Friends in Low Places

It's time for John McCain to come clean about his own radical friends

Steve Chapman | October 23, 2008

There are three things in the world that you should recognize will not happen in this lifetime. You will not become a billionaire. The Cubs will not win the World Series. And John McCain will not explain his warm association with a notorious political criminal.

McCain has attacked Barack Obama for his connection to former Weather Underground member William Ayers, who in his words "was unrepentant over his activities as a member of a terrorist organization." In the final debate, McCain said that "we need to know the full extent of that relationship."

But though he thinks it's terrible for Obama to associate with dangerous militants, he thinks it's fine for him to do the same thing. And he'd rather go back to the Hanoi Hilton than disclose "the full extent of that relationship."

The extremist McCain has befriended is Gordon Liddy, who got a 20-year prison sentence for multiple felonies in the Watergate scandal—including burglary, conspiracy, and illegal wiretapping. Finally forced to acknowledge the connection in an interview last week by David Letterman, McCain ducked and dodged before replying, "He went to prison, he paid his debt, as people do. I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy."

Pressed further, McCain said he was ready to furnish what he asked of Obama: "Everything about any relationship that I've had I will make completely open and give a complete accounting of." Sure he will. Right after Sarah Palin becomes a Rastafarian.

After the Letterman interview, I repeatedly e-mailed campaign aides Tucker Bounds, Jill Hazelbaker, and Mark Salter with several questions about the association. Their response? The same response I would have gotten had I e-mailed a trio of wax dummies: silence.

This leads us to some inescapable conclusions. The first is that McCain lied when he promised to lay out his relationship with Liddy. The second is that he is hypocritical in demanding something of Obama that he won't do himself. The third is that he is scared to tell Americans the truth because they won't like what they hear.

He's probably right. Liddy is not someone most of us would want to see visiting the Oval Office. Working for President Nixon, he committed a raft of crimes to secure Nixon's re-election and punish his perceived enemies. He proposed to do still more—bomb the liberal Brookings Institution, kidnap anti-war activists, and murder a couple of inconvenient people. But cooler heads prevailed.

What does any of this have to do with McCain? Plenty. Liddy held a fundraiser at his home for McCain's 1998 Senate re-election race. He agreed to speak at another McCain fundraiser in 2000.

He has given several large contributions to McCain, including $1,000 this year. He has hosted McCain on his radio show, where the Arizona senator gushed, "I'm proud of you."

McCain says Liddy paid his debt, as if that erases everything. Actually, most of the debt was forgiven by President Carter, who commuted his sentence. McCain doesn't mention that, like Ayers, Liddy has never repented of his crimes, but takes pride in them.

His contempt for the law has not abated. After the 1993 raid in Waco, Liddy urged lethal violence against federal agents. "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms," he told listeners. "Kill the sons of bitches." Only a year later did he amend his remarks to recommend that citizens not shoot unless they are shot at—which would have been a great comfort to any ATF agents gunned down in the meantime.

But don't take that as a sign that he's changed his ways. Liddy, who as a convicted felon is forbidden to possess a firearm, has bragged about keeping guns in his house and using them for target-shooting. When I asked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms what an ex-con could get for firing a gun, even at a target range, I was told it's a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

For at least a decade, this unreformed criminal and enemy of democracy has been McCain's loyal friend, supporter, and contributor. It may be a mystery just why the Republican nominee consorts with a lawless radical. But it's no mystery why he doesn't want to talk about it.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 12:03PM|#

Since he uses guns instead of bombs, he's a "good" militant.

Everybody knows *that*!

|10.23.08 @ 12:06PM|#

Gordon Liddy's crime and Bill Ayers' are not the same. Knowing the full details of both, which I'm sure the author does, and walking away with an equivocal view of them destroys any idea of objective credibility on the author's part.

Secondly, I'm reading this on a supposedly libertarian website. John McCain is not a conservative, much less a libertarian, but when compared to Obama, and his overtly socialist stance, how can a supposedly libertarian website promote Obama over McCain?

If the president does it, then it's legal!

|10.23.08 @ 12:09PM|#

Ray,

There is no reason to promote Obama over McCain. There are, however, plenty of reasons to prefer him over McCain.

El,

No no. You forgot. Terrorism on behalf of the state is not terrorism. It's patriotism!

|10.23.08 @ 12:10PM|#

I guess I should have been clearer. Preference is not the same thing as advocacy, was my point.

|10.23.08 @ 12:11PM|#

Why is it that the people who concern troll about objectivity and credibility just can't stop themselves from writing about "socialistic" this and how much better McCain is than Obama?

I mean, talk about your credibility problem: Hello, I'm very, very concerned that you aren't being quite even-handed and objective enough, and are favoring one candidate instead of being fair and unbiased. And also, GO MCCAIN! Beat the DemocRATS!

Gordon Liddy's crime and Bill Ayers' are not the same.

True. Liddy was convicted and is a Felon. Ayres is not.

Fun fact about Liddy (via Wikipedia):

Liddy has said that, as a child, he grew up in a German-American community that included many admirers of Adolf Hitler, and that listening to Hitler's speeches "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before."

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 12:14PM|#

No no. You forgot. Terrorism on behalf of the state is not terrorism. It's patriotism!

Damn. I always forget that one!

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 12:16PM|#

Gordon Liddy's crime and Bill Ayers' are not the same. Knowing the full details of both, which I'm sure the author does, and walking away with an equivocal view of them destroys any idea of objective credibility on the author's part.

I personally am way more scared of the guy who, standing in the Oval Office, offers to rub out reporters if the President will give him the go-ahead, than I am of some guy who makes and explodes pipe-bombs.

But I could see how it could go the other way.

Mad Max|10.23.08 @ 12:18PM|#

"[Liddy] proposed to do still more-bomb the liberal Brookings Institution, kidnap anti-war activists, and murder a couple of inconvenient people. But cooler heads prevailed."

Give Senator McCain a break. He may have consorted with a convicted felon and wannabe terrorist, he may want to rain bombs on other countries, he may have voted against most of the Bill of Rights, he may have admitted to corrupt dealings with the head of a federally-insured bank (thus establishing his qualifications in advocating federal bailouts of financial institutions), but at least he has *character.* He didn't insult black people in his newsletter.

Nick|10.23.08 @ 12:19PM|#

I find this ironic given the current McCain fascination with "Joe the Plumber", given that Liddy was the leader of the so called "White House Plumbers Unit" during the Nixon administration.

|10.23.08 @ 12:22PM|#

Obama's not a socialist?

McCain's no small government individualist, but you guys are saying that Obama is not a socialist?

Exactly how is Obama preferable to McCain?

Redistributing the private property aside, what is it that really gets your motor running for the guy?

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 12:23PM|#

Warren | October 23, 2008, 12:06pm | #

What, no drums in the deep? No excoriations of Chapman?

What the hell, man? You going soft?

|10.23.08 @ 12:24PM|#

Gordon Liddy's crime and Bill Ayers' are not the same.

I actually agree with this. G. Gordon Liddy never did anything as bad as the Weathermen's bank robbery. Now, some other things that are not the same:

The level of ideological agreement between each candidate and each supporter.

The level of influence over, and closeness to, the government that each supporter has/had.

The role that each supporter is playing in each candidat's campaign.

The likelihood that the ideology and habits that led each supporter to commit those crimes will be found in each candidate's administration.

Bill Ayers' crimes were, in my opinion, worse than G. Gordon Liddy's. However, a McCain (or any Republican, really) administration will be full of people who think that things like the Watergate break-in, the Ellsberg shrink's office break-in, and the other actions Liddy took are perfectly appropriate for a president's team.

There will be no one in the Obama administration who thinks that planting bombs in courthouses or robbing banks is appropriate for a president's team.

|10.23.08 @ 12:25PM|#

I personally am way more scared of the guy who, standing in the Oval Office, offers to rub out reporters if the President will give him the go-ahead, than I am of some guy who makes and explodes pipe-bombs.

Except that Liddy didn't "rub out" any innocent civilians.

Bill Ayers did take part in the bombing of innocent civilians.

And then we have the fact that McCain and Liddy's connection is tenuous at best - casual is more like it.

Whereas Ayers and Obama are actually tight in their professional, and personal connection.

|10.23.08 @ 12:27PM|#

Ray Gardner,

I don't care right now whether you really, really, really believe Barack Obama is a socialist.

My point is that the only people who write comments like yours, about media bias constantly screwing McCain by not being harder on Obama or by not giving McCain an pass, are people like you, who think Barack Obama is a socialist, that John McCain has to win to save the world, and who feel so strongly about this that they just can't stop themselves from saying so, even when it's clearly not relevant to the point they're trying to make.

This isn't a libertarian vs. conservative vs. liberal issue. McCain and Obama have some douchebag friends, and Chapman isn't a libertarian. There are no winners here.

Abdul|10.23.08 @ 12:27PM|#

However, a McCain (or any Republican, really) administration will be full of people who think that things like the Watergate break-in, the Ellsberg shrink's office break-in, and the other actions Liddy took are perfectly appropriate for a president's team.

There will be no one in the Obama administration who thinks that planting bombs in courthouses or robbing banks is appropriate for a president's team.

Wow.

|10.23.08 @ 12:28PM|#

Ray G, who did Ayers kill?

|10.23.08 @ 12:29PM|#

"But don't take that as a sign that he's changed his ways. Liddy, who as a convicted felon is forbidden to possess a firearm, has bragged about keeping guns in his house and using them for target-shooting."

Liddy's wife owns and possess the firearms. He just uses them. :)

Liddy is a lot closer to being a libertarian than either McCain or Obama.

|10.23.08 @ 12:30PM|#

Bill Ayers did take part in the bombing of innocent civilians.

Wrong. The Weathermen called in their bomb threats, so the areas could be cleared before they went off. The only people - people - the Weathermen ever bombed were themselves, when a bomb went off early and killed a couple of them.

Since you don't seem to know the facts of the two cases, perhaps you aren't in a position to render a judgement about their relative awfulness.

|10.23.08 @ 12:31PM|#

I'm not really that concerned at this point about Ayers or Liddy, but as a dedicated libertarian, I'm just asking, why is a website that is supposedly libertarian consistently coming down on the side of the socialist?

Really.

McCain's a typical politician which isn't good. But he's no socialist.

I've long argued what's wrong with the libertarian movement is that we've attracted too many disaffected Leftists to have any coherent message or direction.

Anyone that can look at Obama vs McCain and think McCain is the worse of the two evils is not ideologically libertarian.

I'm not even advocating a vote for McCain, but I'm just blown away that Reason is more inline with the mainstream media on supporting an overtly socialist agenda.

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 12:31PM|#

Except that Liddy didn't "rub out" any innocent civilians.

Bill Ayers did take part in the bombing of innocent civilians.

Yeah, but Libby gets no credit, because he dearly *wanted* to. Thank the powers that his leash was being held by someone slightly less crazy than he was. That gives points to Nixon, I suppose, if points have to be awarded because of the "we managed not to kill anyone, but for the grace of whatever..." thing.

Whereas Ayers and Obama are actually tight in their professional, and personal connection.

And then I suddenly realize that you are ridiculous. You are gonna have to back up this one with something serious.

Thank you, Abdul. I'm pretty impressed that I got all the way through that without a typo, too.

LMNOP,

Oh right! I almost forgot, thanks for reminding me.

Another message from planet Chapman where Steve is the center of the Universe. McCain says he'll disclose details, but Chapman's emails get no replies!

McCain's a LIAR! He said he'd tell but he won't take my calls! LIAR LIAR LIAR!

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OSCAR

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 12:32PM|#

Liddy is a lot closer to being a libertarian than either McCain or Obama.

It is certainly a truism that in any major collection of people there will be at least one psychotic asshole.

|10.23.08 @ 12:34PM|#

why is a website that is supposedly libertarian consistently coming down on the side of the socialist?

Have you considered the possibility that they appear to be doing so because they let the facts of the issues they write about determine what will appear on the page, as opposed to trying to frame stories in terms of attacking Barack Obama for being a "socialist," as you'd prefer them to?

Mad Max|10.23.08 @ 12:34PM|#

Ayers didn't kill anybody - the Weathermen were too incompetent and utterly lacking in popular support to perform their self-anointed task as Communist guerillas fighting for The People. If the Weathermen had some kind of popular base, and at least a few operatives who had training in engineering/bombing rather than the humanities, then they could have had a much higher body count.

Liddy didn't kill anyone either, he just *wanted* to. Just like the Weatherbastards.

Plus, maybe if Liddy and other federal government operatives hadn't been violating cizitens' rights, the courts wouldn't have dismissed the charges against Ayers - those charges got dismissed because the prosecution case was tainted by illegal surveillance.

Ayers and Liddy ought to be buddies.

|10.23.08 @ 12:35PM|#

Liddy is a lot closer to being a libertarian than either McCain or Obama.

That soooo has nothing to do with this.

Chapman isn't a libertarian

This is supposedly a libertarian site.

There is much more about how bad McCain is than I Obama. Go to some place legitimate like Cato, and you can read substantive pieces on the issues, and see how neither candidate is really all that desirable.

Come here, and it's a fringe extension of the mainstream media.

Joe
Obama is a socialist. His policies are by definition socialist. Perhaps you're confusing the media speak with all of the "code" words, and socialist means something else in your skewed dictionary, but Obama is a socialist.

|10.23.08 @ 12:36PM|#

Actually, Ayers has much more in common with Timothy McVeigh.

Mechanic at Boyd Aviation|10.23.08 @ 12:37PM|#

Hey - Gord. We have a problem with the bypass line...

|10.23.08 @ 12:43PM|#

Joe
Obama is a socialist. His policies are by definition socialist.

1. THAT ISN'T THE TOPIC OF THE FUCKING POST!!! And yet, you can't stop writing it, over and over and over and over.

My point being, this is who whines about media bias: people who can't stop writing over and over and over and over how much better McCains is than Obama.

2. The definition of socialism is support for the public ownership of the means of production. I have yet to hear Obama advocate for the nationalization of any industries, with the possible exception of his agreement with John McCain about the bailout.

I guess that "liberal" bogeyman doesn't have the same kick as it used to, because now you're onto "socialist."

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 12:44PM|#

Come here, and it's a fringe extension of the mainstream media.

How does that sentence even begin to make sense in the head of the person typing it?

Also, Ray, do yourself a favor and go wiki Socialism and Keynesian Economics. Do a little compare and contrast.

It'll help with mitigating the crazy shit you seem to like to type.

|10.23.08 @ 12:45PM|#

He proposed to do still more-bomb the liberal Brookings Institution, kidnap anti-war activists, and murder a couple of inconvenient people. But cooler heads prevailed.

Wow. As a person born 10 years after Nixon got run out of town on a rail, it really is easy to forget just how batshit insane my elders were/are.

|10.23.08 @ 12:48PM|#

"and walking away with an equivocal view of them destroys any idea of objective credibility on the author's part."

Dude, You might want to look up equivocal in the dictionary. It does not mean what you seem to think it does.

|10.23.08 @ 12:49PM|#

Barack Obama's politics are equivocal to socialism.

Mike Laursen|10.23.08 @ 12:50PM|#

He didn't insult black people in his newsletter.

Let it go.

|10.23.08 @ 12:53PM|#

Liddy's all about animals, right? Can we just sic him on the cop that murdered the puppy?

Happy Jack|10.23.08 @ 12:53PM|#

But as Steve Chapman notes, McCain has been associating with a dangerous militant of his own.

Henry Kissinger?

Personally, I think everyone should have at least one complete loon in their circle of friends so let's bypass Liddy and Ayers and deal with a few real issues.

|10.23.08 @ 12:56PM|#

Mike Laursen - I believe that was said sarcastically.

I'm reading this on a supposedly libertarian website. John McCain is not a conservative, much less a libertarian, but when compared to Obama, and his overtly socialist stance, how can a supposedly libertarian website promote Obama over McCain?

It's looking like a two martini lunch.

the innominate one|10.23.08 @ 1:02PM|#

there is also this

|10.23.08 @ 1:02PM|#

Shem...it really was an "interesting" time.

Chuck Colson was even crazier than Liddy, I think. It was Colson's idea to fire bomb the Brookings institute. And now Colson is a repsected prison ministries dude, even getting praise from McCain and Bush.

dhex|10.23.08 @ 1:07PM|#

anyone who gets converted by reading mere christianity should probably be avoided on principle. jeeze louise.

on the topic of o.g. liddy, i can't help but admire someone who advised people to shoot federal agents when they break the law and invade their property. if only, you crazy bald fuck...if only.

|10.23.08 @ 1:07PM|#

McCain's no small government individualist, but you guys are saying that Obama is not a socialist?

Ray Gardner,

I'll say he's not a socialist. That is only due to the fact that I actually (usually?) understand the meanings of the words I use.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Back to vocabulary remediation for you.

SIV|10.23.08 @ 1:08PM|#

THAT ISN'T THE TOPIC OF THE FUCKING POST!!!

Damn joe, take a Midol or something.

|10.23.08 @ 1:10PM|#

"Damn joe, take a Midol or something."

Sexist.

|10.23.08 @ 1:13PM|#

Elemenope-12:16

Your first paragraph sufficed.

Mike Laursen|10.23.08 @ 1:14PM|#

Sarcasm coming from the point of view of a bitter Ron Paul diehard, no?

|10.23.08 @ 1:16PM|#

Buddy Holly-

No, they are both socialists. They support the income tax. They both support a progressive income tax. They both support the nationalization of the banking industry. They have not done anything to eliminate the minimum wage. Neither of them have supported the elimination of collective bargaining. Nuff said.

Mike Laursen|10.23.08 @ 1:17PM|#

And now Colson is a repsected prison ministries dude...

Accepting Jesus is like pressing the reset button on your life.

MAX HATS|10.23.08 @ 1:21PM|#

How is Liddy libertarian in any way? How can you be called "libertarian" with a straight face after a lifetime of fascist ideation and authoritarian criminality?

Biff|10.23.08 @ 1:22PM|#

Liddy paid for his crimes. That shit-eater Ayers hasn't.

|10.23.08 @ 1:22PM|#

Ray Gardner | October 23, 2008, 12:22pm | #

"McCain's no small government individualist, but you guys are saying that Obama is not a socialist?

Exactly how is Obama preferable to McCain?
"

Obama is a socialist, McCain is a socialist who lies to dumb republicans who pretend to not be socialist. Both are socialist. Many on-the-fence-libertarians suspect that Obama is the kind of socialist who will give us a swedish lifestyle. Many on-the-fence-libertarians suspect that McCain is the kinda socialist that will give us a more expansive militarized police state.

These views may be unrealistic, but given the choice between Sweden and living in a militarized socialist state I can see how some of the people here like Obama more than McCain.

Personally I fear Obama more, because he would have more internal political captial(read useful idiots) with which he could use to enslave us to a greater degree than McCain who would have. It seems mcCain would be widely hated from day 1, which may help check his ambitions.

However, I always look at the bright side. It will be fun to see the neo-con McCain and W supporters finally upset at "socialism" again after 8 years of defending the guy who tripled the federal budget.

|10.23.08 @ 1:24PM|#

"No, they are both socialists. They support the income tax. They both support a progressive income tax. They both support the nationalization of the banking industry. They have not done anything to eliminate the minimum wage. Neither of them have supported the elimination of collective bargaining. Nuff said."

This is true. I'd like to point out, though, that there is nothing inherently un-libertarian about collective bargaining. The NLRB, sure, but peaceful and non-coercive unionization is possible, and did in fact exist before government labor laws.

|10.23.08 @ 1:26PM|#

Obama is not a libertarian.

McCain is not a libertarian.

Those are sufficient insults and accusations in my book.

Biff|10.23.08 @ 1:27PM|#

"I don't care right now whether you really, really, really believe Barack Obama is a socialist."

Condescension cheapens both your position and your personhood.

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 1:28PM|#

No, they are both socialists.

Whoa, dude.

They support the income tax. They both support a progressive income tax.

There are decent non-redistributionist reasons to favor both of these things. Don't know what McCain's is, but Obama (in his exchange with Joe the Plumber) basically advanced the argument that it lowers barriers for entry into the market (the less you tax people on the way up, the more they have to invest/start their own business). My argument would be that there is a non-linear growth curve that plots income to economic benefits from infrastructure.

They both support the nationalization of the banking industry.

The only genuinely socialist thing either of them have done, and neither did it for socialist reasons.

They have not done anything to eliminate the minimum wage. Neither of them have supported the elimination of collective bargaining.

These are regulations on how employers and employees may relate contractually. Just like you can't marry more than one person or, in many states, marry someone of the same gender: They are contract restrictions. Progressive, certainly, but progressive != socialist.

Nuff said.

Not so much, really.

|10.23.08 @ 1:32PM|#

"a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"

Seems spot on to me.

Biff|10.23.08 @ 1:33PM|#

"My point is that the only people who write comments like yours, about media bias constantly screwing McCain by not being harder on Obama or by not giving McCain an pass, are people like you, who think Barack Obama is a socialist"

Or maybe they're simply objective. Or maybe you should read more, Joe.

Press treatment of Obama has been somewhat more positive than negative, but not markedly so.

But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable-and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one-the most unfavorable of all four candidates-according to the study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.

For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.

For McCain, by comparison, nearly six in ten of the stories studied were decidedly negative in nature (57%), while fewer than two in ten (14%) were positive.

http://www.journalism.org/node/13307

|10.23.08 @ 1:34PM|#

"The only genuinely socialist thing either of them have done, and neither did it for socialist reasons."

What exactly is a socialist reason? We have no real way of judging their motives, so we judge their actions. This was socialization on a scale not seen in decades, and both parties (for the most part) supported it.

That said, this whole argument is silly, since no one can seem to even agree on the definition of socialism. Regardless, the notion that McCain is substantially less "socialist" than Obama is difficult to defend. Are no-bid military contract socialist? Maybe not, but they are certainly not libertarian. Crony corporatist, maybe?

Biff|10.23.08 @ 1:34PM|#

"Wrong. The Weathermen called in their bomb threats, so the areas could be cleared before they went off. The only people - people - the Weathermen ever bombed were themselves, when a bomb went off early and killed a couple of them."

Karma like that always gives me a boner.

|10.23.08 @ 1:37PM|#

"Actually, Ayers has much more in common with Timothy McVeigh."

I'm going to use some McCain rhetoric here: McVeigh killed 168 people and I can give you their names. Please, my friend, name one person Ayers has killed?

McVeigh was arrested outside of Perry, OK and held in the Noble County Courthouse in Perry, OK for a little while, which is my hometown. I know both the trooper who arrested him and the district judge, who I'll probably see tomorrow evening. (And I hope he still has some Monte Cristo cigars left from a couple of weeks ago.)

Do you really know what the eff you're talking about? This is personal stuff. McVeigh caused deaths. Do you understand that?

No, they are both socialists. They support the income tax. They both support a progressive income tax. They both support the nationalization of the banking industry. They have not done anything to eliminate the minimum wage. Neither of them have supported the elimination of collective bargaining. Nuff said.

There is a seat next to Ray Gardner waiting for you at Vocabulary Improvement 101.

FWIW
I live in MO and anytime I want the shit scared out of me, all I have to do is watch twenty minutes of broadcast television. In that time I will see at least one ad for Obama. And that's the stuff he wants me to believe!

I have no problem seeing Barack as the boogie man. No matter how little coverage Reason gives him.

OTOH I see plenty of conservatives in free-market clothing telling me how great a McCain administration would be. Thanks in part to Reason, I ain't buying it.

Not that it makes any difference. I'm voting for Barr, even though I think he's a low down slimy little fascist weasel. He's the LP candidate and that makes him a gazillion times better than everyone else. And also I know he won't win, so the coming Fucking of America won't be my fault. I hope this is the last carpetbagging scum-bag the LP runs. I was proud to cast my vote for nuts and flakes, but I the LP guy isn't committed to individual liberty then what's the point.

Oh sorry got off point there. Obama is going to win. Almost nothing can change that. Certainly nothing that appears or fails to appear in Reason's blog.

MAX HATS|10.23.08 @ 1:38PM|#

For Obama during this period, just over a third of the stories were clearly positive in tone (36%), while a similar number (35%) were neutral or mixed. A smaller number (29%) were negative.

Maybe that is because McCain lies a lot more?

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 1:40PM|#

What exactly is a socialist reason?

Mike, I'm gonna have to go with

"I'm trying to save Capitalism!!!"

is not a socialist reason.

|10.23.08 @ 1:42PM|#

" McVeigh killed 168 people and I can give you their names."

To rephrase: I can give you a few of their names . . . the ones I knew.

What a shitty comparison. I'm still pissed off.

"Mike, I'm gonna have to go with

"I'm trying to save Capitalism!!!"

is not a socialist reason."

So they're not socialists because they are too dense to realize that they are socialists?

Socialism can't save capitalism. War does not bring peace. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or stupid.

Mike T|10.23.08 @ 1:43PM|#

As much as I agree that Liddy is certainly a pretty messed up guy, he's a run of the mill thug compared to Ayers and his buddies. These guys tried to pull off an incident that was on the scale of the OKC bombing, but that was actually a lot nastier. Those "mere pipe bombs" that some here have downplayed, had enough nails inside them to make them into a sick and twisted variant of a claymore mine, and were actually going to be set to kill the rescuers, not the initial victims.

Furthermore, it's pretty obvious that Chapman is not even close to being a libertarian. If he were, at the most, he would have called the comments about the ATF--America's Thug Force--ones made in bad taste.

And btw, the Weathermen managed to actually murder 3 people. Fortunately for their victims their zeal had an inverse relationship with their competence, otherwise this would not be an academic discussiion.

|10.23.08 @ 1:44PM|#

Ele,

Can we please not call out hideous mix of corporatism and money-distorted regulatory system "capitalism"? It is as inaccurate as calling Obama's desire for a strong welfare state based on redistribution of wealth "socialism".

|10.23.08 @ 1:45PM|#

I should point out, FTR, that I agree that the word "socialism" has become such a loaded term as to mean almost nothing in political discourse. It's also served to draw attention from any form of government infringement on individual liberty that does not directly affect commerce. It's become a tool of the right to convince libertarians that they are ideological allies.

SIV|10.23.08 @ 1:46PM|#

Liddy may have been a thug but at least he is no socialist like Ayers and his protege Barack Obama

|10.23.08 @ 1:47PM|#

"Liddy may have been a thug but at least he is no socialist like Ayers and his protege Barack Obama"

This is exactly what I was talking about. Thanks SIV.

Biff|10.23.08 @ 1:48PM|#

"Do you really know what the eff you're talking about? This is personal stuff. McVeigh caused deaths. Do you understand that?"

McVeigh wanted to overthrow the Federal government.

Ayers wanted to overthrow the Federal government.

Libby wanted to be the Federal government.

Biff|10.23.08 @ 1:50PM|#

"Maybe that is because McCain lies a lot more?"

Try again...

|10.23.08 @ 1:51PM|#

"Try again..."

McCain's lies are certainly a lot more blatant.

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 1:52PM|#

So they're not socialists because they are too dense to realize that they are socialists?

Socialism can't save capitalism. War does not bring peace. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or stupid.

Essentially. You asked how we could know their intentions, and the short answer is you can't, but when their *stated* intentions are something such as "saving capitalism from its excesses" or equivalent tripe, I'm willing to take them at their word that they do not *intend* to institute socialism as an ideological imperative.

I agree with you that socialism is no solution.

Can we please not call out hideous mix of corporatism and money-distorted regulatory system "capitalism"? It is as inaccurate as calling Obama's desire for a strong welfare state based on redistribution of wealth "socialism".

I'm totally with you. I think I was the one harping on a lack of suitable nomenclature in our current unholy conditions the other day. I was merely reporting what McCain and Obama say they believe they are doing by nationalizing banks, etc.. They still use the word "capitalism".

|10.23.08 @ 1:54PM|#

"Ayers wanted to overthrow the Federal government.

Libby wanted to be the Federal government."

Which idea is more libertarian? And before you answer, Barak Obama is a terrorist socialist HUSSEIN Muslim from another country.

Biff|10.23.08 @ 1:55PM|#

"McCain's lies are certainly a lot more blatant."

I provided an excerpt from an article from Journalism.org regarding a Pew study and a link.

Try again...

|10.23.08 @ 1:56PM|#

"Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms," he told listeners. "Kill the sons of bitches."

Based on this, I'd have to say G. Gordon Libby isn't ALL bad.

Not particularly discreet in his phrasing, but I like his style here.

Legal disclaimer: Not that I personally would shoot the SOBs. Or, if the First Amendment has been eroded to the point that saying stuff like that has been deemed to be illegal, advocate that anyone else do so.

Re: the tangent this thread has taken: both Obama and McCain are socialists. More than half of Congress is socialist. If you voted for the bailout, you believe it's OK to nationalize big chunks of the economy which means you're a fucking socialist. Case closed.

And McCain is a hypocrite to boot, running a campaign meme that if elected he will veto any legislation containing pork, when he voted for the $150B in pork in the bailout.

At least Obama is more straightforward about his plans to screw us over.

|10.23.08 @ 1:57PM|#

How did this post go to 80 without a single snide comment on the dirt squirrel that died under Liddy's nose?

Mustache jokes are way more entertaining than, "You're a socialist," "No I'm not," "Yes, you are," ad nauseum.

Can we please not call out hideous mix of corporatism and money-distorted regulatory system "capitalism"? It is as inaccurate as calling Obama's desire for a strong welfare state based on redistribution of wealth "socialism".

That would require nuanced thinking and actual discussion of a multitude of issues.
Lets just scream CORPORATIST* or SOCIALIST at each other.

"I'm totally with you. I think I was the one harping on a lack of suitable nomenclature in our current unholy conditions the other day. I was merely reporting what McCain and Obama say they believe they are doing by nationalizing banks, etc.. They still use the word "capitalism"."

It's gotten to the point where anything that favors corporations (subsidies, tax incentives, favorable regulation, etc.) is considered "capitalism" while anything that favors workers or the poor (progressive income tax, welfare, labor laws) are considered socialism.

I prefer the term "free-market" myself.

Biff|10.23.08 @ 1:58PM|#

"Which idea is more libertarian? And before you answer, Barak Obama is a terrorist socialist HUSSEIN Muslim from another country."

An impotent preemptive strike. You don't know me.

Put down your finger-paints and try again...

Biff|10.23.08 @ 2:00PM|#

"If you voted for the bailout, you believe it's OK to nationalize big chunks of the economy which means you're a fucking socialist. Case closed."

I fully concur.

|10.23.08 @ 2:00PM|#

Can we please not call out hideous mix of corporatism and money-distorted regulatory system "capitalism"? It is as inaccurate as calling Obama's desire for a strong welfare state based on redistribution of wealth "socialism".

The former is mostly capitalism with a huge admixture of socialism, the latter is mostly socialism with some capitalism thrown in the hopper to pay the bills and keep things from going entirely off the tracks.

|10.23.08 @ 2:01PM|#

"I provided an excerpt from an article from Journalism.org regarding a Pew study and a link.

Try again..."

Yeah, I didn't read it. Apologies.

I guess I should have said that, as an outside observer, McCain's hypocrisies are much more amusing. He's a man who can actually say, "Obama's a socialist!" and "I'll have the government buy your house!" in the same breath.

Biff|10.23.08 @ 2:02PM|#

"The former is mostly capitalism with a huge admixture of socialism, the latter is mostly socialism with some capitalism thrown in the hopper to pay the bills and keep things from going entirely off the tracks."

Kind of like Sweden v. China?

|10.23.08 @ 2:04PM|#

Naga Sadow|10.23.08 @ 2:13PM|#

Is Liddy the one who suggested strangling people with piano wire? I'm to lazy and apathetic today to find out on my own.

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 2:14PM|#

Corporatism is not "mostly capitalism" any more than socialism is. It's closer to fascism.

In a really technical sense, it *is* fascism. Historically, corporatism as an economic philosophy was invented and applied in Fascist Italy.

|10.23.08 @ 2:16PM|#

"An impotent preemptive strike. You don't know me.

Put down your finger-paints and try again..."

You've said "try again" without any explanation several times. And, really, your jargon takes us all back to the era of "talk to the hand" and "raise the roof."

FBI informant Larry Grathwohl|10.23.08 @ 2:17PM|#

I asked, "well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?" and the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated.
And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say "eliminate," I mean "kill."

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

The 25 people plotting the extermination of the 25 million Americans who would bitterly cling to the American way of life?

The Weather Underground, led by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

So when Ayers says "we should have done more" now you know what he means.

Ayers is a Maoist.

|10.23.08 @ 2:21PM|#

Biff,

Yeah, that's my problem, I don't read enough. Condescention lowers your blah blah blah.

Or maybe they're simply objective. But this is my point: they aren't objective. If this was a point objective people wanted to make, they'd be able to restrain themselves from shilling for McCain and throwing around words like "socialist" and "Democrat Party" and whatnot. At least for the single comment in which they're, allegedly, making a different point.

But coverage of McCain has been heavily unfavorable-and has become more so over time. In the six weeks following the conventions through the final debate, unfavorable stories about McCain outweighed favorable ones by a factor of more than three to one-the most unfavorable of all four candidates-according to the study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Maybe they're just being objective. Ha!

Seriously, those studies include commentary on the horse-race elements of the campaign, and the Obama campaign has quite simply been running a better operation. Not to mention "since the conventions" is another term for "since Sarah Palin was chosen." Maybe it's evidence of media bias that Sarah Palin gets bad coverage after she gives one of her interviews, but that wouldn't be the first explanation to rise up into my airspace.

Even the Repbublicans have been badmouthing how horrible that campaign is being run, and what a horrible candidate Palin turned out to be.

I don't see how the fact that the McCain campaign is getting bad coverage is prima facie evidence of media bias. The McCain campaign sucks. Seriously, are you sitting there thinking "John McCain is running an awesome campaign, I hope all the candidates I support run campaigns just like him?"

rhywun|10.23.08 @ 2:23PM|#

Good grief. When everyone has their own definition of "socialism" the posts sure do fly.

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 2:27PM|#

Good grief. When everyone has their own definition of "socialism" the posts sure do fly.

Especially when most of them are wrong.

:)

|10.23.08 @ 2:28PM|#

Ray Gardner liddy'd the heck out of this thread.

rhywun,

The dark God that squats in the heart of Hit & Run occasionally demands to be fed with pixels drenched in dictionary war.

|10.23.08 @ 2:30PM|#

I provided an excerpt from an article from Journalism.org regarding a Pew study and a link.

You mean the one that's completely silent on the content of what McCain and Obama have been saying?

the801|10.23.08 @ 2:36PM|#

I don't see how the fact that the McCain campaign is getting bad coverage is prima facie evidence of media bias.

I'd take it further and say that they're not so much getting negative campaign coverage as much as they are getting coverage of their negative campaign.

MAX HATS|10.23.08 @ 2:36PM|#

You mean the one that's completely silent on the content of what McCain and Obama have been saying?

Objective truth and falsity are themselves false, man! Nothing is right or wrong because reality is an illusion we create through language. Puff puff give, and McCain/Palin '08.

|10.23.08 @ 2:37PM|#

From the Pew Study link:

Coverage of Obama began in the negative after the conventions, but the tone switched with the changing direction of the polls. The most positive stories about him were those that were most political-the ones focused on polling, the electoral map, and tactics

Clearly, positive stories about how Barack Obama's campaign is performing electorally, in the polls, and in his campaign tactics are plain evidence of bias.

Everyone knows that his polls are taking, his tactics are counter-productive, and he's doomed his chances of election. A fair media would make sure that half its coverage sent that message, and the other half would report that his tactics are effective, he's doing well in the polls, and he's probably going to win the election.

Anything else demonstrates bias.

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 2:38PM|#

The dark God that squats in the heart of Hit & Run occasionally demands to be fed with pixels drenched in dictionary war.

It is *absolutely critical* to know where one stands regarding dead ideologies!

|10.23.08 @ 2:39PM|#

I don't see how the fact that the McCain campaign is getting bad coverage is prima facie evidence of media bias. The McCain campaign sucks.

And we know this because the metric for whether a campaign is any good is the media coverage for it. Bad coverage = bad campaign. QED.

Ignore the crowds drawn by the respective campaigns. Ignore the underreported gaffes by one VP (even Dan Rather admits that Palin would have been crucified for something Biden was given a pass on), and the manufactured scandals about the other (OMG! The Republican Party bought Sarah Palin a new wardrobe!). The (media) map is the (campaign) territory, dammit!

X|10.23.08 @ 2:45PM|#

Biff,
The McCain/Palin campaign has been almost 100% negative, and they've antagonized the media relentlessly. I agree with you that there is more bias in the news media than they care to admit, but I'd be surprised if some of that negativity didn't recoil on McCain. When he ran against Bush in 2000, the media LOVED him... until Bush managed to turn it into a meaningless pissing contest. McCain just isn't suited for Rove-style cynicism, and I have a feeling he's secretly appalled at what his campaign has become.

|10.23.08 @ 2:48PM|#

RC, even the Republicans are calling out McCain for how awful his campaign has been.

Answer the question: yes or no, do you want the next candidate you support to run a campaign like McCain/Palin 08?

I sure as hell don't want the next candidate I support to run his campaign like Kerry/Edwards. I want him to run it like Obama/Biden.

We know this for lots of reasons. Why are you straining so hard not to see it?

Sean Scallon|10.23.08 @ 2:48PM|#

Obama and McCain are both socialists, one just happens to be a left wing social democrat and the a right-wing social democrat. There is no fundemental difference. If don't want to vote for a socialist on Nov. 4 vote for either Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin or Ron Paul as a write-in.

That's also true of Bill Ayres and G. Gordon Liddy. Ayres and comrades were spoiled brat, trust fund Maoists who thought it would be fun to play Communist revolutionary and simply wound up dead, in prison or on the run. Liddy is a pyschopath pure and simple and a paranoid one at that.

We can do without all of them, Obama, McCain, Ayres and Liddy.

|10.23.08 @ 2:51PM|#

It is *absolutely critical* to know where one stands regarding dead ideologies!

If you want to antagonize the Squatting God, go right ahead. But take a lesson from those whose hubris you wish to emulate. You might lose a space bar or gain a permanent CAPS LOCK. Episiarch had a full head of hair before his blasphemy.

You might even get fucked gently in your neck stump.

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 2:55PM|#

We can do without all of them, Obama, McCain, Ayres and Liddy.

Sadly, we live in a world that contains all four of them. I hear at least two of them are running for, and at least one of which is very likely to win, President of the United States.

There is no difference only if *all* you care about is economics. There is more to the world than money, or so I hear.

Biff|10.23.08 @ 2:57PM|#

"You've said, "try again" without any explanation several times. And, really, your jargon takes us all back to the era of "talk to the hand" and "raise the roof.""

I wrote:

"Ayers wanted to overthrow the Federal government.

Libby wanted to be the Federal government."

And you responded to me with:

"Which idea is more libertarian? And before you answer, Barak Obama is a terrorist socialist HUSSEIN Muslim from another country."

I find your attempt at preemption both dim and offensive.

However, Joe isn't dim and his responses proved to be civil and substantive. In fact, I plan to read both of them again.

You, on the other hand, have proven yourself a boor.

X|10.23.08 @ 2:58PM|#

Elemenope,
Heresy! No REAL LIBERTARIAN shies away from economic autism!

|10.23.08 @ 3:01PM|#

There is more to the world than money, or so I hear.

GO FROM THIS PLACE!

Biff|10.23.08 @ 3:04PM|#

"Yeah, I didn't read it. Apologies.

I guess I should have said that, as an outside observer, McCain's hypocrisies are much more amusing. He's a man who can actually say, "Obama's a socialist!" and "I'll have the government buy your house!" in the same breath."

Thank you, Mike. I agree.

|10.23.08 @ 3:07PM|#

"'Which idea is more libertarian? And before you answer, Barak Obama is a terrorist socialist HUSSEIN Muslim from another country.'

I find your attempt at preemption both dim and offensive."

Clarification: It wasn't an attempt at "preemption." I was mocking you and the insulting discourse that passes for conservatism these days. And since this is a thread on a libertarian site, I think its fair game to ask why we be more accepting of the old man who used to be a pro-authoritarian thug over the old man who used to be an anti-government thug.

Biff|10.23.08 @ 3:14PM|#

"Clarification: It wasn't an attempt at "preemption." I was mocking you and the insulting discourse that passes for conservatism these days"

I'm not a Conservative. I'm a registered Democrat. But latey, I am finding Libertarianism to be more sensible.

As I said, dim and offensive.

|10.23.08 @ 3:24PM|#

Biff: what bug is up your ass? If you're a liberal, then I was only mocking the conservative rhetoric these days. You keep calling me dim, and you must be right, because I don't understand your fixation on "preemption."

Besides, I wasn't asking you personally which idea was more libertarian. I was posing the question, based on the quotes I used from your post. See how I addressed you personally at the top of this comment? See how I didn't in the other one?

|10.23.08 @ 3:41PM|#

However, Joe isn't dim and his responses proved to be civil and substantive.

Blow it out your pie-hole.

;-)

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 3:42PM|#

I have been cast out!

=-)

On an entirely different note, did you know that if you position the page so that only G. Gordon Liddy's face from the top of his head to the point of his nose is visible, he looks like a bad-ass mirror-universe version of Jean-Luc Picard.

Heck, for Mirror-Universe Picard, you could even include the mustache. The mouth fucking ruins it, though.

Biff|10.23.08 @ 3:48PM|#

Elemenope:

Whoa!

|10.23.08 @ 3:49PM|#

How did this post go to 80 without a single snide comment on the dirt squirrel that died under Liddy's nose?

Ain't that the truth. Say what you want about Liddy, but the man grows a hell of a mustache. Let's just see that pansy Ayers try that!

BTW, I used to listen to Liddy's radio show back when it was on an FM station in Washington DC. The guy is very entertaining, in a Captain Queeg sort of way.

|10.23.08 @ 3:56PM|#

I always hated Liddy, especially hated him when he was put on various news panels after Deep Throat was ID'd and was outraged about what Mark Felt did. I watched and thought, yeah Liddy, you're the one to be asking about this.

However, when I read this, I suddenly find myself much more sympathetic to the man.

"After the 1993 raid in Waco, Liddy urged lethal violence against federal agents. "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms," he told listeners. "Kill the sons of bitches." Only a year later did he amend his remarks to recommend that citizens not shoot unless they are shot at-which would have been a great comfort to any ATF agents gunned down in the meantime."

I hate to agree with a creep like Liddy, but saying something like that in regards to the debacle that was Waco? I am not remotely offended. I don't AGREE, but I certainly understand why he would say that. (Of course, someone who was a tool of Nixon saying that Federal Agents are basically inherently bad news is just a little bit weird.)

Am I alone in this?

|10.23.08 @ 4:01PM|#

Lucy: It sounds like he was saying, "kill federal agents when a Democrat is in office, but when my guy is in office, we will have agents snooping everywhere." And no, I can't respect that.

|10.23.08 @ 4:18PM|#

Certainly, Lamar. The article just seemed odd to me in that it stressed the lawlessness of Liddy. Blatant hypocrisy of the man aside, I guess I am just so used to Waco being a libertarian soap box opportunity (I grew up with a father who was outraged about it), that it unnerves me to see it mentioned in that was unnerves me. The author of the article should have stressed Liddy's hypocrisy, even if he had an almost-point in regards to Waco.

I don't respect Liddy either, I just found this interesting.

|10.23.08 @ 4:21PM|#

The mouth fucking ruins it, though.

The conceivable responses to a statements like this....

|10.23.08 @ 4:33PM|#

I hate to agree with a creep like Liddy, but saying something like that in regards to the debacle that was Waco? I am not remotely offended. I don't AGREE, but I certainly understand why he would say that. (Of course, someone who was a tool of Nixon saying that Federal Agents are basically inherently bad news is just a little bit weird.)

Am I alone in this?

In advocating the reflexive murder of people guaranteed to arouse the public's rage at the cause of less governmental interference? We should be so lucky. The government doesn't set out to control people through direct laws anymore. It just waits for hotheads to overreact when they break already-existing laws so that the police can put them away forever without any complaints, because the guy you killed's widow and children are a lot easier to feel sympathy for then your nutjob ass. The civil rights movement learned this lesson, and you should too; you don't win friends in the US by being violent in your actions, because, despite being one of the most bloodthirsty societies in the world, we like to imagine ourselves as being a peaceable people. You win support by appealing to that.

|10.23.08 @ 4:34PM|#

In advocating the reflexive murder of people guaranteed to arouse the public's rage at the cause of less governmental interference?

This language was probably too strong. The rest of the post stands, however.

economist|10.23.08 @ 4:45PM|#

I personally think that Liddy is insane. Tarring and Feathering. That's the way to deal with agents.

economist|10.23.08 @ 4:46PM|#

Should have inserted "federal government" before "agents".

|10.23.08 @ 4:51PM|#

Buddy Holly and Elemenope-

Socialism is not exclusively defined by a given dictionary definition or a Wikipedia entry.

Elemenope and I disagree on this point, but, IMHO, if Karl Marx advocated the imposition of an income tax and, better yet, the imposition of a progressive income tax, then, one is on solid ground in stating that the income tax is a marxist/socialist phenomenon.

|10.23.08 @ 4:55PM|#

Lucy-

Why aren't you outraged by the murder/slaughter of all those little boys and girls at Waco by the feds?

|10.23.08 @ 4:56PM|#

Eekie, it's Bahbarah.

Listen, can you still do that trick with the parrot?

Elemenope|10.23.08 @ 4:58PM|#

if Karl Marx advocated the imposition of an income tax and, better yet, the imposition of a progressive income tax, then, one is on solid ground in stating that the income tax is a marxist/socialist phenomenon.

If Karl Marx invented and popularized the term "capitalism" (which he did) does that make everyone who uses the word a Marxist?

Besides the point that he was not the first to advocate such a tax. From ye olde Wikipedia:

In the year 10, Emperor Wang Mang of China instituted an unprecedented tax -- the income tax -- at the rate of 10 percent of profits, for professionals and skilled labor. (Previously, all Chinese taxes were either head tax or property tax.) A true income tax was first implemented in Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic wars. Pitt's new graduated income tax began at a levy of 2d in the pound (0.8333%) on incomes over £60 and increased up to a maximum of 2s (10%) on incomes of over £200. Pitt hoped that the new income tax would raise £10 million but actual receipts for 1799 totalled just over £6 million (see UK income tax history for more information).[3] The first United States income tax was imposed in July 1861, 3% of all incomes over 600 dollars (later rescinded in 1872).[4]

and even better:

A tax system may use different taxation methods for different types of income. However, the idea of a progressive income tax has garnered support from economists and political scientists of many different ideologies, from Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations[1] to Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto.[2]

|10.23.08 @ 5:00PM|#

"Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms," he told listeners. "Kill the sons of bitches." Only a year later did he amend his remarks to recommend that citizens not shoot unless they are shot at-which would have been a great comfort to any ATF agents gunned down in the meantime.

Of which there were how many? . . . Oh. But the point is that there *could* have been lots of them.

MAX HATS|10.23.08 @ 5:02PM|#

if Karl Marx advocated the imposition of an income tax and, better yet, the imposition of a progressive income tax, then, one is on solid ground in stating that the income tax is a marxist/socialist phenomenon.

If only there was some way to know what Marx advocated.

If only. . .

Seriously, for something you seem to hate, you obviously know next to nothing about it. How can you call things "socialist" when you have no idea what socialism means?

jasno|10.23.08 @ 5:51PM|#

MAX -

Because the REAL definition of socialism is whatever I feel to be in opposition to my philosophy... since, you know, socialism is bad, and I don't want a friggen thing in common with it.

Mad Max|10.23.08 @ 6:28PM|#

"anyone who gets converted by reading mere christianity should probably be avoided on principle."

Ah, you have come up with a decisive refutation of Lewis' Mere Christianity - a goal sought by many secularists has been finally been accomplished. You have saved secularism, and I'm sure you will get a medal - just as sure as you publish your conclusions and provide the arguments which so decisively refute that great Christian (albeit Anglican) apologist.

PicassoIII|10.23.08 @ 8:48PM|#

Hey!!
Waittaminute, give Chapman some credit for pointing this out. He's not only here but in major market papers like Chicago Trib.
If only for making a connection between unfettered executive power and possible oval office staffing.
Or did we forget the differences OUTSIDE the Dem and GOP conventions. I am far more disturbed bout what happend in St Paul than EITHER time in Denver.

|10.23.08 @ 9:54PM|#

However, a McCain (or any Republican, really) administration will be full of people who think that things like the Watergate break-in, the Ellsberg shrink's office break-in, and the other actions Liddy took are perfectly appropriate for a president's team.

I admit up-front that I have not read the whole thread, so somebody else might have called you on this.

Are you serious? "Any Republican" administration will be filled with hooligans and Obama's administration will be a bunch of choir boys?

|10.23.08 @ 10:22PM|#

"Are you serious? 'Any Republican' administration will be filled with hooligans and Obama's administration will be a bunch of choir boys?"

I thought that was kind of a stretch, so when I used the same concept on another blog I took out the reference to "any Republican administration." However, at the present, McCain is rather limited with who he could pick for top posts. And if McCain's pick of Sarah Palin is any indicator (though it might not be), I'm afraid of who he might pick. That doesn't mean I have confidence in Obama. It just means that an area in which McCain could score some points he doesn't.

|10.23.08 @ 10:51PM|#

Well, if I had to piss off one or the other, I'd probably go with Ayers since most lefties are really pussies and G. Gordon seems like he'd kill you without a bit of remorse.

|10.24.08 @ 9:44AM|#

wayne,

"Choir boys" is a silly exaggeration your part, but yes, any Republican administration will be filled with goons.

It's Nixonland, baby. They're all Nixon Republicans now. It's what they believe; who they are.

|10.24.08 @ 10:43AM|#

Ah, you have come up with a decisive refutation of Lewis' Mere Christianity - a goal sought by many secularists has been finally been accomplished. You have saved secularism, and I'm sure you will get a medal - just as sure as you publish your conclusions and provide the arguments which so decisively refute that great Christian (albeit Anglican) apologist.

Warmed-over Cartesian theory, appeals to a polemical book as if it were an actual work of history and a series of logical arguments that are built on the abovementioned sand do not a compelling theological argument make. Christ said himself; if it's easy (easy to sell, easy to live by, anything) it's not real Christianity. How wonderful that he tried anyway. How sad that he was too great a fool to take Christ seriously.

|10.24.08 @ 11:29AM|#

"Choir boys" is a silly exaggeration your part, but yes, any Republican administration will be filled with goons.

I guess I agree with you in principle. Any administration, D or R, will be filled with goons.

My prescription is "throw the bums out". Vote anti-incumbent for every seat in every election for the next twenty years and the swamp will begin to drain.

|10.24.08 @ 12:08PM|#

Vote anti-incumbent for every seat in every election for the next twenty years and the swamp will begin to drain.

The swamp doesn't drain, it just fills up with bureaucrats who are now fantastically powerful because no politician winds up being around long enough to learn how to do their job without the bureaucracy's assistance. Do you really want to give up what little say you have in government in favor of being ruled by an entirely unelected body?

|10.24.08 @ 12:51PM|#

J. Gordon Liddy. Hmmmmm - did Mr. Liddy want to bomb our Capital. Did he want to kill our people? Did he stomp on our flag and have his picture taken while he was doing it? Hasn't Liddy served time for his mistakes? Yes. Has Mr. Ayers served time for his deliberate errors? No. Anyone with a lick of sense would choose McCain our Cocaine Obama any day.

|10.24.08 @ 9:15PM|#

Not a day goes by that somebody calls into Liddy's show and thanks him for "the service you've done to your country."

No, seriously.

Stop laughing. They really do...

CLN|10.25.08 @ 10:28AM|#

"Gordon Liddy's crime and Bill Ayers' are not the same. Knowing the full details of both, which I'm sure the author does, and walking away with an equivocal view of them destroys any idea of objective credibility on the author's part.

Secondly, I'm reading this on a supposedly libertarian website. John McCain is not a conservative, much less a libertarian, but when compared to Obama, and his overtly socialist stance, how can a supposedly libertarian website promote Obama over McCain?"

Because, although republican wingnuts tend to forget this fact, libertarians are antifascist just as much as we are anticommunist.

|10.26.08 @ 3:40AM|#

I too, as a recent observer here, have an incredibly difficult time understanding how so-called libertarians could possibly support Obama over McCain. Supporting neither of them I understand completely. Supporting one to the exclusion of the other when both are the very antithesis of libertarian philosophy and values baffles me. "Lesser of two evils" to me is the guy who will oppoint less-activist judges to the Supreme Court, make some semblence of preserving the second amendment (instead of supporting the DC handgun ban and the Clinton-era "assault" weapons ban), not impose punitive taxes in an effort to redistribute income, not impose price controls on corporations or workers, not support union intimidation and coerction of workers, stuff like that. If any of you morons are under the impression that Barack Obama is somehow less in favor of domestic authoritarianism, or more in favor of free speech, disabuse yourselves of that notion with a quick trip to his campaign website. Obama simply wants to harness the power and authority of massive government for different purposes. Same means, different end. Is overseas military intervention really that much worse than hate speech laws, redistributive tax policies, gun control, and a Warren court?

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements