New at Reason

December 11, 2007

Dave Weigel takes a look at what didn't happen in 2007.

Comments

|12.11.07 @ 4:38PM|#

I was at a roast for him for Epilepsy Association

I'd like to get a transcript of some of the jokes...

Derrick|12.11.07 @ 4:57PM|#

Ron Paul is not the perfect poster boy for libertarianism. But, his candidacy has been a big net gain for the libertarian "brand." The difference between his current campaign and the one in 1988 (when he was the LP nominee) is astounding. We're definitely on the rise. It feels pretty good to me, after 20+ years of being part of a really extreme minority.

|12.11.07 @ 5:06PM|#

In one of the local rags, I don't recall which one, the sportswriters (experts) make prdictions about football contests vs the spread. 4 sportswriters, and they're all below .500. I once perused a book "The Experts Speak" that showcased all of the glaringly wrong predictions that experts have made throughout history. If it sold, I'm sure the authors will do volume 2. What I'm getting at, in a longwinded way, is that the "experts" are just just making SWAGs (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses). Politics is no different.

Franklin Harris|12.11.07 @ 6:14PM|#

I'll cop to being wrong about Fred Thompson, but, really, did anyone foresee his ongoing Hamlet impression before he finally entered the race? When he did finally jump into the mix, he was already dead.

|12.11.07 @ 6:29PM|#

The funny thing is how fast McCain and Thomspon are falling and how fast Huckabee is rising. The public really is tired of the old guard and even though Huckabee is probably going to be tarred and feathered before this is all over, it shows how desirous the Republican base is for someone other than Fred McRomliani.

80s alum|12.11.07 @ 7:35PM|#

In college I had to hide my love of video games, my love of TLotR and my interest in libertarianism just so I'd stand a reasonable chance of hooking up.

Over the last seven years I've been wondering wtf is going on. What's next, a revival of Heinlein and big hair?

|12.11.07 @ 9:12PM|#

Here were my predictions. I'm pretty sure I'm 5-4-5, but I'm not going to look for citations, so I could be 0-4-5 or anywhere in between.

The more interesting bit comes later. You were hoping I had forgotten, weren't you joe? Well a bet's a bet. So when joe shows up next year, you all point him my way.

Very shrewd of joe to lower the stakes. Now much pending legislation talk in Jan. of an election year. Who knows, the campaign trail might spit out something juicy.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|12.12.07 @ 3:54AM|#

Among people who have known Bush for decades, there is almost as much certainty that he needs to disengage from Iraq as there are doubts about whether he has the wiring and instincts

It's already a done deal. That's what the "NIE" was all about, get it? Send smoke signals to Iran: "Dear Iran, we think you aren't so bad after all, have a nice day."

There's already Washington-Tehran talks going on about how to get Iraq under control.

By hook or by crook, Iraq is all over but the cheering.

Which should free up the military just in time for whatever venture George Clooney tells Hillary we should really give a fuck about next, after she wins in '08.

Weigel may be right about The People wanting something new in politics. But as much as I would love to see Ron Paul in the White House, I doubt it. The People aren't that interested in what's going on.

I predict we live in an age where fire and brimstone will sell much better than tolerance.

The problem with trying to sell libertarian ideas is that it's like a hippie running around saying "peace man, just chill out, live and let live, and we'll all be fine".

That line has never sold news papers, and I dont' believe it can sell politicians.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|12.12.07 @ 4:07AM|#

I wonder if anybody ever wrote a book about the similarities of selling news papers and politicians.

The whole libertarian idealogical universe needs to be translated into Action News verbage. Drop the pot smoking "hey man, live and let live", and translate it into a bunch of self righteous outraged one-liners.

Seems like there was a thread back in time where people around here were doing something like that.

Hint hint, it would be interesting to see it done again. Just to see what people could come with......

The de-centralized diffusion of power is inherent in libertarian thought, just like it was with Deism. If somebody doesn't get serious about figuring out how to actually sell "live and let live" philosophy, I predict our movement is as doomed as Deism.

Because I'm really afraid that Ron Paul is nothing more than a blip that's going to come and go on the national radar screen.

|12.12.07 @ 9:51AM|#

You got me on that one, Warren. I thought a bipartisan immigration reform bill was a sure bet.

It went on like this all year, ramping up when Gore released his mildly deranged book on politics and when he won the Nobel Prize. The book, if anyone cared to read it, compared the media's gullibility to the ease with which chickens can be hypnotized.

Al's got a lust for life!
Al's got a lust for live!
Ooooo-oooooo.

|12.12.07 @ 10:15AM|#

Which should free up the military just in time for whatever venture George Clooney tells Hillary we should really give a fuck about next, after she wins in '08.

Now there's an interesting question:

Who will Hillary bomb?

Her husband, after all, was not shy about scrambling the bombers. I bet she won't be either.

I'd like to speculate that it will be some kind of "humanitarian" bombing that focus groups well (Darfur, perhaps?), but my sense that she will do anything that the focus groups like is at war with my difficulty in putting "Hillary" and "humanitarian" in the same sentence.

|12.12.07 @ 10:31AM|#

Ebeneezer Scrooge (if that IS your real name),

I don't think the NIE represents the administration line, but rather, the professional CIA.

And I don't think Hillary takes marching orders from Hollywood. She gives them.

|12.12.07 @ 10:32AM|#

Who will Hillary bomb?

How about bin Laden?

Oh, yeah, remember him?

|12.12.07 @ 1:38PM|#

How about bin Laden?

So Hillary's going to bomb Pakistan? That will be interesting.

Just curious here - can we bomb bin Laden under international law? After all, he isn't a state or state agent, so wouldn't the current Received Wisdom regarding the Geneva Conventions bar us from taking military action against him? Isn't the current thinking that accused terrorists should be treated as criminal suspects and given due process?

|12.12.07 @ 2:04PM|#

Look who's suddenly so concerned about international law and the effects of unilateral military action! Is this sort of like the Republicans discovering the benefits of fiscal conservatism the day after the Democrats took Congress back?

Just curious here - can we bomb bin Laden under international law?

Of course we can. Every nation has the right to self defense against state and non-state actors.

After all, he isn't a state or state agent, so wouldn't the current Received Wisdom regarding the Geneva Conventions bar us from taking military action against him?

No. I can't even work out a thought process where this makes sense even as satire.

Isn't the current thinking that accused terrorists should be treated as criminal suspects and given due process? If they are captured, yes. I've yet to see anyone argue that military enemies encountered on the battlefield can only be captured, not killed.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|12.12.07 @ 3:50PM|#

I don't think the NIE represents the administration line, but rather, the professional CIA.

And I'm equally sure that the NIE story didn't go public without Bush approval. The US and Iran are already moving toward real negotiations.

Of course this could break down in a NY second. But if the US actually wants out of Iraq, this is a good part of that road.

And I don't think Hillary takes marching orders from Hollywood. She gives them.

Whatever. I'll still bet that she bombs somebody, and it will be for "humanitarian" reasons, probably with some kind of UN sanction/backing.

And if it's the UN then odds are high that it's gonna be BS anyway, but at least it will be BS that EVERYBODY agrees on (that makes it okay to bomb). As opposed to UNILATERAL (which makes it not okay to bomb).


(if that IS your real name)

Ha! You'll never know.