New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | July 14, 2006

Delaware Dave Weigel gives a one-cheek salute to the First State's perpetually perplexed, proudly pontificatin', pitilessly plagiarizin' prince.

Comments

|7.14.06 @ 3:40PM|#

ouch.

I am begining to form this hypothosis about the general draw of libertarians to the repubilcan fold...it is not as if libertarians like the republicans any more then the democrats it is simply that libertarians are so much better at pulling DEMs through the mud.

|7.14.06 @ 4:04PM|#

That may be the perception, but one wonders whence it comes. After all, it was a leftist president who instituted wage and price controls, right? And a leftist president who is leading the current charge towards an imperial presidency, right?
What draws libertarians to the right is a certain willingness to attend to slogans rather than facts. And the libertarians find right-ist slogans marginally more palatable than leftist ones, or so it seems.
This attention to slogans over facts is hardly unique to libertarians, but...

hugs,
Shirley Knott

|7.14.06 @ 4:20PM|#

I think the draw has more to do with this kind of thinking:

"R's say they support smaller government, but generally don't. Imagine what someone who won't even pretend will do!"

|7.14.06 @ 4:31PM|#

kohlrabi, you mean the logic is that at least the Republicans are willing to lie to us? :)

|7.14.06 @ 4:31PM|#

Whereas the right will lead to fascism instead.

Same fucking thing.

|7.14.06 @ 4:40PM|#

Pro,

LOL, maybe!

I think it's more like if you have a pretense of not doing something, you might do less to not blow your cover, or you might have some hesitance where-as if you are proudly doing something, you'll be whole-hearted-full-steam-ahead!

Maybe like how a tyrant who feels he is morally justified is the worst kind.

Anyway, I'm just guessing.

|7.14.06 @ 5:09PM|#

I am begining to form this hypothosis about the general draw of libertarians to the repubilcan fold...it is not as if libertarians like the republicans any more then the democrats it is simply that libertarians are so much better at pulling DEMs through the mud.

I don't trust either one of them any farther than I can throw their respective mascots. Vote for one of each - gridlock is your friend.

Then again, every time I pick up a copy of Reason I can pretty reliably count on it striking a blow for freedom by publishing a commentary appealing to the judiciary or the legislature to ram the unpalatable down the throats of the peasants. Not sure most Americans would consider being preempted from any input into what kind of country they're going to be living in a greatly liberating experience. In that respect, I don't know that the policy preferences of those who call themselves libertarians are much of an improvement over the ones we're already getting.

Mostly, I've just come to the conclusion that people who are drawn to politics, of any stripe, just aren't very nice people.

|7.14.06 @ 5:25PM|#

So what's wrong with using "audacity" in a speech?

|7.14.06 @ 5:42PM|#

It's too audacious.

David Weigel|7.14.06 @ 5:47PM|#

Nothing at all is wrong with saying "audacity." I'm pointing out that Obama's reputation - which is great enough to inspire people to seriously argue his presidential bona fides - rests entirely on a pretty good speech he made two years ago.

|7.14.06 @ 6:39PM|#

Man, Dave...Pretty hearty smack-down of Joey B & the Dems.

My only real points of disagreement are:

1. that Bork didn't belong on the Supreme Court. Too kooky. Check out the National Review piece from last December where - in fit of Grandpa Simpson logic - he postulated that we needed to enact government censorship of popular culture in order to insure freedom of speech.

2. Obama's far too new to talk about everything he hasn't done. He's only been in the senate a year and a half.

|7.14.06 @ 7:27PM|#

ChicagoTom:

In fairness, the Newt Gingrichs and Dick Armeys of the GOP are long gone, and have been replaced at the top of the power structure by corrupt fucks like Delay/Hastert and Frist. Your Tom Coburns, Jeff Flakes, and Ron Pauls have been relegated to sideshow acts.

Where are the small government Dems, either today or in recent history? Zell Miller comes to mind, even though the left considers him worse than a traitor. Moynihan?

|7.14.06 @ 8:50PM|#

"R's say they support smaller government, but generally don't. Imagine what someone who won't even pretend will do!"

Reform welfare and balance the budget?

|7.14.06 @ 9:02PM|#

Iron Lungfish,

Yes, President Clinton did both of those things, and I wish more presidents would have to courage to do so. The budget balancing was accomplished without a single Congressional Republican supporting it (because it was done with higher taxes and spending restraints that the Republicans at the time claimed would cripple the economy), but welfare reform was a joint Clinton-Republican effort (the only nay votes in the Senate were Democrats).

Clinton also signed the Brady Bill, and I'm not sure how that protected liberty in any great way. Still, I'd take him over either Bush (and most likely, whoever is going to take over the White House in 2008).

|7.14.06 @ 9:35PM|#

"R's say they support smaller government, but generally don't. Imagine what someone who won't even pretend will do!"

I think kohlrabi pretty much nails it, as far as I'm concerned.

To put it another, imagine dogs could talk, and you have a choice between adopting:

1) A puppy that says, "Peeing on the rug is bad! Puppies should not pee on the rug!" even though, knowing puppies, you still expect it will leak on the rug now and then.

or

2) A puppy that says, "I think peeing on the rug is good! It's what the people want. And I expect to be praised for it whenever I do it!"

Which one do you pick to take home?

Unless you're an idiot, you choose puppy #1. You at least expect it to show a little restraint. But puppy #2 can be expected to pee as much as it can whenever it can.

(Unfortunately, when you get puppy #1 home, you find out that it not only pees on the carpet pretty often, but also digs holes in your privacy and chews on your Constitution. But based on what you knew at the time, it's easy to see why you found puppy #1 more attractive.)

|7.14.06 @ 10:32PM|#

Stevo...that is - without a doubt - the most bizarre, colorful and fascinating analogy I have yet read on Reason. I can't wait til you do the one about spaying (or neutering) congress...or rubbing it's nose in shit when it poops on the floor.

Then there's shock collars...gotta love shock collars.

|7.14.06 @ 10:33PM|#

Pursuing your metaphor to its logical conclusion, Stevo, I'm just wondering, which real-life option would correspond to shooting both puppies in the head? :-)

Warren|7.14.06 @ 11:23PM|#

Bilgewater. The right is every bit the enemy of freedom as is the left. They are more likely to cry crocodile tears for freedom when the left is pushing them around, but they don't even pretend once they get their hands on the reigns.

Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Republicans. Fuck all the fucking fucks.

|7.15.06 @ 1:43AM|#

Fuck all the fucking fucks. - Warren

So true, Warren.

BTW, You are David Mamet, and I claim my £5.

Kevin

|7.15.06 @ 7:37AM|#

Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Republicans. Fuck all the fucking fucks.

Well, of course, but the douchebags that come in here talking about how great the Dems are seem to outnumber the douchebags talking about how great the Repubs are. Considering that we have the choices of:

A) GOP
B) Donkeys
C) Tossing a vote away

it is somewhat of an issue to supposedly politically oriented people such as ourselves.

|7.15.06 @ 8:27AM|#

the douchebags that come in here talking about how great the Dems are seem to outnumber the douchebags talking about how great the Repubs are

Are you and I posting on the same board.

My guess, jf, is that you're such a passionate Dem-hater that you fail to notice the overwhelming number of people on this board that range from mere liberal-knockers to whacko GOP shills and that you fixate on the handful of liberal apoligists who post here.

Over the past year, I've noticed a major shift in frustration and open dislike of the GOP (myself included). But that has hardly equated to a corresponding embracing of the Dems.

There are a few, no doubt. But they are no where near the majority.

bonk|7.15.06 @ 6:14PM|#

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/07/14/triumph_of_the_authoritarians/

|7.15.06 @ 9:55PM|#

Join me and vote Bull Moose in 2008. I'm bully for Teddy!

|7.16.06 @ 12:42AM|#

Thanks for the post, bonk. I've always had some ambivalence about John Dean but he sure nails this one on the head as far as I'm concerned.

|7.16.06 @ 2:07AM|#

Well, of course, but the douchebags that come in here talking about how great the Dems are seem to outnumber the douchebags talking about how great the Repubs are.

I thoough the Republicans were the giant douchebags and the dems were the turd sandwiches...but i might be projecting becouse i see cartman as a republican...anyway that doesn't end my confusion becsouse you are clasifing the republicans and democrats as giant douchebags...then who is the turd sandwiches?

|7.16.06 @ 2:44PM|#

Just a thought but, from what I can tell, classifying anyone as anything approaches meaninglessness these days.

Republicans are not really "conservative" anymore, although they insist on calling themselves "conservatives". They're really obnoxious bullies with the morals and manners of a spoiled child (tip o' the hat to Lazarus Long).

Anyone who points this (or any of a number of hypocrasies or contradictions) out is immediately labelled "liberal"...unless the pointer outer is already an established conservative celebrity.

Liberals are now "progressives" because the soft consonants make it harder to say "progressive" with the same kind of hatred and venom dripping from ones lips...but conservatives still call them "liberals."

"Liberal" doesn't mean much anymore because you can still belong to any one or number of democratic subgroups without buying into the whole "Liberal" spectrum but you're stuck because on whatever particular issue you care about (water quality, search & seizure, separation of church & state...issues conservatives used to care about), the conservatives are just a bunch of fucking assholes (another label...not so meaningless, though).

And no matter what you think, voicing it makes you someone's enemy because people as a whole have become moronic, self-centered pricks with big mouths, small brains and no class.

So I'm with warren...fuck all the fucking fucks.

|7.16.06 @ 10:05PM|#

madpad,

Sorry you got that impression from my post. I guess a more clear way to say it is that I find people who cheer anyone with the (R) after their name simply because of that stupid and impossible to deal with, the same way I find people who do the same with the (D). I'm not saying one is better than the other.

|7.17.06 @ 6:11AM|#

Amen, jf...amen. Now if we could just convince 300 million more people, we might be o.k.