Hey, did anything happen this week? Ah, yes:
- Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary because of (pick any two): Barack Obama calling her "likeable enough" in the final debate, shock jocks heckling her about laundry, Clinton herself crying in a diner, or the marrow-deep racism of New Hampshire Democrats.
- John McCain won the New Hampshire primary because he got to run against Mitt Romney.
- McCain's victory gave him an uptick in national and state primary polls. Clinton got no such boost, and Obama won the endorsements of mighty Nevada unions, John Kerry, and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano.
- The New Republic reported on many years of Ron Paul's newsletters, containing more racist, homophobic and conspiratorial passages than had ever been publicized up to now.
Quote of the week:
"Within many of our own lifetimes, a man who looked like Barack Obama had a difficult time even using the public restrooms in our state. What is happening may well say a lot about America, and I do think as an early primary state we should earnestly shoulder our responsibility in determining how this part of history is ultimately written." - South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R)
Below the fold...
- As John McCain gets set to win the Michigan primary, Henry Payne pokes around in his environmental record.
- Lawrence O'Donnell compares John Edwards to Bull Conner, or something.
- Max Blumenthal takes a close look at Mike Huckabee's holy pals.
- Phil Klein discovers that it takes a woman to run a nanny state.
- Steve Sailer criticizes Christopher Hitchens criticizing Barack Obama.
This week's Politics 'n' Prog, in keeping with the themes of crying and severe depression, comes to us from Marillion. (If you're not crying halfway in, check out the outfit sported by mini-Fish.)
The Friday Political Thread: Gay Pedophiles and Tears Edition
Comments to "The Friday Political Thread: Gay Pedophiles and Tears Edition":
I | January 11, 2008, 6:41pm | #
What is this stuff I hear about Ron Paul having some association with racists or racism?Is there a link?
Edward | January 11, 2008, 6:42pm | #
Now that Ron Paul has been exposed for the disgusting wacko he is, my work here is done. Good luck to intelligent libertarians on purging the wackos from your ranks.stoneymonster | January 11, 2008, 6:46pm | #
Quoth the mighty EDWARDO:my work here is done.
Such a tease!
Ben | January 11, 2008, 7:01pm | #
That was Edward's final post! And he's never coming back! And he's going to sue the Urkobold! Ron Paul and his supporters suck!crimethink | January 11, 2008, 7:11pm | #
Epsiarch,Were you complaining when they did like 20 blog posts about the money bombs?
stoneymonster | January 11, 2008, 7:24pm | #
So I'm thinking of creating the H'n'R filesystem. The way it would work is it would take your data, chop it up, and hide it in various old Ron Paul posts here. Free storage!Mr. Nice Guy | January 11, 2008, 7:24pm | #
"Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary because of (pick any two): Barack Obama calling her "likeable enough" in the final debate, shock jocks heckling her about laundry, Clinton herself crying in a diner, or the marrow-deep racism of New Hampshire Democrats."Her positions may have just appealed more to New Hampshire Democrats, or they may have found her the stronger candidate for the general election. I always think these kind of "analyses" are a bit goofy.
"the endorsements of mighty Nevada unions"
To anyone who is anti-union "mighty union" means "having some influence"
Pete Mackin | January 11, 2008, 7:27pm | #
Hypocritical Bigots ChargeRon Paul with Bigotry!?!?
January 11, 2008
By Pete Mackin – The guilt by association crew is in full force this election season. However, the timing and viciousness of the attacks against Dr. Ron Paul are hypocritical beyond comprehension - bigots charging the least bigoted candidate of bigotry.
The guilt by association charge which is often leveled at Congressman Paul is, in its very foundation, a collectivist view. And collectivism is by definition racist. That’s where you get the common quotes, “you people” and other group labels. Daily reporters talk about “9/11 Truthers” supporting Dr. Paul. Or “white supremacists give Ron Paul money” and so on and so on. In truth, they are using the “you people” charge against Dr. Paul.
It’s not a surprise; they’ve also used guilt by association against Sen. Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney. In particular, they hang racist charges against their churches around their necks. I will not repeat those charges here, so as not to perpetuate bigotry.
It’s important to remember however, that the guilt by association charge was leveled at Jesus Christ by the political and religious leaders of his day in the trial that led to his crucifixion. The irony is that the whole point of Christianity is that our sin is associated with Christ’s sacrifice and therefore, our association with him through faith serves as our atonement for sin. He died for our sins, not his.
In this case, Dr. Paul is suffering charges of racism and lunacy for the “sins” of his followers. Any serious journalist, who takes time to pore through Rep. Paul’s voluminous congressional records – his library of books and speeches – or his vast collection of videos, will find nothing remotely similar to the words of these newsletters.
It’s also important to consider the source of this story and the person and publication being held up by the likes of CNN, MSNBC, National “Public” Radio and others. James Kurchick and The New Republic are the source of this “new” revelation that happened to break on the eve of the New Hampshire Primary – where Dr. Paul was expected to see his best turnout.
Let’s first look into The New Republic’s past. There’s Stephen Glass’ fabrication of a story called “Hack Heaven” in 1998. In 1995 Ruth Shalit was fired for repeated charges of plagiarism and factual errors. Lee Stiegal, who still writes for the publication called internet detractors of his “blogofacists” for revealing that he was ghostwriting support for himself, a charge he first denied and then turned out to be a liar. Good writer credentials there.
And of course you have The New Republic’s “Shock Troops” story from last July which spawned an investigation by the U.S. Army turning up factual errors and the fact that the anonymous soldier in the story was married to a magazine staffer. Now on to the “journalist” in question.
I’m guessing there will be some pending litigation in James Kirchick’s future, in that he slandered historian and author Thomas DiLorenzo who responded, “Only an ignorant conspiracy theorist like Jamie Kirchick would assume that anyone who studies secession in a scholarly way is necessarily some kind of KKK-sympathizing kook. He knows that Ron Paul will not sue him for defamation because he is a public figure. I, however, am not a public figure.”
Berin M. a blogger from the Gays and Lesbians for Paul website, notes that Kirchick is a gay activist who supports Rudy Giuliani and from conversations with him, feels slighted that the Log Cabin Republicans didn’t endorse Rudy. Berin writes, “As gays and lesbians, we should be able to see through the smear tactics of people like Kirchick to appreciate the true friends of freedom.
“Yes, Ron Paul should have exercised much closer scrutiny of things written in his name. One might fairly question his managerial skills--but he is no bigot. Paul articulates a consistent and coherent philosophy of politics that is deeply rooted in the liberal tradition,” he adds. “Those gays and lesbians who reject Paul's Constitutionalism in favor of candidates who might promise greater personal autonomy do themselves a great disservice. Institutions, constitutions and decentralization matter profoundly to sustainability of personal autonomy, as the doomed liberals of 1920s Weimer Germany would learn at the expense of Germany's gays, Jews and other minorities.”
Then there are the actual comments by presidential candidates. Sen. Hillary Clinton on Jan. 15, 2006 said that the Republican leaders have run the U.S. House of Representatives “like a plantation.” Or the speech where she introduced a quote saying, “It’s from Mahatma Gandhi. He ran a gas station down in St. Louis for a couple of years. A lot of wisdom comes out of that gas station.”
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani dressed in African attire and mocked an African lion for being lazy. He then tried to convince a zoo worker to let the lion free (not funny considering recent news reports) to find a job. I guess all Africans like to laze around collecting welfare.
Mitt Romney used the term “tar baby”, yikes! How about John McCain’s wonderful quote, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." As far as I can tell, former Gov. Mike Huckabee is most racist against white people.
He likes calling people racist for requiring illegal immigrants to prove citizenship before they could get a driver’s license and saying those who opposed his giving financial aid for college to illegal immigrants racist. And at a League of United Latin America Association, he told the crowd, “Pretty soon, southern white guys like me may be in the minority.”
Of course if you’re the Secretary of State or former Secretary of State or a distinguished senator from New York, you’re not qualified to be president according to Fred Thompson, because you’re be a woman. "This year, it's a man, and next year, it's going to be a man,'' said the actor and former US senator from Tennessee. "I can see no one else who's qualified to be president of the United States.''
Now, show me the direct quote for Rep. Ron Paul that proves he’s a racist - a video; an audio clip; anything from his congressional record or one of his books. I’ve never seen one. In fact, I’ve seen the exact opposite.
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups...The true antidote to racism is liberty...Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism." - Ron Paul, Dec. 24, 2002
J sub D | January 11, 2008, 7:28pm | #
- Henry Payne pokes around in his environmental record.This comment is a twofer.
As John McCain gets set to win the Michigan primary,
Don't bet on it. Romney's dad is fondly remebered here. This indicates too close to call.
Henry Payne pokes around in his environmental record.
It's an issue here, no doubt. On the front page of the states biggest newspaper, the Detroit Free Press was this article.
I'm voting Ron Paul, but I'd bet on Romney.
Diebold | January 11, 2008, 7:29pm | #
Polls don't lie MNGShe stole it with compromised electronic voting machines.There should be an investigation into the disenfranchisement of the Black New Hampshirean as well.
... | January 11, 2008, 7:30pm | #
TLDRMr. Nice Guy | January 11, 2008, 7:36pm | #
"There should be an investigation into the disenfranchisement of the Black New Hampshirean as well."All twelve of them?
Derek | January 11, 2008, 7:39pm | #
Get a load of this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59639"Add thermostats to the list of private property the government would like to regulate as the state of California looks to require that residents install remotely monitored temperature controls in their homes next year."
Man alive. And people on here are still throwing a fit over a handful of 15-year-old articles Ron Paul didn't write for newsletters he didn't edit. If this doesn't put that into perspective, what does? If you're withdrawing your support over what is really a relatively minor incident in a man's otherwise tremendous career, than start complaining when stuff like the above becomes the norm.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 11, 2008, 7:43pm | #
J sub DThanks for the link. I always get my polls from here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/
Where they had Huck up this morning.
I hope Huck or McCain wins. As you probably know I hate Romney, and while I want a Dem to win and think he will be way easier to beat than McCain, I just cannot get over my irrational (?) visceral dislike for such an unprincipled human (?) being...
Of course Huck is nearly completely insane, but there is no way he wins the nomination. Once it looks like it is going to be him the GOP machine will swoop down and eat him (it already is doing it, can you think of one major GOP magazine or website that isn't piling on Huck right now?). So imo Huck's main attraction is he ends Romney's run. Then its between Rudy and McCain, both of whom I can live with (though I want to give a shout out to fluffy, I read an article in the next-to-recent New Yorker on Rudy's mayoral rule, and that guy indeed is the authoritarian paranoid nepotistic d*ckweed you've always said he was)...
Grand Chalupa | January 11, 2008, 7:45pm | #
Speaking of that piece of shit Hitchens, who I never get tired of attacking due to him being the only apologist for mass murder accepted into the Beltway covo, here's an old article I found from the American Conservative appropriately titled "The Purest Neocon"Hitchens has never apologized for his Trotskyism. As he told British writer Johann Hari in October 2004, “I don’t regret anything. ... [The socialist movement’s] achievements were real, and I’m glad I was a part of it.” And in the July/August 2004 issue of The Atlantic, Hitchens wrote a hagiographic essay about a figure whom he claimed “always was … a prophetic moralist.” Hitchens was not writing about Mother Teresa or John Paul II, but about Leon Trotsky—a man who was an active participant in and apologist for Lenin’s Red Terror, the inventor of the “blocking units” that would gun down Russian troops foolish enough to defy the commissars by retreating, and the author of such witty aphorisms as “We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life.”
Hitchens also took Amis to task for Koba the Dread in The Atlantic, criticizing him for suggesting the dreaded moral equivalence between the Nazis and the Communists and for wondering if the right side won the Russian Civil War. Hitchens’s dogged determination to defend Lenin shows that he is, at heart, as intense a believer as any radical Islamist. After all, it was one thing to believe in 1917 that the Bolsheviks might be better than the Romanovs; it is quite another to believe that still today, tens of millions of corpses later.
Amis had also made the mistake, in a letter to Hitchens, of urging his friend to turn his back on Trotsky because Hitchens’s “prophetic moralist” was really a “nun-killer.” Amis should have realized that an appeal based on sympathy for nuns was hardly the way to his friend’s heart, and Hitchens responded by mocking Amis for having a “special horror of Bolshevik anti-clericalism.” What Amis has a “special horror of” is eloquently described in his book: a regime that killed 2,691 priests, 1,962 monks, and 3,447 nuns of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1922 alone. None of this bloodshed bothers Hitchens, who has recently written that “Secularism ... only became thinkable after several wars and revolutions had ruthlessly smashed the hold of the clergy on the state.” Since the American Revolution did not produce a single executed clergyman, Hitchens is here singing the praises of the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks.
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_10/article3.html
Reason of course gladly invited him to their Christmas party. Ron Paul (if he actually partied) probably won't be invited next year. At least no one can accuse Hitchens of racism.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 11, 2008, 7:47pm | #
I predict Hillary gets whomped in SC btw, by 5-10 points...Now that Obama seems viable I see him getting the bulk of the AA vote there. The endorsements are going to keep rolling in for Obama: endorsing him makes you look tolerant and helps secure and mollify the AA vote for you. It's really a no lose situation for most Democratic politicians...With Hillary's strong negatives its risky to endorse her.I caught Obama on Tyra Banks today and he was very sharp. I like the guy, I just think the GOP attack machine will grind that guy up like hamburger...
J sub D | January 11, 2008, 7:48pm | #
Get a load of this:My favorite part of the link -
Claudia Chandler, assistant executive director for the California Energy Commission, told WND the new systems would be highly beneficial to residents.
It made me want to punch her. Repeatedly.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 11, 2008, 7:50pm | #
I also would consider it DELICIOUS if Romney, with his whorish religion baiting and trumpeting, were to get beat by the very folks he so basedly courts. Ah, poetic irony...Mr. Nice Guy | January 11, 2008, 7:56pm | #
While I'm making picks, I would not be surprised at all for the Seahawks to upset GB and the Chargers to upset the Colts.I don't see Dallas or the Pats losing though.
J sub D | January 11, 2008, 8:01pm | #
Just to show y'all how slow I can be. I was momentarily thrown by the term AA vote. Alcoholics Anonymous? I figgered it out, but darn I can be dense sometimes.What surprises me is this from my second link.
The Free Press sent questions to eight top candidates asking their views on tackling invasive species, fixing global warming, diverting Great Lakes water to parched states and supporting $20 billion in funding to restore the lakes, from rebuilding sewers to repairing wetlands.
Only Republican Mitt Romney, a Michigan native, responded.
The largest circulation in the state. On the front page. I think it matters. Even GOPers in Michigan are concered about the environment.
J sub D | January 11, 2008, 8:15pm | #
Once it looks like it is going to be him the GOP machine will swoop down and eat him ...MNG, He get's the ax this weekend. Crysty says so.
[retching while typing] From The Nation's article about Huckabee.
As Cole told me, "To date there's well over 139 prophecies that have come to pass exactly as the Lord says. Mike believes those things. Anyone with any Bible knowledge would have to say that this looks like the time. We're so close to the Lord's return."
Read that link, folks. Then tell this atheist what is so darn good about Christians.
That people will vote for this ignorant, hillbilly, whack job preacher is beyond me.
Bingo | January 11, 2008, 8:25pm | #
That people will vote for this ignorant, hillbilly, whack job preacher is beyond me.- Jesus
- For the children
- USA USA USA
It's the winning combination for the GOP primary, J sub D!
Mike Laursen | January 11, 2008, 8:26pm | #
Well, we know it wasn't Sanford ghost writing those articles for the Ron Paul newsletter. Was that a really, really veiled racist comment or a really, really veiled racially-tolerant comment?I heard there is going to be a recount in NH? Isn't that worthy of a mention?
Plant Immigration Rights Suporter | January 11, 2008, 8:30pm | #
"Read that link, folks. Then tell this atheist what is so darn good about Christians.That people will vote for this ignorant, hillbilly, whack job preacher is beyond me."
I am an ignostic and I have to say that there are Christians and there are Christians. I wouldn't mind having a bunch of Quakers as a neighbors or living in an Amish Community because those types of Christians are not generally going to shove THE GOD'S WORD down your gullet. The Huckabee type Christian on the other hand . . . That is a whole other story.
prolefeed | January 11, 2008, 8:30pm | #
Claudia Chandler, assistant executive director for the California Energy Commission, told WND the new systems would be highly beneficial to residents.I'm sure that'll be their POV when they put the non-removable chips in their arms, too.
I'd say I'm glad I escaped from California, but arguably Hawaii is right behind CA in the nanny-statism race to the bottom.
Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | January 11, 2008, 8:33pm | #
SIV, you are right. They are definately nativists :-)jp | January 11, 2008, 8:38pm | #
Well, we know it wasn't Sanford ghost writing those articles for the Ron Paul newsletter. Was that a really, really veiled racist comment or a really, really veiled racially-tolerant comment?I was wondering the same thing. Just what the heck was he trying to say (or not say)?
David E. Gallaher | January 11, 2008, 8:51pm | #
Remind me to pass along the joke about how Opporknockity only tunes once.I say that to say RP is out of resonance with the hoi polloi.
Political contests will never be about ideas. They will always be about being in tune and resonance.
To make matters worse, who the hell would want to be in resonance with the hoi polloi? p u
I'm not here trying to peel away a few voters to convert them to non-voting peaceful anarchists such as moi. Anarchists have nothing to offer.
But what if nothing is all there is? Except for peace and love, which could be all there is. Which is something, come to think.
...Ruthless
The Wine Commonsewer | January 11, 2008, 9:21pm | #
my work here is done.Yeah, we've heard that before.
Political contests will never be about ideas
Had lunch today with a guy who plans to vote for Obama. Why: He's young, charming, and my guy wants to see a couple of rug rats running around the White House ("like Kennedy").
Guy thought RP was off his rocker to propose abolishing the income tax even though my guy hates taxes almost as much as he hates Mexicans (wants that wall built, and right now) and not quite as much as he dislikes blacks.
How that squares with a vote for Obama?
[shrugs]
The Wine Commonsewer | January 11, 2008, 9:24pm | #
Yer dating yourself with that Opporknockitty stuff.I'm pouring some wine and gonna watch Deja Vu with the family.
Glass is half empty or better, so it behooves to enjoy life a bit before they send the black helicopters and barricade your street.
The Wine Commonsewer | January 11, 2008, 9:26pm | #
Prole, you keep talking about Hawaii, God Love You! Damn if I don't need a couple of acres of coffee looking across the Pacific somewhere south of Captain Cook on the Big Island.My take on Hawaii, is that they're bad news but they're so disorganized and laid back that it doesn't matter.
Where do you call home? Brah.
Ali | January 11, 2008, 9:33pm | #
Oh... there is a lot to catch up on. It has been a crazy week and those RP threads were formidable in length that I did not know what to say.While I personally feel somewhat "betrayed" by Ron Paul (it was sad to see a potentially dark side of the man who I thought had almost a perfect integrity, regardless of specific political views), I am still a fan of Paul. Have you seen how he did yesterday in the debate? Wow!
The Wine Commonsewer | January 11, 2008, 9:42pm | #
Oh, that would be Deja Vu, starring Denzel Washington, thus proving I ain't no racist.Hoo | January 11, 2008, 9:55pm | #
Now if Al Gore were running for president, people who think global warming was the most pressing political issue on the table, would still vote for him, regardless to what extent his personal uses of energy were contributing to warming. They'd vote for him because they believe his *policies* would lead to less warming.There's good evidence that Bill Clinton was guilty of sex harassment at the very least, but feminists still supported him in droves because they believed his polices would advance their power.
Despite the fact I am personally disappointed with Ron Paul I am still voting for him because I think his political positions not only support full equality of opportunity before the law and will lead to bettering conditions for all races (especially minorities) but also because he's one of the few candidates who hasn't been mealy mouthed about his opposition to the war; more importantly he's a strict non-interventionist and he's the only candidate who would end the drug war as well as the income tax. I can't see how the other candidates can even compare.
Not to excuse these newsletters (Paul ought to come clean) but as Pete Mackin quotes above, numerous political figures have been caught making racist comments *themselves* - worse sins than Paul surely. Then there's Sharpton's anti-semitism as well as Jackson's (anyone remember "heimy town"?).
I have no idea to what extent Paul might actually hold at least latent racist views himself. But then again, just about everyone I know, including most liberals, have revealed racist or ethnocentric, or homophobic feelings from time to time. My guess is that most people are nominally somewhat racist even if they support full equality in political terms. At the very least, just about everyone has a tendency, on some occasions, to overgeneralize about some group or other based on a very small sample size of experience with members of one group. That might not be about race or homophobia - might even be about hair color of women, political preference, white men with Asian girlfriends, black men with white girlfriends, older men dating younger women, older women dating younger men, computer programmers, environmentalists.
In short, despite personal disappointment with Paul, it's just asinine and naive to change one's vote over something like this; it's the policies that candidates support that matter.
prolefeed | January 11, 2008, 9:56pm | #
TWC -- My home is on the Windward side of Oahu, in Kailua.The Democrats in the legislature, having virtually no Republicans to oppose them, have split into about five different squabbling factions -- five different degrees of statism -- but still manage to unite and pass bad stuff every year. The main trick to surviving the politics here when you're a borderline anarcho-capitalist like me is to be in a constant mild state of denial --concentrate on the cooling breezes and fluffy clouds, and pretend that The Big Square building downtown shaped like a volcano is really a power plant, or a kitten sanctuary, and isn't *really* full of sociopaths who want to take your freedom away bit by bit.
My daughter was prepping for a test on the Bill of Rights, and so I disabused her of the statist claptrap her teacher was stuffing in her head and read through it sentence by sentence, explaining which parts were being violated. Then I showed her our tax return, shocking her with how much money they'd stolen. Then I showed her the Nolan test, where she scored 100% on economics and social freedom. Out of curiousity, took her to the Libertarian Purity Test website (where I score in the low 100s) and she got a perfect 160.
Didn't know whether to be proud of her, or worried that I had failed to communicate the nuances of just how difficult is would be to eliminate all government in its entirety. Still, better that's her starting point than a perfect statist score of 0.
What's up with the people in Hawaii. I am bombarded by one almost on a daily basis. What's happening in Hawaii that is repelling people? Not enough sun?
Jacob | January 11, 2008, 10:17pm | #
To be fair, I lost a lot of respect for MLK after learning that he was a gay pedophile.Juan | January 11, 2008, 10:19pm | #
Out of curiosity, I just took the aforementioned Libertarian Purity test. Will you guys kick me out for being a statist wacko after scoring a 38?prolefeed | January 11, 2008, 10:21pm | #
Ali -- Your post appeared to come through a bit garbled. Are catapults regularly tossing hapless Hawaiians through the air into your vicinity? Isn't there some kind of law against this? Or did I misunderstand that whole "bombarded" thing?* Checks to see if having adverse drug reaction causing hallucinations.
With concern, prolefeed ;)
Juan -- 38 is a solid, respectable score on the Libertarian Purity Test. Most of the people I know would score lower than that. It's the folks in the low single digits that need some intensive coaching.
prolefeed- Sorry. Did not mean to be mean. Just forgot to put a smiley face at the end of my quote. Here, you'll see why. The first one I met was a prof from U. Hawaii in Manoa. The second is a very successful entrepreneur who I met yesterday and today in fact. And there were a few more with that caliber. And of course, now, you. So I did not mean it negatively at all. Sorry again.
Racist! Racist! He said... | January 11, 2008, 11:09pm | #
rug ratsRogerX | January 11, 2008, 11:24pm | #
http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh262/tatsuma_fark/publisher.jpgSo... why isn't anyone discussing Jean McIver, the current Texas RP Field Coordinator who was "subscription manager" for the racist/homophobic RP newsletters?
Not a single mention outside fark.com? There are some google results from the Ron Paul forums that have been purged... talk about a Conspiracy Theory. :)
some ungrateful slob | January 11, 2008, 11:31pm | #
Bye Edward.Don't the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!
anonymous request | January 11, 2008, 11:34pm | #
This is OT but I figure it is almost an open thread and it is at least related to issues libertarians are concerned with - dealing with the police. Maybe some lawyers read this too...Here's the story: An acquaintance of mine (yes, that is true, it's not me) did something pretty stupid, she used a friend's (no, not mine) debit card to steal something on the order of $1000 from the bank. The bank not being so stupid questioned the friend about her "stolen" debit card showed her the atm pictures of the "theif" using it and asked if she recognized her. Well the friend being equally as stupid and probably rightfully scared at this point said it looked like it "could be" the girl it in fact is... so, the police are scheduled (is it normal for them to make appointments for this kind of thing?) to come by tomorrow morning to talk to her. So the question is, what should / can she say to the police? Obviously I know she has a 5th amendment right not to incriminate herself, but she's young, troubled (has been hospitalized for an eating disorder and an attempted suicide) so she may not be the most stable person to be making rational thoughtful choices when the police come knocking. I assume that since they didn't just get an arrest warrant and pick her up already the the friend's pseudo-identification wasn't enough for them... So, if she automatically demands a lawyer I imagine the police will say something like "if you want to go that route we can make this very difficult and you're looking at X number of years in the slammer - or you can make it easy on yourself and talk." Also, I know that if you're charged with a crime the state will provide an attorney, but since she has not yet been charged, and has very little money (blew the grand already I guess) is there any way she can get an attorney for this "questioning." What are the rules about how much they can question you before it is essentially an arrest? And since they're coming by on a Sat. morning, is there anyway you know of that she could get someone in time? Also, does the fact that she confessed this to me mean for my obligations should they come to talk to me? Can I refuse to answer even though I'm not involved in the actual crime, or is that obstruction? Also, what does her confessing this to me mean as far as my obligation to answer questions should they somehow find me and come asking (maybe they look at phone or email records and see that we've spoken a lot recently for example0? Do I have to talk or can I refuse? Ok, sorry for my threadjack, but if anyone has some knowledge and / or advice on this kind of thing (I've never had any experience at all dealing with the police beyond a speeding ticket myself).
TLB | January 12, 2008, 12:01am | #
1. Once again, here's an opportunity for Reason to do some real reporting. Look into, for instance, the "conspiracy" charges and determine how probable they are. If you haven't already, see my infamous discussion of the New Republic article. Turns out that one of those "conspiracy theories" has a pretty good sized grain of truth. Also turns out that the author is a complete establishment suck-up.2. Once again, the Reason response to the TNR piece was completely anemic. They're like a lawyer who, instead of fighting the charges, not only agrees with the prosecutor but won't fight over things like venue and asks for more time for their client.
3. Perhaps one explanation for the response is laid out here in the comment from "formerbeltwaywonk".
4. As far as I'm concerned, Max Blumenthal has no credibility. I didn't bother with the current article, but I'd feel a lot better about it if Weigel would mention whether he had verified its contents.
5. This week's antidote for this week's prog is offered here. The title is also quite appropriate for some of the contributors to Reason.
oceans | January 12, 2008, 12:25am | #
curious about the Libertarian Purity Test - I scored a 60 and scored in the same range a couple of times earlier (Medium-core libertarian, iirc), but i find most of the anti-war hysteria here hilarious (e.g. ranting about "murdering civilians in foreign countries" and "living in a police state" etc.)can someone enlighten me? since Ron Paul won't be elected, who might be an acceptable alternative candidate (less bad, if that pleases you)?
The Wine Commonsewer | January 12, 2008, 12:33am | #
Prole, I am impressed with your daughter. Maybe it's high time I began some serious indoctrination, er ah, education here at the casa.Time was that libertarians were against kids. That's changed and now there is a whole slew of kids being raised by libertarians. Prolly a good thing.
And on an unrelated note (ok, slightly related note), Mrs TWC is pretty well acquainted with a guy who heads up a sort-of libertarian org across the hill from you called the Grass Roots Institute. Name is Dick Rowland.
The Wine Commonsewer | January 12, 2008, 12:39am | #
BTW, TWC scored 147 out of 160 on the libertarian purity test (which I had never heard of until today).Guess that means me and Prole's daughter will be on the wrong side of the barricades when the Night of the Long Knives comes.
Oh, should have said Grass Roots Institute of HAWAII.
sixstring | January 12, 2008, 12:46am | #
anonymous request--She's probably not looking at jail time, though it is possible. Assuming this is the first offense, she will probably need to plead guilty and pay a fine (usually a donation of 2x of what was stolen to a local charity like a firehouse). In most cases, people don't go to jail over a $1k mistake. Please don't ask me how I know this.
John C. Randolph | January 12, 2008, 1:15am | #
"remotely monitored temperature controls"Looks like time to move to Nevada.
-jcr
highnumber | January 12, 2008, 1:37am | #
Ruthless wins the thread, the world, everything.I scored 154 on the purity test, btw.
John C. Randolph | January 12, 2008, 1:56am | #
If Reason Magazine was headquartered in Las Vegas, there'd be a hell of a lot less sucking up to politicians and their staffers.-jcr
prolefeed | January 12, 2008, 2:17am | #
Re: the Purity Test -- there's no winning the damn thing, it's more an imperfect measure of how you fall on the left-lib versus minarchist vs. anarcho-capitalist continuum. IMO, you can however lose the thing, since virtually our entire state legislature would score in the single digits, and arguably half would receive a zero.Basterts.
TWC -- I know Dick Rowland quite well -- fascinating guy, a bit of like Ron Paul, a crusty free market conservative bordering on right-libertarian. Got to know him because one of the many letters to the editors I've got published in the local papers advocating free market principles caught his eye, so he contacted me and got me on the mailing list to the free Hillsdale College newsletter, Imprimis (recommend everyone here check it out, a thoughtful monthly speech extract by noted figures on items of libertarian interest). Recently Dick twice offered me jobs with his Grass Roots Institute. I thought it over, then turned both offers down -- not enough pay, and not quite what I wanted to spend my time on compared to raising my kids and holding down the fort while my wife earns the big bucks.
Which is perhaps a rationalization for being a lazy sumbitch who won't take a job even when it falls right into his lap. Dunno.
prolefeed | January 12, 2008, 2:34am | #
Time was that libertarians were against kids. That's changed and now there is a whole slew of kids being raised by libertarians. Prolly a good thing.That's part of why I think it's self-defeating to claim REAL libertarians have to be pro-choice. It's a lot easier to raise your own kids to have a libertarian outlook if you have a chance to point out the claptrap they're being fed in school, than if you try to change the minds of adult acquaintences who've bought into the statist party line.
If the upcoming generation of libertarians are mostly aborted, much harder to grow a movement if you have to reconvert each and every generation after their formative years.
There's a reason the Mormon church is growing so fast -- it's a staunchly pro-life movement with an insatiable emphasis on having huge families. A hundred years from now, it's quite possible that the Mormon church will be the majority of citizens in the U.S. Which is why I'm worried about trying to get it to return to its libertarian roots instead of continuing down the authoritarian conservative (but oh so very sweet and pleasant) culture it currently embraces.
I really, really like the people, but I'm more than a little concerned about a suffocatingly righteous theocracy when or if the tipping point is reached and 50% of the populace is LDS. Some of the leadership scares the whiz out of me, in a cotton candy velvety glove kind of way if you know what I mean.
Sorry for the threadjack, but nobody in the meatworld I know who I can talk to about this stuff.
John C. Randolph | January 12, 2008, 2:38am | #
" I'm worried about trying to get it to return to its libertarian roots "The Mormon church? Are you serious? They started out as totalitarian theocracy.
-jcr
John C. Randolph | January 12, 2008, 2:40am | #
" At least no one can accuse Hitchens of racism."You can *accuse* anyone of anything, as TNR demonstrated last week.
-jcr
prolefeed | January 12, 2008, 2:51am | #
" I'm worried about trying to get it to return to its libertarian roots "The Mormon church? Are you serious? They started out as totalitarian theocracy.
No argument there, jcr, and they still a totalitarian theocracy, though in a much more nicey-nice, oh so very painfully pleasant and helpful way. Let me rephrase my poorly worded thoughts -- the essence of Mormon theology is on "agency", what most non-LDS would call "free agency". The official POV is that we all are here on earth to see whether we will voluntarily choose to behave in such a way so that we can return to our Heavenly Father, and that it is the work of the Devil to take away those choices, no matter how misguided our behavior. All very libertarian. But in practice, heavily LDS states like Utah have have enacted some of the most egregiously heavy-handed attempts to FORCE us to be good via laws, even though that contradicts the whole point of agency.
Thus, Mitt Romney's authoritarianism, which I submit is due to him absorbing the often sheeplike Mormon culture of blind obedience to the current Prophet/President and not being rebellious and independent-minded enough to understand the scriptures advocating letting people screw up their lives, and relying solely on persuasion to get them to change their behavior.
I was trying for brevity, but apparently sacrificed clarity in the process. My bad.
Quiet_Desperation | January 12, 2008, 3:08am | #
"Add thermostats to the list of private property the government would like to regulate"No worries. John & Ken are all over it, and the Mob is in motion. Government phone banks were reduced to smoking rubble this week from the call volume.
John C. Randolph | January 12, 2008, 3:24am | #
Prolefeed,From what I've seen of Romney, his authoritarianism is based in ego, not theology or any other aspect of his upbringing. Just like Hillary, he considers himself so awesome that he's entitled to tell us what to do.
-jcr
prolefeed, thanks for mentioning the Purity Test, I'd never heard of it before. I thought I was a fairly radical libertarian, but I only scored 85. To be fair, I answered "no" for a lot of questions where the real answer is "I don't know."
The Real Bill | January 12, 2008, 7:04am | #
The Libertarian Purity Test is not a libertarian purity test; it is an anarcho-capitalist purity test.DavidS | January 12, 2008, 7:18am | #
My daughter... Out of curiousity, took her to the Libertarian Purity Test website (where I score in the low 100s) and she got a perfect 160.Didn't know whether to be proud of her, or worried that I had failed to communicate the nuances of just how difficult is would be to eliminate all government in its entirety.
This is supposed to be a parody, right?
Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 12, 2008, 8:10am | #
I just want to get an early jump on the "Ron Paul was eliminated by The Establishment" meme that I can hear idling on the runway. It won't be long before the "fringe" starts to work on a revisionist history of the 2008 presidential campaign. In this "alternate history," Ron Paul was surging to win New Hampshire when the (please select one):1) the Tri-Lateral Commission; 2) the Bilderberg Group; 3) the CIA; 4) al Qaeda; ) the Council on Foreign Relations; 5) Israel; 6) Reason Magazine; 7) a guy named "Bob"
fabricated the newsletter stories to destroy Paul's credibility. They manipulated poll data both before and after New Hampshire to supress Paul's popularity. They also infiltrated the staff of Reason magazine to make it seem as if Paul had lost support among libertarians. They eliminated Ron Paul when he became a threat to the New World Order and the American sheeple will never understand what we do, because we know and they are stupid.
And that's why I won't do two shows a night.
tarran | January 12, 2008, 8:28am | #
I got a 154. All of you, with the exception of highnumber are a bunch of statist establishmentarians! ;)The Libertarian Purity Test is not a libertarian purity test; it is an anarcho-capitalist purity test.That's because pure libertarianism is anarchocapitalism. When one has a libertarian position on some question of public policy, the guiding principle is the absence of initiated force or fraud in a transaction. Apply this principle to all political questions and out pops free market anarchism.
I have found that most libertarians don't object to the free-market anarchism because they feel it philosophically violates libertarian principles but because they think that an anarchy will devolve into violent chaos as competing groups fight each other for power, and that this can best be prevented by a night-watchman state. This is, in their mind, a practical compromise.
With that being said I don't think a free market anarchist will get a perfect score; two questions have non-libertarian answers as "the libertarian choice". The question about abolishing the Fed and "freezing the monetary base" and the one asking if economic regulation is "unconstitutional". Let's see, how exactly do you "freeze" a monetary base? Point guns at anyone who tries to mine more gold? It's by definition unlibertarian. Additionally, you may feel, as I do, that economic regulation is bad, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. The constitution clearly grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Obviously Madison thought that meant to encourage it rather than suppress it, however just because the power is misused does not mean it's not there.
DavidS | January 12, 2008, 8:55am | #
All of which is rather besides the point, tarran, if you believe the constitution is illegitimate and should be abolished (which you must do if you're to answer yes to all the other 'purity' questions).Could you also explain how society can avoid devolving "into violent chaos as competing groups fight each other for power", if you believe "vigilante justice" should be a key regulating principle?
jimmy smith | January 12, 2008, 9:06am | #
I ain't takin' no damned test to prove my libertarian cajones. I am what I am. (besides I might not do well). I don't need no stinkin' badges. My few friends know I support Ron Paul.ed | January 12, 2008, 9:18am | #
Isn't there something pathetic and embarrassing about this emphasis on shade? And why is a man with a white mother considered to be "black," anyway?Indeed. Hitchens is typically astute here. Which makes "progressives" uneasy.
If Obama were entirely white instead of half-white, would anyone pay attention to him?
The fact that we are paying attention to him is in itself racist. "Oooh, look at the articulate black man!" If this is progress, then we still have a long way to go.
Prolefeed, I'm with you. Send the wife off and raise the kids yourself. Unfortunately my wife spends the family fortune trying to boost her store's sales numbers, so I have to work too. Anyway, growing up at dad's business instead of at a socialist day care will hopefully pay off for them. I must say it's making it hard for my first girl to follow the public school uniform code. I'm so proud of her!
Putter | January 12, 2008, 9:29am | #
fabricated the newsletter stories to destroy Paul's credibility. They manipulated poll data both before and after New Hampshire to supress Paul's popularity.Close. They long ago infiltrated the movement and created the newsletters themselves, to ensure that Ron Paul would have no chance of moving beyonf the fringes, and also to taint the message of libertarianism.
It seems that Reason should get out of Washington, they are being corrupted by PCness and love of power. A lot people here seem more concerned with questionable views held by someone associated with Ron rather than the pro peace and pro liberty views that Ron holds-shameful. Not sure what "perfect" libertarian you are waiting to support.
palmer | January 12, 2008, 10:02am | #
I wish Hit & Run would avoid linking to Steve Sailer altogether.Hate and Violence, Inc | January 12, 2008, 10:11am | #
But what if nothing is all there is? Except for peace and love, which could be all there is.In you face, Peace and love!
We're #1, We're #1.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 12, 2008, 10:27am | #
"A hundred years from now, it's quite possible that the Mormon church will be the majority of citizens in the U.S. Which is why I'm worried about trying to get it to return to its libertarian roots instead of continuing down the authoritarian conservative (but oh so very sweet and pleasant) culture it currently embraces."prolfeed-I think I agree with you about the Mormon Church's stance. You know, it strikes me that the political figure that most comes to mind when I watch Mike Huckabee is Orrin Hatch (not to say Hatch speaks for all Mormons, or for that matter anyone does). Hatch had all the religious devotion, but also the calm, nice demeanor and a willingness to have government exhibit "compassionate conservatism" especially when it came to children.
I have to say I admire the "compassionate" type of conservative more than the usual garden variety. To paraphrase Patrick Moyhinhan many conservatives think life beings, and ends, at conception. These types are more interested in the control of folks than actually having a belief that conservatism can help more people live a better life. The compassionate conservative that is consistent at least has a genuine belief they are helping make society a better place.
I know there isn't going to be a perfect libertarian. But there's a huge leap from, say, being a pro-life libertarian to one who, at best, is so simpatico with bigots that he let them write stuff in his name without speaking out about it and, at worst, is slightly to the right of David Duke in terms of racial policy. It's been said that antisemitism is the socialism of fools, and anyone spouting that nonsense (as well as racism and homophobia) can't be a libertarian. Free as his market sense may be, his mind isn't.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 12, 2008, 10:28am | #
That should read "begins, and ends, with conception"lunchstealer | January 12, 2008, 10:32am | #
- Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary because of (pick any two): Barack Obama calling her "likeable enough" in the final debate, shock jocks heckling her about laundry, Clinton herself crying in a diner, or the marrow-deep racism of New Hampshire Democrats.Don't forget all those midnight sacrifices on the solstices and each equinox. All those centuries spent biding her time before finding exactly the right human body to inhabit also didn't hurt.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 12, 2008, 10:38am | #
I got a 21!That test had some nutty stuff "should the law itself be privatized." Boy, that was good for a kneeslapper!
The "yes" or "no" forced alternatives for questions like "should welfare be abolished" or "does the government spend too much" were crazy. But one of the things that I think makes libertarianism attractive to many is how it abolishes nuance and gives people a simple formula to determine their position on anything (government=good, markets=good). That's what religions are good for!
yoshi | January 12, 2008, 10:47am | #
Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primaryAm I the only one who finds it annoying that everyone is calling this a win? Both got 9 delegates so its a tie. And its the delegates that matter.
Jack W | January 12, 2008, 10:52am | #
John McCain was racist in the SC debate, read it here:John McCain racist in SC debate
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
J sub D | January 12, 2008, 10:57am | #
I scored a 58, leaving some poorly phrased questions blank (not everything can be answerd with a yes or no). Apparently I am "a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much."Yeah, that's me.
Fluffy | January 12, 2008, 11:11am | #
I got a 110, because I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, and because I don't think that a government which limited itself to protecting the rights of its citizens would be any kind of "evil", even a "necessary one". That sort of government would be a good.After all, since the test seems to want a positive response to the vigilante justice question, viewing ALL government as evil would contradict that desired answer. If I can justly act in my own defense, I can justly delegate my defense to a third party, even the state.
greg | January 12, 2008, 11:12am | #
So it appears that former freelance Reason contributer Dan McCarthy is now a grassroots blog contributer to Ron Paul's official campaign on his "Daily Dose" up at ronpaul2008.comNutter | January 12, 2008, 11:35am | #
The compassionate conservative that is consistent at least has a genuine belief they are helping make society a better place.That sounds like a slander on other conservatives. I'm sorry if we aren't "genuine" enough for you.
Mr. Nice Guy | January 12, 2008, 11:40am | #
"The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus,detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly."Not quite right...
1. War in Iraq: A majority of the Democrats in the House and nearly half of them in the Senate (compared to only one GOPer in the Senate) opposed the Authorization to Use Military Force. Since then the Democrats have voted in majorities (and against GOP majorities) to enact a timetable to end the war, but it has been blocked by a filibuster by the GOP.
2. Habeas Corpus: A majority of Democrats in both the Senate and the House voted AGAINST the Military Commissions Act (which is what I imagine what you mean by habeas corpus).
3. Wiretapping: 28 Senators opposed the 2007 FISA bill. All were Democrats (a majority of the party in the Senate). A majority of the Democrats (181) in the House opposed the bill. Only 2 of the over 200 Republicans did.
I'm not sure what you are talking about with the other examples (the banned book or the detainted protestors).
The Dem party is not blameless, but they are not NEARLY as much to blame as the GOP for the above problems...
Mr. Nice Guy | January 12, 2008, 11:44am | #
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_20022. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act#Final_passage_in_the_Senate
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Amendments
libertreee | January 12, 2008, 12:00pm | #
Fluffy--The delegation of self defense to the state is indeed the heart of the minarchist argument.AS Rothbard points out, the problems with this are that you are delegating that power to what in reality is an almost blind monopoly power.
Now we get also into Hayek. No government has the knowledge necessary, or the incentive required, to limit itself to the simple defense of liberty.
Also we have to consider nation state theory as well, if we talk about national defense. As geographical monopolies, the nation states are always looking to expand their power geographically. The classical liberal idea of neutrality and non intervention has been just that--a seldom fulfilled ideal over the history of the US.
dodsworth | January 12, 2008, 12:05pm | #
Todd:Paul did speak out back in 2001 (when he didn't have to) when he VOLUNTEERED to the Texas Monthly that he did not agree with the racist stuff, was sorry for it, and didn't write it. To the right of David Duke? Give me a break.
BTW, who do you think is a better candidate than Paul?
libertreee | January 12, 2008, 12:06pm | #
Lew Rockwell points out in his blog today that the newsletter flap over Ron Paul was probably NOT just a New Republic reporter initiated flap.The writing appears to have been collaborated with someone from a 'certain Washington DC think tank".
He points out that the reporter researched this material at a library in Kansas. Kansas is the home state of the Koch brothers, who support CATO. Coincidence?
All I care about, as I said before, is that Ron Paul is the Best thing at the right time for libertarians, and the nation and world as well. Go Ron Paul!
J sub D | January 12, 2008, 12:06pm | #
Compassionate conservative? Ask the detainees at Gitmo, the raided medical marijuana clinic operators and users in California, and the tens of thousands of crippled Iraq and Afghanistan vets receiving parsimonious health care if they feel the compassion. Then duck.Yeah, that's worked out so well we should do it all over again.
I don't want "compassion" from the knuckleheads in DC. I especially don't want it from some ignorant, hillbilly preacher who thinks Jesus' return is at hand. I just want to be left alone. To succeed or fail on my own merits, and let the chips fall where they may. Oh wait, that would require people to take responsibility for their own actions and recognize that life isn't always fair. Just like their mommy tried to teach them. Is that too much to ask?
If you want help "people live a better life", I direct you to here, here or, one of my favorites, here. Just get your stinkin' hand out of my wallet.
sage | January 12, 2008, 12:15pm | #
TWC, what did you think of Deja Vu? I really liked it, shame I couldn't bootleg it.DW's movies have been hit or miss for me. I like Training Day, but hated John Q, Man on Fire, The Manchurianzzzzzz, I'm Gonna Git You Sucka, etc.
Todd | January 12, 2008, 12:31pm | #
Dodsworth: To be fair, I didn't say he wrote it. But only an idiot would think that by hanging around such types, and letting him write stuff under his name, that he wouldn't bring himself up for some major scrutiny. I'll put it to you like this: if you hung around car thieves, had a website with your name on it where such car thieves talked how they stole cars, and had car thieves in major positions in your organization, you'd better not be surprised when the police keep running your tags for stolen property. I think that's the principle at hand here.Now to be fair, his newsletters haven't altered his positions, and I also do understand that he's politically a lot closer than any of the candidates (save for maybe Obama with regard to some foreign policy matters). That said, I can't, in good conscience, hang around someone who would hang around people who'd rather bring back slavery. I think Dr. Paul's appearance on Meet the Press has proven prescient with his sloppiness, and that perhaps the movement could use a better standard-bearer. Fair enough?
Neu Mejican | January 12, 2008, 12:44pm | #
Why aren't more of you up in arms about being subjected to Marillion.Ick.
max | January 12, 2008, 12:51pm | #
"and that perhaps the movement could use a better standard-bearer. Fair enough?"Let me know when you find that mythical, no warts libertarian to support.
Bingo | January 12, 2008, 12:53pm | #
So whats the half-life of the whole newsletter story because I can't wait until that fades away so we can continue battering each other about different topicsNutter | January 12, 2008, 12:58pm | #
Let me know when you find that mythical, no warts libertarian to support.How about finding one who has a wart or two, warts that we know about and have discussed a few times over the years, and hope that the outside world hasn't noticed them.
Then when the MSM does a story about said wart, we can be outraged and lead the lynch mob against him.
dodsworth | January 12, 2008, 1:06pm | #
Todd:Fair enough. Now, tell me the name of the "better" standardbearer among the candidates so I can sign up. Let me amend that. Give me the name of the standardbearer who is even marginally worse than Paul. Of course....failing that, we could always adopt the anarchist non-voting approach.
J sub D | January 12, 2008, 1:08pm | #
Let me know when you find that mythical, no warts libertarian to support.Who's asking for a perfect candidate? The GOP and the Dems seem to survive with the less than perfect ones. I think Todd just wants one who won't sink after the unavoidable (if you're a credible candidate)investigation into their past.
Paleo at the Cocktail Party | January 12, 2008, 1:13pm | #
Whether Ron Paul's campaign has added or subtracted to the libertarian movement is less important than the fact that he's raised awareness of the existence of anti-war ideas within conservative thought better than anyone else has done. If he's given reflexively pro-war conservatives pause for thought, then it has been worth it.What? No mention of that depraved homunculus John Edwards, who has been shamelessly parading the decomposing corpse of a teenage girl (Nataline Sarkisyan) around the stage at his rallies?
J sub D | January 12, 2008, 1:32pm | #
What? No mention of that depraved homunculus John Edwards, who has been shamelessly parading the decomposing corpse of a teenage girl (Nataline Sarkisyan) around the stage at his rallies?That was very well put. Two thumbs up!
The Wine Commonsewer | January 12, 2008, 2:23pm | #
You can *accuse* anyone of anything, as TNR demonstrated last week.Worse was ex-Liberty Mag guy Virkalla telling the Economist that RP and his newsletters had the intent to foment a race war after his LP run for president failed miserably.
Yep, that'd do it. Race wars always bring peace and liberty.
No reference, no proof, no smoking gun, just a bald-faced smear asserted while under the influence of tin foil.
Or maybe it was nothing more than a Horshack-style of PC designed to make himself look good to the New Libertarian Order. Lookit Me! I knew all along! And it was worse than just racial charged newsletters!
Used to read Liberty a lot in the old days and I have lost a lot of respect for Tim. For me, he smeared hisself more than RP.
dodsworth | January 12, 2008, 2:41pm | #
J sub D:No, Todd didn't ask for a perfect candidate to support . He only called for a "better" candidate....but still hasn't named who that is. Can you?
As to scandals, the others have quite a few which were as bad or worse. McCain, for example, called the Vietnamese gooks and still hasn't fully apologized (unlike RP) but the media has let it slide and he is now the GOP frontrunner.
RP screwed up big time but he apologized in 2001, in fact volunteered in the Texas Monthly that that he had lied in 1996 when he didn't have to.
Now, is running the most anti-racist campaign of any GOP candidate. I'll give him so slack or I'll go anarchist. There isn't much in between aside from the mythical better (not even perfect) candidate.
prolefeed | January 12, 2008, 2:42pm | #
My daughter... Out of curiousity, took her to the Libertarian Purity Test website (where I score in the low 100s) and she got a perfect 160.Didn't know whether to be proud of her, or worried that I had failed to communicate the nuances of just how difficult is would be to eliminate all government in its entirety.
This is supposed to be a parody, right?
No, DavidS, this literally happened. Not only that, my daughter then went to her civics class, where the oh-so-very liberal Democratic teacher asked the class who they wanted for President -- and gave them only two choices, HRC or Obama. So my daughter led a mini-insurrection, and asked the class if they wanted to fight the government telling us how to live their lives, and about half the cl