A July 4th Postcard to the President

Is there a way forward for America?

It’s been a tough few years for us anti-interventionist libertarian Democrats (all six of us). Our split-every-difference, poll-driven, focus-groping president has started an elective second war in Afghanistan, continued (but pretended not to) an inherited disaster in Iraq, and initiated a third pointless, congressionally unauthorized, guns-a-blazing big adventure in the play land of an aging drag queen in Libya.

Sixty-something anti-war baby boomers will recall a bit of 1965 black humor in the disappointing aftermath of Democratic peace candidate Lyndon Johnson’s trouncing of Republican war hawk Barry Goldwater: “They told me if I voted for Goldwater in 1964 we’d be at war in Vietnam within a year. They were right. I did, and we were.”

The most recent Democratic president—a Nobel Peace Prize winner, no less!—announced his own war less than a year after inauguration, bravely speaking to an audience of approving teenage West Point cadets in December 2009. Bowing to demands of the military-industrial-congressional complex after several months of hand-wringing, President Barack Obama chose a theater for his military adventure not far from those Vietnam jungles, a few B-52 or F-16 flying hours across South Asia, in the tribal hills of the sort-of nation state of Afghanistan. There came the new boss, just like the old boss.

So the joke can now be updated: They told me if I voted for McCain in 2008, we’d be in a perpetual state of war within a year. They were right. I did and....well, you know the punch line.

As a Jeffersonian-Madisonian Democrat, and like so many modern left-liberal Democrats, my enthusiasm for Obama’s nomination and election turned almost entirely on his anti-war talk. I was hopeful he wouldn’t turn out to be another Lyndon Johnson. That was hoping against nothing but hope, and talk. Like Johnson, Obama rammed over-reaching social welfare legislation through a Democratic Congress, while starting his own congressionally undeclared war of choice. But unlike LBJ, he didn’t exhibit even the partial saving grace of a bold initiative on civil rights. Our half-black and half-white, half-Kansan, half-Kenyan-American, finger-to-the-wind leader half-heartedly side-stepped the arguably most important American civil rights issue of the 21st century by waffling on same-sex marriage and avoiding a bold Truman-like executive order on gays in the military, timidly lagging behind the changing culture.

Hoping-against-hope is about all we voters have when we are confronted with two candidates with no informing political ideologies or philosophies. It’s why we usually don’t select a chief executive directly from Congress, an institution that rewards those who daily try to convince the National Association of This and the American Council of That he’s on both their sides. We did it only in 1880 with Speaker James Garfield, in 1920 with Sen. Warren Harding, and in 1960 with seductive Sen. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, before we were faced in 2008 with two split-every-difference nominees, Sen. Obama and old-and-intemperate “war hero” Sen. John McCain, who never met a war or a position he didn't embrace.

Is there a way forward? A way out of the deep muddy in which our president finds himself, unable to manage the marketplace (no president can) and too cautious to exercise his power not to intervene in the affairs of the rest of the world?

Maybe, but it would have to come from a principled politician of Obama’s own party, and perhaps own state, even his inner circle. Someone willing to mount the bully congressional pulpit and break with his president. That’s a task especially worth pondering on the Fourth of July, 235 years after a few good men risked not just their political careers but their very lives for a new-world experiment in liberty.

Born in Jefferson County, Illinois, former Democratic National Committee press secretary Terry Michael has observed politics in Washington, DC since 1975, when he arrived in the capital with newly elected Rep. Paul Simon of Barack Obama’s adopted home state of Illinois.  His “thoughts from a libertarian Democrat” are at www.terrymichael.net.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Well said, Terry. Will the Party bother with any kind of contender against Obama in the primary?

  • Terry Michael||

    Thanks, Appalachian Australian. And no, not a chance anyone will emerge to challenge our present president inside the Democratic Party. The anti-war silence from Capitol Hill is deafening. Collusion of congressional Democrats with the military-industrial complex is disgusting to those of us who like to believe we're in the anti-militarist party.

  • ||

    Good article.

  • Pip||

    An Associated Press dispatch about California's budget dispute contains one of the most revealing quotes we've seen in a long time, from the head of the California Federation of Teachers:

    "Our polling shows us clearly that this is a winner, that very high numbers of the public and likely voters agree that the wealthiest Californians should contribute more," said Fred Glass, the federation's communications director. "I think there's a growing recognition that it's not that California's broke. We have plenty of money in this state; it's just in other pockets."

    http://www.seattlepi.com/news/.....446153.php

  • Do you have a bank account?||

    If you do, that's proof that you're under-taxed...

  • Paul||

    "I think there's a growing recognition that it's not that California's broke. We have plenty of money in this state; it's just in other pockets."

    *raises eyebrows*

    Wow, what a thuggish statement. "We" have plenty of money, it's just in someone elses pocket.

    This is sociopathic thinking.

    I feel the same way about teachers. "I" have plenty of money, it's just in the pockets of teachers.

  • Paulie Krugnuts||

    We just need to get into those pockets.

    At gunpoint, if necessary.

  • nanda||

    that kind of thinking is the reason, one reason, that many nations are poor. one of the hallmarks of prosperous liberalism (and we don't realize how unusual it is) is that you leave other people's property alone, no matter what. I would never be on the dole people used to say proudly. to liberals that is stupid. Thomas Frank wrote a book about how stupid we are that we don't want to rob all the rich. the kind of country where people are burning with fury because another has a bigger house is a poor country. that kind of resentment and envy is deadly to an economy. when people think they deserve other people's stuff, no one's stuff is safe and there is no money making and there is poverty.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The far-far left in this country would dearly love to have a populist uprising... like the ones that happened in communist countries, for instance.

  • ||

    Resign. That's what Obama should do. And here's how his resignation letter should read: "You fucked up. . .you trusted me."

  • Mensan||

    That seems totally in line with his standard procedure of blaming everyone else.

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • You forgot the latest...||

    ...bloody Somalian killer-drone adventure, sure to take out some H&R posters.

  • ||

    A way out of the deep muddy in which our president finds himself, unable to manage the marketplace (no president can) and too cautious to exercise his power not to intervene in the affairs of the rest of the world?

    Maybe, but it would have to come from a principled politician of Obama’s own party, and perhaps own state, even his inner circle.

    Perhaps this last bit is a misprint? Terry must really be smoking some good shit if he actually believes that the Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, are going to withdraw from Afghanistan. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Everything decision candidate Obama was going to make as president was evident to those willing to look past the hype. That includes his foreign policy. There was nothing about him that suggested he would be strong enough to actually withdraw from the policies of his predecessors, and in fact campaigned about Iraq distracting from the "good" war in Afghanistan.

  • ||

    I expected the statist crap and the Bushness-as-usual. What I didn't expect was that he would be dumb enough to not moderate his positions to ensure both reelection and continued Democratic control of the Congress. Then again, the party leadership seems to have achieved a new level of idiocy.

  • Rock Action ||

    I knew the libertarian lynch mob would just change the object of their two-minute hate

    focus-groping

    And Glenn Reynolds needs royalties or credit of some sort.

    So the joke can now be updated: They told me if I voted for McCain in 2008, we’d be in a perpetual state of war within a year. They were right. I did and....well, you know the punch line.
  • Paul||

    Mmmno, the object of our two-minutes hate is still the same. We very much don't like the government.

  • Rock Action ||

    Hey Paul,

    That was total sarcasm. I comment here somewhat regularly, and read as many threads as I can. I'm a classical liberal, and not the shrike kind.

    It's funny. When one comments, one assumes everyone knows you, and where you're coming from, but it's just not that way. I've been commenting on and reading this blog for over a year, and I wouldn't be here if I didn't by-and-large agree with the policy positions - I ain't no troll.

  • Rock Action ||

    Oh, and I was really playing off of DSK and the apparent typo of "focus-groping." I was trying to gently correct the author, who may have intended it as it was printed.

  • Carston||

    Most-hyphens-I-have-ever-seen-in-an-article.

    Also...
    "unable to manage the marketplace (no president can)"

    Maybe it is just being from MN and dealing with the Dems here, but I have never heard one actually admit that the government (president specifically in this article) cannot manage the marketplace.

  • ||

    That's because they don't exist -- the author's about as much of a Democrat as Barack Obama is a capable politician, and that's a huge compliment

  • ||

    Maybe, but it would have to come from a principled politician of Obama’s own party

    That is a good one. Look, they never beleived any of the things they said during the Bush Administration. Other than a few Libertarians and some paleo conservatives there is no anti-war movement in this country. The "anti war movement" outside of those groups is just a bunch of power hungry leftists who will do or say anything to damage the other side. Once their side gets into power and being anti war doesn't hurt they right people, they go away. No one in the Democratic Party gives a rats ass that we are at war. They only care that there is a (D) next to the name of the guy in the White House.

  • Alex||

    As disappointed as I may be with Obama I really can't find any reason to vote republican in 2012. We certainly wont be better off when it comes to unnecessary wars and republican economic policies are even worse these days than democratic ones. Not to mention the social issues...

  • ||

    You have got to be shitting me

  • Alex||

    Nope, especially given the current republican field. I don't see any real chance of medicare or social security reform coming from them, nor the cuts to the defense budget that we sorely need. Even the meager withdrawal from Afghanistan Obama has promised would not happen under a republican president. These are also the same people who gave us the PATRIOT act.

  • ||

    Did you miss the fact that a vast majority of the Democrats in Congress voted for the Patriot act and that a Democratic Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act? And did you also miss the fact that Obama is now at war in Libya without any national debate or Congressional authorization.

    Just how brain washed are you? What exactly do you think any President would do that would be any worse than what Obama has done?

  • ||

    Declare martial law -- and we've all been too fucking pussified anyway, so nobody in the major population centers would resist anyway -- we're fucked

  • ||

    That is what scares me Res. Obama could decalare martial law and people like Alex would support him. I don't think he would or will. But I do think that about 30% of the country will rationalize supporting him no matter what. They have been that successful and defining anything outside of the Democratic Party as "the other".

  • ||

    [Obama could decalare martial law and people like Alex would support him. I don't think he would or will...]

    Based on what, exactly?? This guy is one of the most lawless presidents ever, nothing he does would surprise me.

  • ||

    according to the above article, Obama had to bow to the demands of the military industrial complex.
    So, did he bow to the insurance industrial complex with ZeroCare?

  • Alex||

    I didn't say the dems were blameless with regards to the patriot act but in my opinion the republicans small government credibility goes out the window with it. Also this whole business with the war powers act is a red herring, no president republican or democrat has bothered with it because it is effectively unenforceable.

    Furthermore, spending is no better under republican leadership. the defense budget ballooned under Bush and they do nothing substantive to cut entitlements because congress is too afraid to touch them.

    Under republican leadership we will never get withdrawal from the middle east - and if you think a republican wouldn't have jumped at the chance to take action in Libya I think you are dead wrong. There would also be no serious spending cuts (granted we probably wont see those from the dems either).

  • ||

    Here is the diference, if a Republican had gone into Libya the Democrats in Congress and media would have destroyed him over it. Obama gets a free pass thanks to people like you.

    And Obama ran up more debt in two years that Bush did in 8. So yeah, the Democrats have more of a spending problrm than Republicans. And Obama is more involved in the middle east than even Bush was (see Yemen and the Afghan surge)

    Basically there is nothing Obama could do that would cause people like you to not vote for him. So why should anyone listen to you about Obama?

  • ||

    Hey, Obama inherited that first year deficit. FY2009 was 2/3rds complete already when he took office. The deficits after that were also Bush's fault....because the economy was so bad Obama had to resort to Keynesian stimulus schemes that have scant empirical evidence for efficacy and are also convenient political cover for giveaways to his constituents.

  • Alex||

    So it's ok to start wars as long as the press is appropriately upset about it?

    Also, your point about the debt is ridiculous. Obama passed the stimulus which certainly may have been a waste, but it cant even be compared to increases in defense spending that occurred under Bush and the revenue lost from the Bush tax cuts. Sure, you can blame Obama for not ending the tax cuts and for not cutting the defense budget in half but that seems a little bit ridiculous. Also, it seems ridiculous to blame him for the decrease in revenue that accompanied the recession.

    Finally I really think it is a stretch to say he has been more active than Bush in the middle east notwithstanding the fact that his activity relative to Bush is not the issue, it's his activity relative to what Mccain's would have been.

  • ||

    The debt numbers are what they are Alex. Bush's deficits put together are dwarfed by Obama's. Math is a bitch.

    And McCain would ahve been out of Libya by now or not tried it since he would have had a real opposition rather than people like you will vote for Obama no matter what.

    And Obama has made the recession worse not better. He gets the blame for that.

  • Alex||

    This is a ridiculous claim. If a large chunk of the deficit is due to 10 year old policies that no president could have the political capital to change it is absolutely absurd to blame the sitting president. Furthermore, the logical extension of your argument is that the recession is Obama's fault. I really cant understand how a so-called libertarian could vote GOP in this political climate. Their track record is one of unnecessary wars, expansion of government, restriction of civil rights, major spending increases, and irresponsible tax cuts.

  • crackerBarrel||

    So let's not vote Republican or Democrat-- let's vote Libertarian. IMO, there's no such thing as a wasted vote, except to not vote.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    We most certainly can blame Obama, Alex. Digging a bigger hole and filling it with truckloads of hundred-dollar bills is, basically, what he's doing.

  • ||

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....-_2008.png

    Look at the slope of spending increase from Clinton to Bush II. Bush II reversed the downward trend you saw under Clinton, certainly disappointing from what is supposed to be the party of limited government. Thanks a lot compassionate conservatism!

    OTOH, the slope changes dramatically when you get to the Obama administration. Expenditures as a percent of GDP shoot up to 24% from 20%. If I'm only voting on fiscal issues, that is not a track record I can vote for.

  • ||

    Bush's fiscal policy was awful. But Obama has managed to be worse.

  • ||

    the White House Nov. 2012

  • Tony||

    Sean,

    Spending spikes and budget imbalances balloon in a recession. Lots of people want to act like presidents not only control the economy but the economy is made anew for each president. Bush got handed a surplus budget and decided that was a good excuse to lower taxes, then he started two wars and a massive entitlement program, none of which was paid for. That, plus the massive economic downturn that begin in the waning days of the Bush admin. were what Obama inherited.

    If we didn't have the recession, it would be easy to see the central fact here: Republicans spend more than Democrats and run up higher deficits when there is a choice. We could have paid for the wars, but for the first time in the history of the world we cut taxes at the same time. Whatever the issues on the other side, that is just downright insanity.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If we didn't have the recession... you fucking libs would STILL want tax hikes, because it's all about making things fair, not raising revenue.

    Obama said as much in a TV interview. Are you going to argue with him?

  • ||

    So basically there is nothing that obama could do that would cause you not to vote for him. Good to know you hold your principles dear.

    I hope Obama at least leaves cab fair for you on the nightstand.

  • Alex||

    I don't cast my vote to punish someone for disappointing me. I vote for the candidate I think will do the best job.

  • ||

    What makes you think Obama will do the best job other than the (D) by his name? And if you will vote for a candidate no matter what they do, what incentive do they have not to lie to you and take you for granted?

  • Alex||

    You honestly think Romney or Bachmann would be better?

  • ||

    I don't think Romney is a real contender for the GOP nomination. He might be leading the polls, but I think once people actually start to think in depth about him they'll realize Romneycare was the blueprint for Obamacare. It's too early to pick a leader for sure, but I would be very surprised if Romney got the GOP nod.

  • COINTELPRO||

    Considering the Democrats chose a war vet who bragged about his Purple Hearts to run against a war hawk like Bush in 2004, I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans chose a big government goon like Romney to run against Obama. It would just be history repeating itself.

  • Black dude||

    Barack Obama is a rabid liberal -- he essentially advocates totalitarianism. And he's God-awful at absolutely everything he does. Romney is statistically certain to be better than him, and Romney is a colossally abominable embodiment of amoral authoritarianism -- that should give you an idea of the degree to which Barack Obama sucks balls. I'd vote for another term of George W. Bush over Obama, and I'm a quasi-minarchist. You get the picture.

  • ||

    Need a better memory -- keep forgetting to reverse handle changes.

  • ||

    I forget to switch back too at times.

    I don't share your conviction that Romney would be a large, or even noticeable, improvement over Obama. If I'm right I will almost certainly make it to Valhalla. The US is on the fast track to government collapse right now, and the absence of rule of law presents many more opportunities to die surrounded by the corpses of your enemies.

  • ||

    The thing is, I'm a definitively and unwaveringly strict libertarian republican -- my idea of just government is tiny, eternally confined to its limits and fixed in size. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are dead, unfortunately, so I don't have too many people who agree (clue: I live in a swing city, R-D are pretty much balanced and all are big-government shitheads).

    That makes it especially difficult and infuriating for me -- 99% of what government is and does is entirely indefensible to me. When I'm faced with the choice between two really authoritarian fuckbags, frankly, I lose the will to give a shit.

    What a heart-wrenching path this is -- the slow and painful death of the Republic.

  • ||

    I'm hoping that the Bush/Obama years will actually teach the nation a painful lesson - statism doesn't work. We can see the fruits of statism in the persistent economic malaise. Once people wake up to this they might be more willing to go outside their government paternalism comfort zone and accept more freedom.

  • Alex||

    I completely sympathize with this I just don't understand how given these views you can really deride a vote for Obama to this extent. At the very least with Obama you get the presidency and house controlled by different parties so no party can get too out of control.

  • Mensan||

    I'd vote for another term for Carter over Obama. Whether or not Romney, or anybody else, would be an improvement over Obama isn't much of a selling point anyhow. The next president could be a horrible disaster of an executive, and still be a substantial improvement over Obama.

  • Paul||

    The next president could be a horrible disaster of an executive, and still be a substantial improvement over Obama.

    Would you vote for George W. Bush, round III?

  • ||

    Would you vote for George W. Bush, round III?

    You're counting President Obama as George W. Bush, round II, correct?

    Obama is more like Bush than McCain would have been.

  • ||

    Well said. I suspect that Romney is Obama in disguise (maybe Obama is Romney in disguise?) ...a diabolical ruse to ensure that he gets re-elected either way.

  • T||

    And you think Obama will do the best job? Srsly?

    Fuck it, I'm writing in Fritz the Cat. I'll be no less delusional than you, apparently.

  • ||

    Hey don't sell Fritz short. No record beats a proven record of failure.

  • T||

    At the very least, President Fritz would stop the crackdown on medical marijuana.

  • ||

    Doubtful Fritz would nationalize an auto corporation and stiff the bond and preferred stockholders illegally either...then again he's a cat....sly and shifty.

  • Yale ||

    For once, Harvard, you make sense. He's a lot like one of you brahmin pussies and nothing at all like a bulldog.

    *skips off, cackles with his mouth closed*

  • ||

    You kidding? The cab fare's got to go to Union #345675434567865434567865434567865435678654324567865434567 to ensure electoral loyalty! I'm afraid he'll have to do without the fare!

  • ||

    Concern troll is concerned.

  • ||

    Hear, hear!

    Isn't this precisely the set of issues where we should be forming a cross-party coalition of support and awareness for Gary Johnson? And where he should be crossing party lines to attract primary election supporters?

  • ||

    Why is this jerk's nonsense posted here?
    Libertarian democrat is a contridaction in terms.
    He wrote, "unable to manage the marketplace (no president can) and too cautious to exercise his power not to intervene in the affairs of the rest of the world?"
    Yet he belongs to a party that has an over riding objective to manage the market place.
    He complains about being in another war like Vietnam then criticizes the president for not intervening in more countries.
    The guy contradicts himself. Sign of a real schmuck.

  • Tony||

    Libertarian capitalist is a contradiction in terms.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    We're the biggest fucking capitalists on the planet.

    Revise your inanity.

  • Tony||

    So you are the biggest supporters of something but are fervently opposed to the thing that must precede it in order for it to exist?

    You don't support capitalism (a thing that should be able to mature and be tweaked with time), you support the profits of capitalists and the chipping away of the law and order that polices them. You're a run-of-the-mill apologist for the entrenched elite.

  • Tony||

    So you are the biggest supporters of something but are fervently opposed to the thing that must precede it in order for it to exist?

    You don't support capitalism (a thing that should be able to mature and be tweaked with time), you support the profits of capitalists and the chipping away of the law and order that polices them. You're a run-of-the-mill apologist for the entrenched elite.

  • Big Cat Kahuna||

    Trade came before any notions of the modern state even existed. It continues regardless of circumstances in all times and nearly all places.

    States come and states go but trade goes on forever.

  • Big Cat Kahuna||

    Trade came before any notions of the modern state even existed. It continues regardless of circumstances in all times and nearly all places.

    States come and states go but trade goes on forever.

  • ||

    If you have read any of Terry Michael's other writing, you will know he is a consistent libertarian. But you are apparently reading-challenged. You write "He complains about being in another war like Vietnam then criticizes the president for not intervening in more countries." I think you are referring to his line, "...unable to manage the marketplace (no president can) and too cautious to exercise his power not to intervene in the affairs of the rest of the world?" That was a clever joke, meaning that Obama is so weak that instead of having the courage NOT to intervene, he immediately caved to the military-industrial-congressional complex, which Michael made very clear thoughout the article. Think just a few seconds before you write.

  • ||

    You fucking Christ-fags just can't give Him a break, can you?

  • The Derider||

    Capitalists. What the fuck are they good for?

  • John #314||

    We're pretty good for fucking your mom.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Move to North Korea, then. And a hearty fuck you on the way out, Derider.

  • COINTELPRO||

    Can we please not resort to the same cheap debating tactics our opponents use? Telling people to "Move to Somalia" is practically the free spot on "Libertarian Troll Bingo," so why would it be okay to change it to North Korea?

  • Jaunty Young Barack||

    SHreekie --- I need you to volunteer more of your tax dollars. This Libyan killer war is gettin' expensive and you folks need to step it up since I'm pushin' into Somalia....

  • Tony||

    I could use a blowjob, all of a sudden.

  • Max||

    I'm not busy today...

  • ||

    Wanna make it a three-way?

  • ||

    Millions, billions, trillions, poteto, potato, what's the difference. This is called moving up the tourniquet.

    It's all promissory notes on you and your future production. Simple choice, amputate the paper money or die

  • ||

    A principled member of his own cabinet should break with Obama? What, is this code for drafting Leon Panetta? California's "Mr. Integrity?"

    Obama's presidency has proven one very excellent thing: The US is ready for a black president. Next time, however, let's try our best to get a GOOD black president.

    A woman president next time? Just not Hillary, please.

  • Libertarian||

    What are we complaining about? We're in Utopia!

  • ||

    I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you, that the total increase in productivity did not accrue to wage earners. I mean, its not like anyone else had any role in creating the increase in productivity growth.

  • john||

    that sounds good to be real.

  • Ben ||

    Nice nod to Pete Seeger in the second to last paragraph there Terry.

  • Terry Michael||

    You have to be of a certain age to get the Pete Seeger allusion :) LOL

  • wholesale||

    Actually, I'm support Obama, ha ha

  • ||

    "I was hopeful he wouldn’t turn out to be another Lyndon Johnson."

    I was hoping that experienced politically-oriented people such as you would scrutinize candidate Obama, realize that he would be far worse than Johnson (and GW Bush), and publicize that information. Instead, you, your cronies, and the reporters and editors of the mainstream media fell all over yourselves spewing positive spin so that Mr. "Hope and Change" would be elected president. Good job.

  • HowStupidCanYouGet||

    And you think John McCain would have been less likely to place us in a permanent state of war? LOL At least Obama promised he'd stop the war in Iraq.

  • misslins||

    Here are some tips shared by http://www.goodluckbuy.com/ one of the worldwide B2C top sellers in selling the coolest gadgets with light-speed service and wholesale prices to all geeks/non-geeks around the planet. Appears to be coming directly from the Hong Kong suppliers with FREE SHIPPING!
    Goodluckbuy: Perfect Shop For Electronic Gadgets!

  • mbt shose||

    Thanks for the best blog.it was very useful for me.keep sharing such ideas in the future as well.

  • cheanike||

    Well said, Terry. Will the Party bother with any kind of contender against Obama in the primary?

  • misslins||

    Well said, Terry. Will the Party bother with any kind of contender against Obama in the primary?
    Here are some tips shared by http://www.goodluckbuy.com/ one of the worldwide B2C top sellers in selling the coolest gadgets with light-speed service and wholesale prices to all geeks/non-geeks around the planet. Appears to be coming directly from the Hong Kong suppliers with FREE SHIPPING!
    Goodluckbuy: Perfect Shop For Electronic Gadgets

  • nike shoes UK||

    is good

  • hyper prive glitter 120mm||

    Is there a way forward for America? hyper prive glitter 120mm Black - Christian Louboutin is the future for it for its luxury.

  • Fairy Tail Episodes||

    And you think John McCain would have been less likely to place us in a permanent state of war? LOL At least Obama promised he'd stop the war in Iraq.

  • Bleach Episodes||

    I was hoping that experienced politically-oriented people such as you would scrutinize candidate Obama, realize that he would be far worse than Johnson (and GW Bush), and publicize that information

  • Candly||

    Thank you for sharing! buyincoins, where you can buy good products from China directly without any shipping fee.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement