really think.

iih | September 14, 2007, 6:01pm | #

Richardson said something very smart and sadly funny today (via MSNBC):

"The President has been allowed to spy on Americans without a warrant, and our U.S. Senate is letting it continue. You know something is wrong when the New England Patriots face stiffer penalties for spying on innocent Americans than Dick Cheney and George Bush."

J sub D | September 14, 2007, 6:07pm | #

You know something is wrong when the New England Patriots face stiffer penalties for spying on innocent Americans than Dick Cheney and George Bush."

Good line, still he hasn't a prayer.

iih | September 14, 2007, 6:09pm | #

J sub D: Yep. No chance whatsoever.

Edward | September 14, 2007, 6:14pm | #

But what about Ron Paul? He doesn't seem to come up when the political discssion gets serious. Is he just a sop to the nutjob wing?

J sub D | September 14, 2007, 6:19pm | #

But what about Ron Paul? He doesn't seem to come up when the political discssion gets serious. Is he just a sop to the nutjob wing?

He's not going to win, I'm pretty sure he knows that. But I have hopes he'll affect the debate. That'd be cool.

iih | September 14, 2007, 6:21pm | #

Edward:

I think FOX pre-planned trap during the debate was intentionally meant to cast him as a nutjob. While every single bit of his arguments would make perfect sense, but between the 2 minutes time limit, Rudy's rude laughs, Huckabee's emotional use of the magic words "victory" and "honor", RP was left with practically no time to sound logical. Only his followers understood exactly what he as saying, but to the other republicans, he probably came across as a nutjob -- sadly. Hopefully he'll have a comeback.

How about if he runs as an independent? That could seriously hurt the republicans if he does so. Sort of like Nader in 2000 with the Dems.

J K Fan | September 14, 2007, 6:30pm | #

*hem-hem*

That's the cruciatus curse…

iih | September 14, 2007, 6:31pm | #

He's not going to win, I'm pretty sure he knows that. But I have hopes he'll affect the debate. That'd be cool.

I am afraid that he will be silenced by FOX and right wing talk shows. He's already been cast as the object of laughter. I believe that he'll have the greatest media impact (and the associated spreading of his ideas) if he runs on LP's ticket, independent, etc, and possibly cause the GOP the WH.

Isaac Bartram | September 14, 2007, 6:39pm | #

iih

There are many of us who remember Ron Paul's run on the LP ticket in 1988. The media ignored him then.

They'd do the same this time.

iih | September 14, 2007, 6:49pm | #

Isaac:

May be. But not if his impact on the race becomes significantly noted after the elections. Similar to Nader in 2000. It is also my understanding that RP has a decent following within republicans and will cause independents who don't like the alternative (i.e., a Dem) would feel comfortable voting for RP.

SIV | September 14, 2007, 7:35pm | #

Good job of outing yourself with the link Weigel.(in case anyone here doesn't already know)

One: Louisiana. And that's only because tens of thousands of black Democrats have left the state.

links to this.......



Yet liberals almost certainly will speak from a different set of talking points. They’ll say that Republicans prevailed because Katrina chased away black residents - i.e., the hurricane literally whitewashed the state.

Louisiana is about to dump the Dems for Katrina incompetence as well as disgust for the LA political traditions of corruption and cronyism.

Bobby Jindal may actually turn that State around in a big way before going on to become our first "minority" President in 2016.

Cesar | September 14, 2007, 8:04pm | #

SIV-

And Mississippi and Alabama do so much better under Republican leadership. The Gulf Coast is a shithole because, well, its the Gulf Coast. Poorest, worst run states in America are Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

panurge | September 14, 2007, 8:22pm | #

David forgot to mention one Dem senate seat that is VERY vulnerable: Tim Johnson's seat from South Dakota.

The GOP is trying not to talk about it too much, because they could come off looking like scumbags. (Johnson suffered a minor stroke shortly after the '06 Dem landslide, and his health puts his ability to run again in serious doubt.)

tarran | September 14, 2007, 8:22pm | #

Kudos to you for tryign to explain things to Edward. Unfortunately you are probably wasting your time.

Edward shows up from time to time, insults Ron Paul, rants incoherently about people who support him being "nutjobs", then when he has his ass handed to him rhetorically, stomps off in a huff claiming that he won't waste his time on Reason anymore.

Then, like some lingering incurable, anti-biotic resistant disease, a few minutes, hours or days later, he starts the cycle over again.

It's possible you could cure him of his malevolent habits, or perhaps you will enjoy responding to him. If so, I wish you plenty of luck. But far more likely, you will look back on the lost minutes composing posts to him with regret since they would be more productively spent watching Britney Spears' performance at the MTV music awards.

iih | September 14, 2007, 8:28pm | #

tarran: I hadn't known this about Edward. I responded in good faith. At least it got something going between me and Isaac above.

SIV | September 14, 2007, 8:31pm | #



And Mississippi and Alabama do so much better under Republican leadership.



Cesar,

Part of the reason they are in such bad shape is the political culture(100+ years of Democrat rule)Republicans offer no quick fix as they are largely the same people who party switch as the States trend right.There are many factors involved: poor primary education, the legal culture and tort liability making them hostile to business investment and a large poor minority population which has lost some of its more ambitious members through a century of Northern(or urban South, ie ATL) flight.

iih | September 14, 2007, 8:39pm | #

I heard this on NPR today. It was really funny:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14428700

Tells something about the poisonous political environment in the US today. Here is a synopsis:

Comedian Mo Rocca took an interesting political experiment to the streets: He challenged potential voters in New York City to say nice things about various political candidates that they don't like.

Cesar | September 14, 2007, 8:44pm | #

Part of the reason they are in such bad shape is the political culture(100+ years of Democrat rule)Republicans offer no quick fix as they are largely the same people who party switch as the States trend right.There are many factors involved: poor primary education, the legal culture and tort liability making them hostile to business investment and a large poor minority population which has lost some of its more ambitious members through a century of Northern(or urban South, ie ATL) flight.

I agree, and I'm happy you admitted there is a bigger problem down there than the ruling party. There seems to be a growing gap between the Atlantic (Virginia, Carolinas, Georgia and Florida) and Inner (Gulf Coast+Upland) South, and I sincerely hope it doesn't grow further.

Edward | September 14, 2007, 11:53pm | #

I think my nutjob reference touched a sore spot with tarran. I can understand a fundamentalist libertarian supporting Ron Paul, but only a nutjob could imagine either that Ron Paul has a serious chance of winning the Republican nomination or that he would have if only the media didn't denigrate or ignore him.

RandyAyn | September 15, 2007, 12:10am | #

"An Ogonowksi victory isn't likely, but it's not impossible, and it would dramatically change the political debate. A proud pro-war Republican will have won by attacking both Bush and the congressional Democrats. Independents will have swung back to the GOP. The Democratic aura of inevitability would be battered, maybe enough to perk up Republican fundraising and keep one or two from retiring. No Republican has flipped a Democratic seat in a special election since Virginia's Michael Forbes in 2001, and no Republican has flipped a seat in New England since Rob Simmons won Connecticut's second district (New London, Norwich) in 2000."

Thanks, David, for the best belly laugh I've had all week! As if a Democratic loss in Mass Five could completely reverse the tide against the Republicans! Yeah, and the Chiefs are going to win the Superbowl!

John in Nashville | September 15, 2007, 12:12am | #

"How about if [Ron Paul] runs as an independent? That could seriously hurt the republicans if he does so. Sort of like Nader in 2000 with the Dems."

As a yellow dog Democrat, I hope that Paul runs as an independent/hermaphrodite. Citing Nader, however, does not seem to be the most persuasive argument for a protest candidate. Nader's ego boosted George W. Doofus to the position whence Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Uncle Thomas anointed him. May all seven of them spend eternity in their own circle of Hell.

sixstring | September 15, 2007, 12:28am | #

"As a yellow dog Democrat"

I prefer the blue ones...

Ashish George | September 15, 2007, 1:04am | #

"Bobby Jindal may actually turn that State around in a big way before going on to become our first 'minority' President in 2016."-- SIV

"In 2006, Jindal voted with the Republican Caucus 97% of the time during the 109th Congress[14]. In 2007, Congress.org, a nonpartisan group, ranked Jindal 432 out of 439 in terms of overall effectiveness in the US House during the 110th Congress."

And also:

"Jindal is an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Iraq. In 2005, Jindal led other freshman Republican House members in dipping their fingers in purple dye to celebrate the 2005 Iraqi national elections."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal

Great judgment that guy has. Louisiana can have him because they probably deserve him. But I hope they spare the rest of the country his fearless leadership.

libertreee | September 15, 2007, 1:10am | #

The "yellow dogs" were anti closed shop contracts ...

The "blue dogs" are supposed to be for balancing the budget by cutting spending to equal any new spending...but pro war and socially conservative.

Who let the dogs out! Both seem to be from the South-any connection to Michael Vick?

JCG | September 15, 2007, 3:27am | #

I think Greenspan's going with Ron Paul.

“The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” writes Mr. Greenspan, a self-described “libertarian Republican.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15greenspan.html

Mo | September 15, 2007, 5:47am | #

Isn't Goldberg a soft supporter of Romney? How can anyone that doesn't think Romney is anything but an stereotypical opportunistic politician (though a highly competent one) call Bill/Hillary out on trying to have it both ways. At least the Clintons were honest enough to say they wanted abortion to be legal but rae, Romney changed his mind from an important right for women that he would protect to an abomination and murder of millions of innocents in less time than it takes to get an MBA.

Eric Dondero | September 15, 2007, 9:46am | #

An amazing poll number out today:

Rudy Giuliani is now tied with Hillary Clinton in ultra-ultra-ultra liberal Washington State.

Source - Race42008.com

Rudy 46% (up 5 since last poll)

Hillary 46%

Folks, Rudy can win in areas no other Republican can. he will put the Dems on the defensive. And force them to spend money in very blue states, even here in California.

I know lots of libertarian Republicans in Washington State. And they are all supporting Rudy, cause they know he'll help their downticket candidates.

Libertarians for Giuliani
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

P.S. A piece of hot political news just breaking... Steve Beren, Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism libertarian Republican will be declaring a 2nd run against ultra-Socialist Jim McDermott in WA State (Seattle District)

Mr. Nice Guy | September 15, 2007, 10:05am | #

Donderaro-I've often though Guliani should appeal to libertarians, after all cmpared to the other God's Own Party candidates he's more reasonable on gay rights and abortion rights. However, that guy clearly doesn't give a crap about libertarians given his childish and willful baiting of Ron Paul. The guy is also a first class creep, dodging military service and then prosecuting other dodgers, and his treatment of his family (really, if someone's nuclear family can't bring themselves to vote for him then YIKES).

libertree-I may be wrong, but I think the term yellow dog Democrat simply referred to certain Southern Democratic areas which were pretty conservative but who voted for Democrats out of tradition. It was said that they would rather vote "for a yellow dog" than a Republican, hence the name...

tarran | September 15, 2007, 10:21am | #

Well, edward, I am glad that my level of support for Ron Paul does not meet your nutjob criteria.

Taktix® | September 15, 2007, 10:34am | #

Anyone going to see Ron Paul in Fort Lauderdale on Monday?

If so, shoot me an email, I'm trying to get a happy hour group together...

Edward | September 15, 2007, 10:51am | #

tarran,

Your analysis is pretty nutjob in any case.

Ayn_Randian | September 15, 2007, 11:00am | #

Edward - you are neither interesting, intelligent, entertaining nor relevant. How sad that an Objectivist is funnier than you are (think hard about that).

Please go away.

J sub D | September 15, 2007, 11:02am | #

Yeah, and the Chiefs are going to win the Superbowl!

And they'll be playing the Lions. ;-)

highnumber | September 15, 2007, 11:20am | #

Edward,

Honest question: What's your point?

Cesar | September 15, 2007, 12:14pm | #

Dondero-

Most people on here don't give two flying shits if the Republican wins next time or not. I'm not going to vote for someone who conducts federal raids on sick people, outlaws "lifestyle" crimes in New York, showed complete lack of respect for the Constitution as a prosecutor, has mob connections., and is anti-second amendment.

tarran | September 15, 2007, 12:42pm | #

I'm trying to figure out which aspect of my analysis that Edward found to be full of nutjobbery:

Was it my claim that Ron Paul had no significant chance to win the Republican nomination?

Or was it my prediction that he no significant chance win the general election?

Or perhaps my prediction that he would lose a fight with Congress and be impeached if he tried to put his ideas into practice?

So edward, which is it? Do you think that only a nutjob thinks Paul can't win the nomination? Or that only a nutjob things that Paul can't win the presidency? Or that only a nutjob thinks that Paul would lose a fight with Congress?

I guess since you have always claimed that Paul had no chance of winning the nomination or the election, it must be option 3; you must think it obvious that as president he would kick the Congress and Supreme Court's asses.

Damn, Edward, I didn't know you thought Ron Paul was such a superman.

PapayaSF | September 15, 2007, 1:01pm | #

The Senate looks bad for Republicans, but I still don't think things are very rosy for Democrats when it comes to the White House.

I just don't think Hillary (or Obama or Edwards) can win nationally, barring massive vote fraud. Dick Morris seems to think that armies of single women will come out of the woodwork to vote for her, but I don't think that will overcome the huge negatives she has among men and married women, plus all of her scandal baggage. (Which isn't all safely packed away, e.g. Hsu.) If she's running against Rudy or Fred, I'd bet lots of blue-collar Democratic men will jump ship.

Much of the time since 1950 we've had a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, and we may be going back to that.

Cesar | September 15, 2007, 1:20pm | #

. No Republican has flipped a Democratic seat in a special election since Virginia's Michael Forbes in 2001

Its Randy Forbes.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 15, 2007, 1:22pm | #

"Part of the reason they are in such bad shape is the political culture(100+ years of Democrat rule)Republicans offer no quick fix as they are largely the same people who party switch as the States trend right.There are many factors involved: poor primary education, the legal culture and tort liability making them hostile to business investment and a large poor minority population which has lost some of its more ambitious members through a century of Northern(or urban South, ie ATL) flight."

This post says a lot about SIV's many confused ideas. Notice how he kind of get's the idea that the Democrats that ruled the South are not the Democrats of today (in fact they are the Republicans of today), but doesn't quite close the loop...It's that kind of thinking that finds today's progressives to be worse on drugs than today's conservatives...It's also dubious that they suffer from tort liability problems: California is notorious for expanding liability and their economy is not in the craphole. The biggest problems in those two states is the heat (the entire deep south was an investment nightmare before air condition became inexpensive) and the racial tensions.

"I just don't think Hillary (or Obama or Edwards) can win nationally, barring massive vote fraud. "
PapayaSF-I agree. The Dems are going to hand the White House to the GOP. Edwards is the lightest of lightweights, and a woman or minority starts out with far too much of a weight to win. The Dems are hilarious thinking they are taking the White House. It strikes me that while the GOP remains the Stupid Party on their policy stances (creationism!) the Dems remain the Stupid Party when it comes to political strategy...

Mr. Nice Guy | September 15, 2007, 1:26pm | #

By two states I meant MS and LA. I guess I should add that Red States tend to have tepid economies, and MS and LA are incredibly Red (their conservatives are rabid, the only reason elections are at times competitive is because of the large minority populations which vote 90%+ for the Dem). A conservative mentality is not good for innovation, or smarts in general, for that matter...

Brandybuck | September 15, 2007, 1:35pm | #

Rudy Giuliani is now tied with Hillary Clinton in ultra-ultra-ultra liberal Washington State.
Maybe Rudy is really an ultra-ultra-ultra liberal, and you just haven't figured it out yet. But more likely I think it's because Clinton is pro-war. She is opposed to the Iraq occupation NOT on moral grounds, but simply because it ain't the Democrats running the war.

The ultra-ultra-ultra liberals in the Seattle area (the rest of the state is moderate to conservative) are not supporting Rudy, they're dissing Hillary. How much different would that poll have been if there had been the option of "anyone but these two bozos"?

mw | September 15, 2007, 1:38pm | #

"The picture for the House of Representatives? Less clear."- dw

Not really. Since 1913, when the 17th amendment permitted the direct election of senators,the house majority has never flipped parties unless the senate did also. Never, as in - not even once.

Given:

A) the incontrovertible evidence that divided government limits the growth of the state, and...
B) a very real possibility of single party Democratic party government with a 60 vote plurality in the Senate,which ...
C) is likely to be every bit as dangerous to freedom as the last six years of Republican single party control.

I submit that practical libertarians will have no choice but to vote Republican for President in order to re-elect divided government.

For now, I will support Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. But I am prepared to hold my nose and vote for whatever piece of shit the Republicans nominate. Even if it is Giuliani.

It is more important to re-elect divided government, than it is to worry about which major party presidential candidate is a bigger tool.

A potential side benefit of this voting heuristic - libertarians might even be recognized as a significant swing voting block and attract some pandering to libertarian issues by the majors.

Ken Shultz | September 15, 2007, 2:02pm | #

An open thread about politics?

Politicians are boring. People who talk about politicians are boring.

...boring, boring, boring.

I'm a freak for libertarianism and I even think libertarian politicians are boring!

BOOOORRRrrriiIIIiiinnnnnG!

iih | September 15, 2007, 2:22pm | #

Ken Shultz:

Kind of my feelings, too. I am bored with the predictability and rhetoric, the arguments and counter-arguments. All of this seems like a waste of time.

OK, need time better spent, if you haven't read Ron Paul's book (probably you did) "Freedom Under Siege", it would be a time much better spent. Just found an online verison:

http://dailypaul.com/node/23

(not sure if this is legal -- regarding copyright and all), but I am reading my hard copy. Just delivered to me this week.

iih | September 15, 2007, 2:34pm | #

Question: Anyone knows where (online) to buy libertarian bumper stickers? Found a couple of websites -- not that appealing and thought I could probably do better.

tarran | September 15, 2007, 2:44pm | #

iih, you could make your own. I believe they sell blank bumper stickers that are designed for laser printers.

I think cafe-press is a pretty cheap method of getting slogans and images on a wide variety of merchandise. Their bumper stickers are probably more durable.

Out of curiosity, what do you see as the flaws in the current crop of bumperstickers? (I have thoughts on the subject but don't want to contaminate the sample :) ).

What kind of message do you want to send to people?

Mr. Nice Guy | September 15, 2007, 2:47pm | #

"I submit that practical libertarians will have no choice but to vote Republican for President in order to re-elect divided government."
I'm not so sure about this...Democrats as a party are much more divided than the GOP who tend to march in goose/lockstep (look at their votes). Clinton had two years with a Dem Congress didn't he? And I don't remember him getting jack done...Heck, Carter had four years and was able to get through very little.

If it's spending you care about that will keep going up regardless of who is in power or whether it's divided. Any budget has to get a majority, and to get it it has to promise a majority of congresspersons goodies for their district...

iih | September 15, 2007, 2:52pm | #

tarran:

Just googled around, but could not figure if I am finding the "best and cheapest" out there. Found some interesting stuff, but I just thought to ask here first. I do not have access to a color laser printer. I do not have a particular message in mind. That is why I was trying to shop around.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 15, 2007, 2:52pm | #

"What kind of message do you want to send to people?"

If I were a dyed in the wool libertarian and wanted to make the movement more popular, I'd soft pedal the economic stuff like hell. It's what keeps me from identifying with the movement. A bumper sticker that says "Libertarians: Working Hard to Lift the Already Meager Restrictions on Your Boss' Power to Order You Around" is going to be a hard sell indeed.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 15, 2007, 2:58pm | #

I think a good strategy to make libertarianism more popular is to focus on the war on drugs. There is a significant minority in this nation that thinks it is bullsh*t tyranny but essentially is not represented by either major party. On other social freedoms (except guns) the Dems have most people covered. When it comes to economic freedoms and property rights issues the GOP has most people covered (at least in rhetoric, which sadly is all most voters follow). But the WOD is the best opportunity for libertarians by far. The only problem is that many people who find the WOD immoral are not reliably politically active...

iih | September 15, 2007, 3:21pm | #

Mr. Nice Guy:

Talking about WOD. CNN is now replaying a program on the drug industry in Afghanistan. Just learned that the DEA sends its people to train Afghanis on how to fight the WOD. I personally have moral objections to drugs, but also have moral objections to restricting it by law. A Colombian friend of mine once told me about a lot of horrific things that happened as a consequence of the WOD in his (and this) country. Interestingly, growing poppies flourished multiple times larger, now after the official implementation of a WOD there, than when the Taliban ruled the country.

iih | September 15, 2007, 3:28pm | #

Last sentence in my last thread refers to Afghanistan -- not Colombia.

mw | September 15, 2007, 3:56pm | #

"Democrats as a party are much more divided than the GOP who tend to march in goose/lockstep (look at their votes)..."- nice guy
Interesting. I heard the exact same argument from Republicans before the mid-terms, blaming RINOs for their spending history. It is an argument to change a politically inconvenient definition of divided government. On my blog I reference historical research and analysis by scholars and economists who hypothesize causal relationships based on a specific definition of Divided Government: one party controls the White House and another party controls one or both houses of Congress. Now, if I am advocating (as I am), a voting strategy based on that research, the strategy will have no validity or foundation if I use a different defintion than the research on which it is based. Example:
Economist William Niskanen has shown that federal spending growth is restrained under divided government, using this definition of divided government. I would like to see the growth of federal spending restrained, so I advocate voting to maintain divided government, using the same definition of divided government that Niskanen does.

If you have research showing the consquences on spending growth when we have an ideologically split single party, then there is something to talk about. I am unaware of any such research. Until I see it, I'll stick with this defintion.
"If it's spending you care about that will keep going up regardless of who is in power or whether it's divided. Any budget has to get a majority, and to get it it has to promise a majority of congresspersons goodies for their district.." - nice guy
It is certainly true that spending goes up regardless. It is an empirical fact that it goes up at a much slower rate in a divided government. Slower is better.

Edward | September 15, 2007, 4:00pm | #

Hignumber:

Honest answer. My original point was to ask why Ron Paul doesn't figure into this post. Several posts on H&R have suggeested that Mr. Paul is a serious candidate. I think he's a joke. More than one regular poster here seems to think he can actually win. I think they're either stupid or nuts. And then I'm attacked. I would never have given Ron Paul a second thought.

Edward | September 15, 2007, 4:06pm | #

tarran:

Here's the nutjob part of your analysis:

"However, if he [Ron Paul] plays his cards right, he could pull it off and become the Republican party's presidential candidate."

Your math must be weak and your reasoning skills non-existent.

tarran | September 15, 2007, 4:35pm | #

Yes, we'll just pretend the McGovern nomination never happened shall we?

As I was pointing out to iih, you're the one with the Ron Paul fixation, not me.

I just am amused by how often you're the one who brings him up.

I also am amused by how often you claim to be done with Reason and how you'll never post again.

BTW, I make my living writing software. A significant portion of what I write makes use of statistical algorithms. I also teach math at a local college. My paying customers - who are quite satisfied with my work, I might add - might disagree with your claims about my reasoning and mathematical ability. :)

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the difference between 0 chance and a non-zero but insignificant probability. Next you'll be claiming that Einstein was a nutjob for promulgating a theory that assigns a non-zero probability to all the oxygen molecules in a room migrating to one corner.

So, now that you've had your ass handed to you yet again, are we at the part where you claim that you aren't going to waste your time on the Reason website? When do we get the pathetic Nixonian post that says "You won't have Edward to kick around anymore"?

I ask out of morbid curiosity.

SIV | September 15, 2007, 4:39pm | #

MR Nice Guy,

I realize you are easily confused so I will expound on my point above.Party rule in a State refers to who controls the State legislature. Despite years of conservative dominance in National politics mnay Southern States are(ex NC),or have been until recently(ex GA), ruled by Democrat legislatures/assemblies. Switching control is not so much any kind of ideological change as it is a means os shaking up the system and a "remapping" of the levers of power. One-party rule is a bad thing, particularly over a long period of time.Changing party rule is what they used to call RE-form (emphasis on 1st syllable).It is somewhat stymied by powerful Dems switching to Repubs as they see the wind shifting.Changing Parties in the US Congress IS often a change in ideology(well it was in '94).

negatore | September 15, 2007, 5:01pm | #

My Saturn sports 2 stickers. One has a Libertarian message by Milton Friedman.

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."

The other bumpersticker is the first one for a political candidate on any of my cars, ever.

"Ron Paul for President '08"

SIV | September 15, 2007, 5:44pm | #

There is a full size Ron Paul For President billboard along I-20 in Anniston Alabama
Shows his face with a checked box next to his name. First 2008 Presidential campaign sign I've seen anywhere.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 15, 2007, 6:02pm | #

SIV-I agree that one party rule is a a rule a bad thing. Of course rule at the state level is more than just the legislature (where things are actually a bit nuanced for Southern States: TX FL, VA and SC actually have GOP majorities in both houses and MS has GOP majority in one house). Governors are also involved, and the South, including the deep South has had plenty of GOP governors (currently MS, AL, TX, SC, Fl, etc. have one).
One party rule is a terrible thing, almost as bad as conservative rule. That's what the South had under it's Dixiecrats and that's what it has under it's current Republican parties. Red conservative states tend to have worse economies, interestingly for the purposes of the axioms of many on this blog despite the fact that red states score higher on measures of economic "freedom."
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/05/median_income_d.html
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/12/economic_freedo.html

Mr. Nice Guy | September 15, 2007, 6:07pm | #

iih-The New Yorker recently had a long article on the U.S. eradication efforts in Afghanistan. Interestingly it detailed how the focus on eradication confused our allies over there (especially a Dutch contingent) and enraged farmers that could be potential allies...

iih | September 15, 2007, 6:10pm | #

Mr. Nice Guy: In the documentary, Cooper said that NATO refused to help with the effort because it only meant more angry poor peasants, more violance, more support for Taliban, and hence more fighting with NATO forces, especially in the south were non-US forces exist. So NATO memners in the south simply bailed out, something that angered the US. Another interesting thing mentioned in the documentary is that drugs that cost $100,000 in NY, earns the peasant a mere $300.

Ken Shultz | September 15, 2007, 6:23pm | #

"Question: Anyone knows where (online) to buy libertarian bumper stickers? Found a couple of websites -- not that appealing and thought I could probably do better."

Heck yeah you could do better.

I was thinkin' of going with three. One on the left would say "The only people who have a right to complain are the people who don't vote." One on the right would say "All politicians are assholes." And then one in the middle would just have the text of the First Amendment.

iih | September 15, 2007, 6:33pm | #

Ken:

OK, my thinking today is a bit slow, so I think I half-get the one on the left. The one on the right is factually false (RP is the counter example, I would hope), and the one in the center makes a lot of sense (esp. vis-a-vis the GOP), but wouldn't that be a lot of words for a sticker?

The one I saw on a car yesterday that I really liked (but would not put on my car) was the big "W" next to the flag, but instead of the 04 that appears to the right of the lower half of the "W" and below the flag, it reads "TF". So the whole thing says (in case your brain is half dead, too) WTF. That was really funny.

Edward | September 15, 2007, 6:46pm | #

tarran,

It's pointless arguing with you about your understanding and intelligence. You can't follow the argument and naturally think you've won. Your steady diet of slogans has mucked up your mental digestion and blurred your grasp of reality.

Stevo Darkly | September 15, 2007, 7:00pm | #

Man, I sure miss Edward since he said he'd stop posting on this site.

EDWAARRRRRRRDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Ken Shultz | September 15, 2007, 7:43pm | #

"The one on the right is factually false (RP is the counter example, I would hope), and the one in the center makes a lot of sense (esp. vis-a-vis the GOP), but wouldn't that be a lot of words for a sticker?"

I guess it depends on your definition of "asshole". If an asshole is somebody who doesn't really do anything, just shits all over everything, then I might argue that, yeah, politicians by definition are people who don't really do anything...

But I can see how a different strategy might work better. Assuming the candidates from the two major parties are Hillary and Giuliani, for instance, I might go with a "Hillary Clinton is an asshole." sticker on the left and a "Giuliani is a bitch." sticker on the right. Again with the text of the First Amendment down the middle.

Yeah, you'd have to get up close to read the First Amendment sticker, but I'm thinking it's mostly for people who'd get up close and personal. God forbid, but some people might actually complain about the language. I mean if political speech isn't protected then what is? ...and as far as I'm concerned "George W. Bush is a motherfucker." constitutes political speech.

tarran | September 15, 2007, 7:48pm | #

Stevo,

Didn't you know that the black knight always prevails?

SIV | September 15, 2007, 7:56pm | #

The Dixiecrats were the States' Rights Democratic Party who ran Strom Thurmond in 1948.They were the third worst choice following the Republicans and Democrats but much better than Henry Wallace's Communist front Progressive Party.

The Dixiecrats ceased to exist after that election. Thir political memorabilia is quite valuable.

Not suprising that a Democrat Vice-President would run as an actual Communist.

Fluffy | September 15, 2007, 8:05pm | #

Edward is just upset that the fat loser he supports, Richardson, has about as much chance to be the Democrat nominee as Gravel. Because he gets tired of other Democrats looking at him like he's some kind of New Age dingbat who goes to Kucinich rallies and performs interpretative dance to warm up the crowd*, he comes around here to attack Paul supporters. He fails to understand that while Paul may not be the Republican nominee, Richardson also will not be the Democrat nominee, so support for either is equally quixotic. Just ignore him.

*This actually happens.

iih | September 15, 2007, 8:11pm | #

Ken:

How about "'None of the above' for President '08"?

Edward | September 15, 2007, 8:13pm | #

That's it! I'm done posting on this crap site!

Not Edward | September 15, 2007, 8:13pm | #

Sorry, that was me, just then.

SIV | September 15, 2007, 8:17pm | #

I guess eventually I will agree with everyone here on something.Well, maybe not the vegan animal rightists.
I should keep a list of the commenters I am suprised to share a view with-even if they only expressed it for rhetorical or trolling purposes.

Dan T.
joe
Neu Mejican- on Iggy Pop's contribution to music
Fluffy-Richardson is an unelectable fat loser

Edward | September 15, 2007, 8:19pm | #

Fluffy,

You're just envious that Richardson hasn't picked up the support of loonies like Aaron Russo and David Duke. Ron Paul smells like shit. Must be the company he keeps.

If you can't follow this, tarran, let me know. I'll try to explain it to you.

iih | September 15, 2007, 8:27pm | #

Ken:

Here is the Bush sticker:

http://www.stampandshout.com/shop/bumper-stickers/oval-wtf-campaign.php

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | September 15, 2007, 8:30pm | #

OK, Fluffy I almost missed that last asterisk.

Does that really happen? Are there photos?

A Fake Edward | September 15, 2007, 8:32pm | #

That's it! I'm done posting that I'm done posting on this crap site!

Ken Shultz | September 15, 2007, 8:35pm | #

"Here is the Bush sticker:

http://www.stampandshout.com/shop/bumper-stickers/oval-wtf-campaign.php

Sweet!

Fluffy | September 15, 2007, 8:38pm | #

No, Someone, I unfortunately don't have any photos.

But I swear that it happened in the 2004 election cycle. I was trying to see every candidate in NH at least once, and I went to a Kucinich event at a small college. Prior to Dennis' appearance, a husband and wife duo calling themselves "The Vibration Army" came out to entertain the crowd. The guy did a "human beatbox" trick and the girl did New Age interpretative dance. I shit you not.

iih | September 15, 2007, 8:40pm | #

Another great one I found on that (clearly left-leaning) website:

"How did our oil get under their sand?"

Mr. Nice Guy | September 15, 2007, 8:49pm | #

That many of the people who were and supported the Dixiecrats became Republicans, like their candidate did, is historical fact. The national Democratic Party changed dramatically becoming the socially Progressive party they are today, and most socially conservative members found a warm home in the GOP. This is why it's silly to conflate the Progressives of 1900-1920's with the Progressives of the 1960's. They may share a penchant for economic populism and the same name, but one was socially conservative the other anti-socially conservative. The Progressive movement that exists today is vehemently anti-socially conservative. It's much more their raison d'etre than economic liberalism.

I would have picked H. Wallace over Strom any day of the week...Wallace had ideas sympathetic to Communism, and his Party had many Communists in it. He was a kook personally. But he himself publicly said he did not endorse Communism and at least he was not a straight out racist fascist like ol' Strom and the Dixiecrat/Republicans. It's not suprising this guy felt more at home in the Republican Party. Here's some of Strom's eloquent language used in his 1948 campaign: "I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches." What a neanderthal...

Cesar | September 15, 2007, 8:53pm | #

"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

But apparently no army was required to force one into his bedroom!

prolefeed | September 15, 2007, 8:57pm | #

On the divided government / which party to vote for in the next election comments above:

I think it's likely that we're gonna end up with one-party rule after the upcoming election -- the populace wants the Iraq war to end, and too many people haven't yet drawn the obvious conclusion that the Democrats didn't really mean it when they said they'd end the war, despite only needing 41 Senators filibustering legislation to fund the war. I frankly don't believe that we're gonna be out of Iraq until at least 2010, even if the Democrats run the table next year, because the Democrats want to keep banging the drum slowly about "Bush's / teh Republercans war". Heck, we're starting to see "progressives" calling for a resumption of the draft in the Hawaii papers.

That being said, I don't vote based on party, I vote on whether the person is at least somewhat libertarian in outlook, and in the last election I left most of my ballot blank because there wasn't anybody I could stomach voting for.

I'll vote for Ron Paul in the primary, and when he gets his low single digit results, switch to whatever unbalanced blue-skinned nutjob ;) is running as the Libertarian Party candidate.

The bottom line? The chance of your vote ever counting in any election whatsoever -- the chance of it being the deciding vote -- is essentially zero. Seriously. Can anyone here name a single race decided by their one vote? Anyone?

Given that reality, make a statement -- vote for people with libertarian outlooks, and if none such is available, leave that race blank. Quit voting for a slightly less worse bastard.

SIV | September 15, 2007, 8:58pm | #

MNG,

I said they were the third worst.....
Henry Wallace and the Progressive Party were Communist tools.If forced at gunpoint I would chose ol' Strom over Uncle Joe Stalin's lackey Henry Wallace- the former Democrat Vice President of the United states. Who like today's Progressive Democrats called all his opponents Fascists.

I'm sure in your world "Nice guy" Stalin supported drug legalization.

prolefeed | September 15, 2007, 9:09pm | #

"Libertarians: Working Hard to Lift the Already Meager Restrictions on Your Boss' Power to Order You Around" is going to be a hard sell indeed.

Almost as hard a sell, Mr. Nice Guy, as the bumper sticker "Authoritarians: Working Hard to Run Your Economy into the Ground and Walk You Closer to the Brink of a Dictatorial Nanny-State Hellhole".

;P

Mr. Nice Guy | September 15, 2007, 9:23pm | #

Cesar-good one, I had forgotten that in addition to being a neanderthal Strom was a hypocrite!

Prolefeed-Yeah, both are hard sells, but I don't think most people see OSHA and overtime laws as "the Brink of a Dictatorial Nanny-State Hellhole". They like not having toxic waste spill on them at work and getting paid time and a half and don't see this as creeping socialism, which is of course why they say "no thanks" to libertarians such as yourself!

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | September 15, 2007, 9:25pm | #

As far as bumper stickers go: how about this one?

Of Course, You Can
Trust the Government.
Ask Any Indian.

sold here

iih | September 15, 2007, 9:44pm | #

Just going through the anti-bush bumper stickers, I still can't believe that a GOP congress pressed for impeachment of a president for a private affair, while a president that caused a great quagmire is still at large vis-a-vis impeachment. The main obstacle is, of course, the GOP members of congress. How stupid can hardcore republicans be? Unbelievable.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 15, 2007, 10:06pm | #

It amazes me that you find people who see things like the OSHA laws as oppressive, awful things. These people always say "well a person is always free to quit if they feel their boss is unsafe (or harrassing, or arbitrary, etc.,)". These folks are almost undoubtedly protected every day by dozens of these government "oppressions" on their bosses. They have no idea how they would react if they were forced to negotiate all these taken for granted protections. Quitting all the time would mean loss of benefits, seniority pay, etc...In fact, in this nation's past, when laissez-faire was the dominant ideology, people had all that "blessed freedom" these libertarians dream of and the moment it was seriously suggested to get rid of it they junked it. They were wise enough to see from their experiences that liberty is not always ascertained by "freedom to contract."

Cesar | September 15, 2007, 10:17pm | #

I'm going to pretend this is an open thread.

I'd like any liberal/democrat to explain to me why that now the magic month of September has come, the war is no closer to ending. I was told by many of my Democratic friends in real life--and by one in particular on this blog (joe)--that in September the Democrats would grow balls and Republicans would jump ship. Why isn't this happening?

Cesar | September 15, 2007, 10:19pm | #

And here is a fun weekend question for conservatives and Republicans.

Imagine Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. What do you think of her having powerful unitary executive tools?

iih | September 15, 2007, 10:27pm | #

Cesar:

Giving the dems the benefit of the doubt, they have made such a promise only if they sweep congress, which they did not. It is my understanding that, otherwise, they really have no way to overcome the republican large minority.

Imagine Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. What do you think of her having powerful unitary executive tools?

That is actually a trick question, because it is Bush who expanded such presidential powers. According to Charlie Savage's new book, it is all preplanned to create a more authoritarian government (Bush is the much-needed precedent for future GOP presidents to encroach on Americans' civil liberties, privacy, and property rights (imminent domain)).

Cesar | September 15, 2007, 10:31pm | #

Well, eminent domain is most usually favored by liberals. It was the conservatives on the court to their great credit who voted against Kelo. Bush has a lot of faults but hes given us good small-government supreme court nominees.

iih | September 15, 2007, 10:33pm | #

Cesar -- eminent domain aside... So?

Max | September 15, 2007, 11:02pm | #

It amazes me that you find people who see things like the OSHA laws as oppressive, awful things. These people always say "well a person is always free to quit if they feel their boss is unsafe (or harrassing, or arbitrary, etc.,)".

You don't as a rule make people better off by taking away options. You may find dangerous work distasteful, but someone else may like the pay. Some people voluntarily work in Iraq, for example, and not because they are unaware of the dangers.

Edward | September 15, 2007, 11:56pm | #

Big News: Alan Greenspan, who calls himself a "libertarian Republican" praises Bill Clinton in his just published memoir. I can't wait to hear the reactions of the nutjob libertarians.

Douglas Gray | September 16, 2007, 12:12am | #

Here's something from Greenspan's "Memwah" that appeared in THE INPENDENT:

"AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East" (end of quote)

Hah!! So it was about oil afterall!! What a surprise!!!

SIV | September 16, 2007, 1:07am | #

And here is a fun weekend question for conservatives and Republicans.

Imagine Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. What do you think of her having powerful unitary executive tools?


It is gonna suck.I would like a President of any Party to have the power to do what is necessary to destroy foreign enemies of America. That said, war time powers of the State are going to be used for whatever those in control want to use them for.

Did REASON ever cover the use of the Patriot Act to enforce Federal Animal Law?

Osama who? We have a Cockfighting threat!

tarran | September 16, 2007, 1:14am | #

Hmmm,

I wonder whether Greenspan wrote anything that sheds light on the rumor concerning a deal Nixon supposedly made with the Saudi king which essentially resulted in the U.S. dollar pegged loosely to Saudi oil.

According to the rumor, in return for the Saudi king only selling oil for dollars, the U.S. government made certain security guarantees to the Saudi monarchy. On the surface the rumor would explain a lot, including the sudden stampede to attack Iran (Iran seemed to jump from a low priority enemy to a high priority one in the U.S. government's rhetoric shortly after they announced their intention to sell oil for Euros) and Iraq (the anti-Saddam rhetoric spiked after he made a similar decision to the Iranians), and the kid-gloves with which we handle the Saudi monarchy ( the Taliban were not solely funded by Osama Bin Laden and the Pakistani Intelligence Service - the Saudi government was giving them a bunch of money as well. In addition, there have been reports that clerics in the pay of the Saudi King have been encouraging disaffected young men to go fight Americans in Iraq - so that they will be killed by American soldiers rather than causing trouble at home).

Nonetheless, the rumor remains an unsubstantiated one. It would be interesting to read what Greenspan had to say on the subject. Though a person listening to him should bear in mind that he will make misleading public statements if he thinks it will be to his benefit. The example that immediately leaps to mind is his claim that he had gotten the Fed to act as if the dollar was backed by a gold standard. This claim was so laughable at the time that I don't know anyone who bought it. I don't think he believed that statement, rather it was designed to mute criticism that his policies were substantially different than the ones he advocated in the 50's & 60's. Thus, I would take his public pronouncements with a grain of salt.

Stevo Darkly | September 16, 2007, 1:29am | #

Stevo,

Didn't you know that the black knight always prevails?


You mean Edwardoo is actually ... Batman???

tarran | September 16, 2007, 1:58am | #

Not batman, you know, the other one...

The one who fights with the strength of many men and who moves for no man, who once, despite suffering a few flesh-wounds and scratches, fought King Arthur in single combat so tenaciously that the King had to flee across a bridge to escape..

Edward | September 16, 2007, 2:26am | #

When it come to the reaction of nutjob libertarians, unsubstantiated rumors and semi-coherent ruminations about them are pretty much what I expected. Thanks, terran.

Edward | September 16, 2007, 2:34am | #

Think a gallon of gas is expensive?

This makes one think, and also puts things in perspective.

Diet Snapple 16 oz $1.29 $10.32 per gallon

Lipton Ice Tea 16 oz $1.19 .........$9.52 per gallon

Gatorade 20 oz $1.59 .... $10.17 per gallon

Ocean Spray 16 oz $1.25 . $10.00 per gallon

Brake Fluid 12 oz $3.15 . $33.60 per gallon

Vick's Nyquil 6 oz $8.35 $178.13 per gallon

Pepto Bismol 4 oz $3.85 .. $123.20 per gallon

Whiteout 7 oz $1.39 .. $2542 per gallon

Scope 1.5 oz $0.99 $84.48 per gallon

Evian water 9 oz $1.49..........$21.19 per gallon!

$21.19 for WATER

And the buyers don't even know the source.

Neither Edward Nor Alan Greenspan | September 16, 2007, 3:38am | #

Big news: I just bought a two-liter of whiteout! Hoo-boy was it expensive.

In other news I think posts about Batman suck and are written by nutjobs or possibly nutballs.

libertreee | September 16, 2007, 8:33am | #

These folks are almost undoubtedly protected every day by dozens of these government "oppressions" on their bosses. They have no idea how they would react if they were forced to negotiate all these taken for granted protections-Mr Nice Guy
The problem with this reasoning is that it forgets that your boss needs you to make money for himself--underlying the employer/employee relationship is a harmony of interests, not class warfare.

It is harder to find good employees than this line of reasoning assumes. Perhaps it applies to the type of job where you stand in an assembly line and turn the same screw day in and day out, but it hardly applies to the information economy we have today. Your boss can only treat you as bad as he needs you to succeed.

Laws that regulate the workplace, like all laws, have their pernicious side effects as well. You can't get fired in France, but with 10-30% unemployment, you also can't get hired in the first place...

M. Simon | September 16, 2007, 8:45am | #

Yep.

It would be really good if the War Party lost the election and the Socialized Medicine Party Won.

Wars end occasionally. Socialized medicine is forever.

I love Libs. who are objectively for Socialized Medicine and who actively take the Communist line on American foreign policy.

Maybe there is something to this Libertarianism stuff after all.

M. Simon | September 16, 2007, 8:53am | #

iih | September 15, 2007, 10:27pm Cesar:

Giving the dems the benefit of the doubt, they have made such a promise only if they sweep congress, which they did not. It is my understanding that, otherwise, they really have no way to overcome the republican large minority.

Conservatives won the 2006 election. Some of them have a D behind their name. Don't let that fool you.

M. Simon | September 16, 2007, 9:05am | #

prole says:

I think it's likely that we're gonna end up with one-party rule after the upcoming election -- the populace wants the Iraq war to end

in victory. Which is why the Dems can't get it up.

Libs have never understood political practice. They are theory (utopian) wizards.

BTW any one care to check out wartime restrictions in WW2 vs the current dust up?

Mr. Nice Guy | September 16, 2007, 9:48am | #

"The problem with this reasoning is that it forgets that your boss needs you to make money for himself--underlying the employer/employee relationship is a harmony of interests, not class warfare.

It is harder to find good employees than this line of reasoning assumes."
The problem with this reasoning is that it forgets that the boss needs you LESS than the average worker needs him. He's got capital and resources to sit on that will outlast any worker's, and since people don't like them or their kids being thrown out on the streets or starving, they will cave to working conditions or pay they otherwise would never agree to. It also assumes, empirically falsely, that people are not just maximizers, but relentless ones. That if an average worker makes them a big profit, but a better one makes them a bigger one, that they will relentlessly look for the second. Many are just fine with a decent profit and being able to be an authoritarian a**hole boss.
As for harmony of interests between bosses and employers, that is just funny! How many workplaces are run by mutual consent of the employer and employee? And how many people like being told what to do by another person because he has more capital than they? So much for harmony of interests...

Mr. Nice Guy | September 16, 2007, 9:52am | #

"It is gonna suck.I would like a President of any Party to have the power to do what is necessary to destroy foreign enemies of America."

I would to. But knowing that government is made up of men, and that men are not angels, I would also like safeguards built in so governments could NOT use their powers reserved for destroying foriegn enemies of America against citizens without due process of law. I'd also like for them not to use their powers reserved for destroying foriegn enemies in amazingly stupid and irresponsible ways...

joe | September 16, 2007, 10:18am | #

Jim Oganowski is not a "proud pro-war Republican." He doesn't just criticize Bush's handling of the war, but calls it a mistake to have launched the war in the first place.

He also doesn't have a prayer. Nice fella, nice bio, doesn't have whole lot to say beyond that.

Max | September 16, 2007, 10:20am | #

The problem with this reasoning is that it forgets that the boss needs you LESS than the average worker needs him. He's got capital and resources to sit on that will outlast any worker's, and since people don't like them or their kids being thrown out on the streets or starving, they will cave to working conditions or pay they otherwise would never agree to.

This is hopelessly naive. Employers are bidding for labor in a *market*, for heaven sake.

joe | September 16, 2007, 10:45am | #

Conservatives won the 2006 election. Some of them have a D behind their name. Don't let that fool you.

Um, yeah, like Sheldon Whitehouse, Joe Sestak, and Jim Webb. Real conservatives, those anti-Iraq War economic populists.

in victory. Which is why the Dems can't get it up.

Uh, yeah, that's totally the message of 2006.

As M. Simon demonstrates, Republicans are still in Mondale Mode. The JUST KNOW they're right about everything, the JUST KNOW the people are really on their side, because only monsters could possible disagree with the nice little slogans they use to describe their ideology.

When you act like Mondale, you get Mondaled. Keep it up, M. Simon. Stay the course! Until Victory!

tarran | September 16, 2007, 10:58am | #

You think those prices are expensive?

Hah, here they're selling distilled water for $7,621.33 per gallon.

Beat that!

Yet More Expensive Water Prices | September 16, 2007, 11:16am | #

Here it costs your firstborn. Or maybe a fistful of magic dust.

joe | September 16, 2007, 11:40am | #

Here's the story Reason should be telling about the Massachusetts' Fifth: there were two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination - one a former Lowell Mayor and sitting City Councillor, and the other the widow of a US Senator and respected public citizen with extensive involvement in local causes. Two good candidates, one with a heftier resume, one with a little more charisma. But both women candidates in a state with no female Congressman, and both good progressives with the right positions on women's issues.

And then the national groups, like EMILY's List, get involved, giving a fortune to Tsongas's campaign, and she manages to eke out a 5 point victory.

If Tsongas had been the only woman in the race, or if she had been plainly better on their issues, that would be one thing, but she wasn't. The only reason they decided to back her is that she was one of them, a DC figure who'd been to their cocktail parties.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hold this against Niki Tsongas, even though I voted for her opponent, Eileen Donoghue. She's going to be a great candidate, a good Congressman, and put forward a good face for the district. But I do hold a grudge against the DC groups, because their efforts to make sure one candidate that is totally what they want was able to beat another candidate that is totally what they want, instead of using those resources to help swing a race in a way that genuinely advances their agenda.

It's just the DC consulting class and their incestuous relationships winning out over principle. It's frustrating.

Sam McManus | September 16, 2007, 11:42am | #

RE the GOP: I smell blood. Let's swoop in and save the country, shall we?

joe | September 16, 2007, 11:54am | #

Man, a small government conservative movement with a non-interventionist foreign policy?

With even the slightest nod to cultural traditionalism, such a movement could turn the neocon imperialists now running the GOP into the third party.

sage | September 16, 2007, 12:25pm | #

My wife and I were on our way to a brewery/eatery in Silverdale last night and I about shit myself when I saw a sign up in someone's yard: Ron Paul, Hope for America. The thing was like 6 feet by 8 feet. How cool.

Edward | September 16, 2007, 12:36pm | #

Sage

Ron Paul is on record as wanting to abolish the CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, FDA, IRS, Medicare, FBI, DEA, UN, NAFTA and CAFTA.

I don't care how big the signs for the slogans are, Ron Paul couldn't win even if all the other cadedates were killed in a plane crash. In the context of realistic politics, He is a total fucking clown.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 16, 2007, 12:36pm | #

"This is hopelessly naive. Employers are bidding for labor in a *market*, for heaven sake."
No, THAT is hopelessly naive, to think that all that goes on in those markets are self interested rational actors making voluntary mutually beneficial exchanges. No inequality in bargaining power (labor markets ain't like the markets for plasma tvs, you have to offer yourself int he former or starve while the latter is indeed a very voluntary choice), no culturally acquired tastes, prejudices, shared class presumptions, institutional barriers and incentives/disincentives, etc.,

Happy Jack | September 16, 2007, 12:38pm | #

BTW any one care to check out wartime restrictions in WW2 vs the current dust up?

Not me. I'm busy making plans for my VJ Day party.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 16, 2007, 1:19pm | #

"BTW any one care to check out wartime restrictions in WW2 vs the current dust up?"

War supportes do this all the time. We need to have what we had in WWII to fight this war. They usually say this when they want to endorse the Executive's power to detain and try people outside of the courts or wiretapping (of course they forget that FISA was passed and signed into law between then and now).

But then they turn around and say "this war and threat is different and unlike anything we have faced before and we need a radically new orientation to deal with it." They say this to violate Geneva, extinguish the difference between citizens and foriegners and those captured on US soil and battlefields, and in recognizing that this "war" will have virtually no "end."

They wan't their cake and to eat it too.

Edwardino | September 16, 2007, 1:38pm | #

Ron Paul will never win! Please listen to me all you people saying Ron Paul will win!

Ron Paul can't even afford water. Then again, who can in our current white-out based economy?

Max | September 16, 2007, 3:51pm | #

No inequality in bargaining power (labor markets ain't like the markets for plasma tvs, you have to offer yourself int he former or starve while the latter is indeed a very voluntary choice)

The "starve" statement can equally be made for employers. Without employees, the employer starves. Same for capitalists. Without lending out capital, the capitalist starves. This is irrelevant.

You seem to have some vague idea that if A is richer than B, A can dictate terms to B. It doesn't work that way.

Bill Gates can't make a dime more flipping hamburgers than you can, even though he has all the "bargaining power" in the world, in your terms.

Cesar | September 16, 2007, 4:23pm | #

"BTW any one care to check out wartime restrictions in WW2 vs the current dust up?"

Gee, so I guess you think internment was a good idea? What about rationing? Support that, too?

Cesar | September 16, 2007, 4:26pm | #

It is gonna suck.

So remember the next time you shill for giving a Republican President more power, within as little as one year a "progressive" whom you really hate could have the same power. Its worth remembering.

Just think, SIV. What would Attorney General Janet Reno have done after a 9/11 style attack?

BakedPenguin | September 16, 2007, 4:30pm | #

The Two Faces of Eric -

I've come to the conclusion that EDWARRRDDDOOOOO and DONDERRRRRROOOOOO are actually two different personalities in the same person. Consider the evidence:

They both have a frothing, rabid hatred of Ron Paul. Given that most of the regular posters here, including many who support Paul, have already stated they doubt he has a realistic chance of success, this monomaniacal urge of Edwardo/Dondero to dissuade people from supporting him is bizarre and disturbing.

They both continue to post long after it has been made perfectly clear to them that no one here gives a shit what they think. I suspect that Dondero/Edwardo can no longer afford the services of his Filipina dominatrix, and must now come to this site to receive the abuse he craves so badly.

There is one clear option - don't play into the sick fantasies of this depraved individual any longer. IOW, stop feeding the troll.

Cesar | September 16, 2007, 4:37pm | #

Well, I certainly find Dondero much more entertaining than "Edward".

Edward | September 16, 2007, 4:53pm | #

Cesar,

Who gives a flying fuck what you find entertaining? I imagine you find most things just confusing.

Cesar | September 16, 2007, 4:54pm | #

Well, I do find you extremely confusing Edward. But I'm afraid I'm not alone.

Edward | September 16, 2007, 4:56pm | #

BakedPenguine

I wonder if David Duke thinks Ron Paul has a chance. Duke's one of his biggest supporters. Ever wonder why?

Cesar | September 16, 2007, 4:59pm | #

I also hear David Duke thinks O.J. Simpson was guilty. Also, when asked if the world is round he said "yes". Therefore, both things must be wrong since David Duke supports them!

Cesar | September 16, 2007, 5:07pm | #

Edward-

If Ron Paul has no chance at the nomination (and he probably doesn't) then why do you go on and on about him? Why the hate? Its not like hes a real threat to you.

Fluffy | September 16, 2007, 5:18pm | #

Mr. Nice Guy -

OSHA dates from the Nixon Administration.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that workers in the 1960's - supposedly the Golden Age of American Labor, when UAW workers all had second homes and boats - were laboring in some sort of dytopia where they were covered with toxic waste all day and their oppressive bosses ground them down using the threat of the reserve army of the unemployed?

OK, Che. Whatever you say.

Edward | September 16, 2007, 5:22pm | #

Cesar,

I find it disgusting that a movement I admire for its many cogent positions on social issues destroys its credibility by supporting fools.

Why do you feed trolls?

Cesar | September 16, 2007, 5:26pm | #

I find it disgusting that a movement I admire for its many cogent positions on social issues destroys its credibility by supporting fools.

You think Ron Paul is a nut? Try Badnarik.

Why do you feed trolls?

Comic Relief?

Cesar | September 16, 2007, 5:28pm | #

BTW, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are nuts, too. Just in a different (and more dangerous) way.

The Helpful Submissive | September 16, 2007, 5:32pm | #

...afford the services of his Filipina dominatrix, ...

Filipina dominatrixes are vastly overrated. I generally go with the Macedonian, or Estonian doms. 4 stars services guaranteed.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 16, 2007, 5:46pm | #

"The "starve" statement can equally be made for employers. Without employees, the employer starves."
That's redonkulous. A millionaire and a pauper go without working. Who starves first? Waaaaay first. Now that's unequal bargaining power.
"OSHA dates from the Nixo