Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
McCain's Streak of Luck ... and Good Planning
John McCain's victory tonight, which finally ripped the eight-year-old South Carolina monkey off his back, is the culmination of a whole season's worth of remarkable good luck for a campaign that was declared dead more times last summer than Abe Vigoda. Much of the campaign's once-wishful sounding dominoes fell almost perfectly into place:
1) Mitt Romney, McCain's chief early-state-strategy rival, was knocked off of his front-runner's perch in Iowa by an out-of-nowhere revolt from a candidate not named Giuliani. 2) That candidate, Mike Huckabee, caused the GOP establishment to rear up on its hind legs, let out a mighty hiss, and start looking for an "electable" alternative. 3) The Romney defeat, combined with McCain's natural talents at door-to-door campaigning in independent-heavy New Hampshire, led to a repeat of his 2000 victory there. 4) McCain's early poor polling, plus his personal friendships with other candidates, basically gave him a free ride in terms of criticism from the contenders. 5) Giuliani's late-state strategy, as predicted but not guaranteed, caused his early national lead to evaporate, and led to routine humiliations in early primaries by Ron Paul. 6) Paul's libertarian revolt, while exceeding most expectations, nevertheless failed to take a serious bite out of McCain's support among independents. 7) McCain's friend Fred Thompson, who entered the race when it looked like McCain was going nowhere, failed to catch fire, and fizzled in the very state he was supposed to take: South Carolina. He looks set to drop out and back his old campaign finance reform buddy.
So, it's mostly all broken right for McCain. But not everything
-- Romney has pivoted pretty quickly into an opportunistically
delegate-scarfing
strategy, and he beat McCain in Michigan. Florida, which McCain and
everyone else has identified as the kingmaking state, is currently
a threefour-way
tie. Guiliani's late-state strategy might yet pay off on Super
Tuesday. And McCain has longstanding deficits in money,
organization, and love from the GOP base. This race is still wide,
wide open ... and interesting.
|1.19.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Intrade says McCain has an over 50% chance of winning the
nomination; Romney has about a 23% chance; Giuliani still has a 17%
chance; and the rest is divided between Huckabee, Paul, and
deii ex machina of various stripes.
I like the idea of a brokered convention choosing David Petraeus,
the war hero general, as the GOP candidate. Voters suspected of not
supporting the Princeton-educated officer could be asked, in
censorious and menacing voice,
"Why do you hate our troops? Why do you hate America?"
SIV|1.19.08 @ 10:10PM|#
Ron Paul did well in Nevada.
Now that he has shaken loose an unpleasant, suspect "fringe group"
association he is more acceptable to thinking voters.
Eric Dondero|1.19.08 @ 10:13PM|#
Been watching the McCain speech and all the pundits summation of
McCain's victory.
Seems everyone is saying that it's because of the success of the
War in Iraq, and McCain's steadfastness with the Surge.
McCain is talking the same line in his speech.
Wonder what all the Anti-War Libertarians have to say about this?
They've been awfully silent as of late on the War.
|1.19.08 @ 10:13PM|#
I don't like the idea of a general running for president during
the same year he's actually serving in the military. It would blur
the divide between civilian command and the military.
This wasn't a problem with Eisenhower, but he'd been out of the
military for a few years before he entered politics.
|1.19.08 @ 10:14PM|#
Wonder what all the Anti-War Libertarians have to say about
this?
Republicans continue to delude themselves about Iraq?
|1.19.08 @ 10:16PM|#
Dondero,
The situation in Iraq has improved temporarily before (usually
during the winter). We'll see if violence ramps up again in the
spring like it has in the past. If not, that's obviously a good
thing, but we still don't have much in the way of an exit
strategy.
|1.19.08 @ 10:29PM|#
www.pollingreport.com/iraq
Please please please, Republicans, I beg from the bottom of my
Democratic heart - nominate a candidate based on the success of
the War in Iraq, and his steadfastness with the Surge.
What's most impressive about those polls - all of those polls - is
the actual decline in support since people started using the phrase
"success of the surge" earlier this winter.
The public remembers the strategy laid out in the SOTU, even if the
Republicans have tried to shove it down the memory hole.
|1.19.08 @ 10:31PM|#
Goiter,
You're talking about the Libertarian Party, right? ;-)
I'd vote for Hagel/Bloomberg in the general, but not the other way
around.
Transexual Libertarian|1.19.08 @ 10:39PM|#
Dondero, Shouldn't a libertarian pledge not to use force to
achieve objectives? How is the war in Iraq any different?
You say you want to see a libertarian in higher office in your
lifetime. How about learning from our foreign policy mistakes in
your lifetime?
|1.19.08 @ 10:43PM|#
A libertarian pledges not to use force inside the libertarian govt's area of jurisdiction. The use of force may be necessary internationally, because there's no government to appeal to if another nation initiates force against yours.
|1.19.08 @ 10:46PM|#
Republican numbers seem impressive sometimes until you see
this:
IOWA: 236,000 Democrats and 119,000 Republicans
NEW HAMPSHIRE: 284,000 Democrats and 233,000 Republicans
MICHIGAN: 593,000 Democrats and 867,000 Republicans (NOTE:
Republicans had a primary with delegates at stake. Democrats did
not)
NEVADA: 114,000 Democrats and 43,000 Republicans.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!
Matt Welsh aka The Professor|1.19.08 @ 10:46PM|#
Comrades,
I have a book about McCain coming out soon. Please look for it at
better book sellers near you.
Your Pal,
Matt
Tranny like yer Granny|1.19.08 @ 10:49PM|#
crimethink, agree. however, no force was initiated by Iraq to provoke this war. WMDs have yet to be found. Tho, they may be with Colonel Mustard in the library.
|1.19.08 @ 10:50PM|#
That would mean that more people voted for Hillary than all the Republians combined...
|1.19.08 @ 10:50PM|#
James,
The fact that only Romney and Paul made a serious effort in Nevada
makes it more like Michigan than like Iowa and New hampshire.
Still, those Iowa and New Hampshire numbers are impressive,
considering they were 50/50 states in the last two elections,
giving each party one victory.
some dude|1.19.08 @ 10:53PM|#
Now that he has shaken loose an unpleasant, suspect "fringe
group" association he is more acceptable to thinking
voters.
Cosmotarians?
|1.19.08 @ 10:55PM|#
Yeah...true...though in Iowa Hillary's 3rd place was almost twice as many votes as the Republican 1st place.
Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 11:00PM|#
8) McCain has never written any newsletters, or had them written for him ;)
|1.19.08 @ 11:01PM|#
Nah, neither of the races are over.
They're the frontrunners, sure, but neither one has a prohibitive
lead.
|1.19.08 @ 11:04PM|#
Yeah, she was second in Iowa. She will probably be second in SC.
But she will clean up in the Super Tuesday primary sans the South
and Illinois.
McCain will clean up the Super Tuesday primaries, maybe even in the
South given his victory in S.C.
Then you will have your nominees.
|1.19.08 @ 11:10PM|#
You're going with the smart money, Cesar. No doubt.
But those are some big qualifications on your Hillary predition:
the South and Illinois, oh is that all? She'd need to pretty much
sweep the rest of the Feb 5 states to end the race that day.
Oh, and I was answering James, who wrote that she was 3rd in Iowa,
I think.
|1.19.08 @ 11:17PM|#
But those are some big qualifications on your Hillary predition: the South and Illinois, oh is that all? She'd need to pretty much sweep the rest of the Feb 5 states to end the race that day.
I bet she will. Shes a machine. However, if she doesn't completely
sweep them, then it comes down to the "Capital Primary"--Maryland,
D.C., and Virginia.
Maryland: Obama
D.C.: Obama (duh)
Virginia: Clinton (Sorry, Gov. Kaine)
I'm not sure what comes after us, but I don't think my vote will
matter much given that she will sweep Super Tuesday.
I'm 75% confident barring a George Allen moment that she will win
the general against McCain as well. It will be 1996 all over
again--a Clinton vs. a war hero thats past his time. As I said,
shes can make McCain look like McGovern before its all over.
|1.19.08 @ 11:20PM|#
Pundits see a 4 way tie in Florida, I see a McCain clear win w/
Romney and Giuliani beating each other up for 2nd place and
Huckabee deflating like the windbag preacher he is, coming in 4th.
Looking at the momentum. McCain is proving himself to be very
electable and is thriving in this rotating 6 man race.
And more than that, you know Giuliani is dead when Dondero clears
the ship with pole vaulting distance, in an attempt to land on the
SS Romney-fiscal-conservative-blahblahblahblah...
|1.19.08 @ 11:25PM|#
Cesar,
Never underestimate the blind hatred alot of us have about HRC. I
would vote for Romney and McCain before I even thought about voting
for her. She's pretty much the epitome of what should be despised
about politicians and although her husband didn't really screw
anything up, I have no doubt that she has plans to europeanise the
USA with the new found executive powers granted to Mr. Bush.
|1.19.08 @ 11:27PM|#
"McCain's Streak of Luck .. and Good Planning"
I think it comes down to basics: McCain is politically transparent
(a plus, agree on the issues or not), not a drone or a yes-man
(he's for the war but against the de facto use of torture), and is
morally conservative and socially moderate.
Basically, an Independent Republican. Can run against Bush credibly
in the general election.
Also, McCain is NOT Mormon or Catholic.
Plus McCain was just endorsed (yesterday?) by Sen. Tom Coburn, one
of the few politicians whose endorsement could actually garner
votes among the fiscal hawks.
McCain's only "luck" was having Romney and the Ghoul suck a year's
worth of oxygen out of the coverage early on through heavy public
relations campaigns, which only served to underline the clients'
psychoses.
|1.19.08 @ 11:28PM|#
I think Clinton wins in the general exactly because of the hatred conservatives have for her...they will overplay their cards and she will receive a massive turnout from black and latino voters as well as a huge turnout from white women.
|1.19.08 @ 11:31PM|#
Never underestimate the blind hatred alot of us have about HRC.
Oh, I hate her fucking guts. I'd vote for any Republican over her
except Huckabee and Giuliani. But baby boomer white women will
swamp people like you and me. Shes the Democratic Karl Rove when it
comes to politics.
|1.19.08 @ 11:32PM|#
Wow, I'd forgotten that, James. Right you are. Hillary got just
over 29% and Edwards got just under 30%. I just remembered it as a
tie for second.
I think Clinton wins in the general election because Iraq will
still be a mess, the economy will be in the toilet, and the
Republicans will be the incumbent party.
|1.19.08 @ 11:33PM|#
Cesar, you really think she, personally, is a political strategist comparable to Karl Rove?
|1.19.08 @ 11:34PM|#
(scared that joe is correct, LIT prepares his VISA documentation for overseas work come November)
|1.19.08 @ 11:36PM|#
Cesar, you really think she, personally, is a political strategist comparable to Karl Rove?
Not her personally, but the machine backing her. I bet they've all
studied Karl Roves tactics and not only learned them, but learned
how to defeat them.
|1.19.08 @ 11:45PM|#
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/19/fred-thompsons-speech-to-nowhere/
Fred Thompson? He is/was....something/nothing...wasn't he?
|1.19.08 @ 11:51PM|#
McCain won South Carolina with just over half of the votes he received in 2000...boy Republicans do hate their candidates don't they?!
|1.19.08 @ 11:59PM|#
Dr Paul came in 2nd in NV, beating McCain from neighboring AZ, Huckabee, Thompson, and warmonger Giuliani.
Joe Allen|1.20.08 @ 12:16AM|#
So now that HuntforFredOctober is effectively dead, who are you going to pretend is the most libertarian-leaning candidate now, Matt?
Brandybuck|1.20.08 @ 12:20AM|#
I don't like McCain. He is a statist through and through. But of all the GOP candidates, he is the only one besides Ron Paul who condemned torture. Which means he still has an ounce of humanity in him. So I could live with a McCain presidency.
crw|1.20.08 @ 12:41AM|#
McCain is an acceptable divided government candidate. He
wouldn't move the country in a libertarian direction, but he would
hold the line on the dreaded growth of government spending. I'd
worry about his executive competence, though.
Really, right now the only completely unacceptable Republican
candidate is Huckabee. If we're going to get a fiscal liberal, it
might as well be an actual Democrat.
|1.20.08 @ 1:23AM|#
I can't see where Hillary would be worse than McCain. Anyone who sings gleefully about bombing another country and boasts about hundred-year occupations is a first-class nut job. She may be a bitch, but she's a sane bitch, and sanity is the first requirement for the job of baby-sitting the nuclear button.
|1.20.08 @ 1:56AM|#
I'm probably going to catch hell for saying this, but I don't
think McCain's position on torture has anything to do with
morality.
He signed a confession of war crimes, for Christ's sake. How could
he stand up now and say that torture yields accurate intel?
Notice that on all the other issues, he's twice the son of
perdition. A quarter million troops in Iraq? Make it half a
million, ha ha! Stay there fifty years? Make it a hundred, ha ha
ha! And what about the Iran NIE? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HA HA HA HA HA
HA!
You would never guess from his cheerfulness that he's talking about
events that will result in the loss of lives of thousands of
innocent people. His psychosis goes well beyond insenstivity and
far, far into sadism.
He reminds me of the Joker: twisted smile, sick sense of humor,
superficial cheeriness broken by eruptions of rage whenever he
perceives a slight -- which is all the time.
How dare I make such a comparison with a man who has suffered so
much? Well, you'll remember that falling into a vat of acid didn't
make the Joker a better person . . . .
R. Mutt|1.20.08 @ 2:11AM|#
First time in my memory that I have absolutely no clue who the
nominee will be from either party at this stage of the
election.
I hope this is some sort of sign that the two-party system is
breaking: the fact that both parties have trouble uniting behind a
candidate reflects a factionalism that has not only split American
into red/blue, but produced rifts within the parties. If the
evangelicals and the fiscal cons don't fall in line anymore, and
the anti-war, Clinton machine, and unions all fight each other,
maybe the current coalitions and political spectrum will break and
resettle in some manner more favorable to libertarian views.
Creative destruction or something.
I know it would be acting in bad faith, but I sometimes wonder if a
divisive presidency would be the trick to end the current system,
the way the W's incompetent presidency has made libertarianism more
fashionable nowadays. At least that will be how I console myself
when I am forced to decide between Giuliani and Hillary come
November.
Joe Allen|1.20.08 @ 2:11AM|#
I think rightsaidFred might stay in to draw away Huckabee votes
to help McCain. It worked pretty damn well in SC. We'll see.
He has to talk to his mommy about it.
Matt Welch is a near-sighted poodle.
tucson bircher|1.20.08 @ 2:20AM|#
Has Reason done investigative political reporting into McCain's corporate entities? Is it true he's mobbed up in Arizona? Wife is a liquor heiress...
Kolohe|1.20.08 @ 2:24AM|#
But baby boomer white women will swamp people like you and
me.
You know, I used to think so, but my solid lifelong democrat mother
(who's technically a year or two older than a baby boomer, but
close enough) hates her guts as well.
I got to look up the correct numbers but I think Sen Clinton's
unfavorables among older female boomers are still around 50% (and I
believe that it's probably mostly because the women of front end of
boomer gen tended to be stay-at-home moms and not go to college
more so than the back end, and esp more so than gen xers)
Sean W. Malone|1.20.08 @ 3:36AM|#
I might suggest that if it comes down to say, Hillary vs. McCain
- I for one will either vote for whoever gets a libertarian
nomination, write in Ron Paul or simply not vote.
My job has me out of the country most of the year anyway so I guess
not voting is certainly the easy choice.
I assume I'm not alone here when I suggest that voting your
conscience is the only way to really use your vote in a democratic
society. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils and thereby
contribute yet more evil into an already evil-filled political
system.
It winds up being more or less futile either way when you think
about it, so I'd rather be proud of myself than vote for a "winner"
who barely shares 1/3rd of my philosophy.
|1.20.08 @ 4:08AM|#
I think that dondero is making me become an anti-war guy. Must resist the manipulation. Hmmm maybe he still secretely works for Paul.... brilliant
|1.20.08 @ 4:18AM|#
"Romney has pivoted pretty quickly into an opportunistically
delegate-scarfing strategy."
No candidate worth his salt would stoop to gather low hanging
fruit, eh? I mean, really, how low can you go? He should be
fighting for symbolic victories like the other candidates.
Ventifact|1.20.08 @ 5:01AM|#
LIT -- it's funny though, because the first letter of the company name acronym VISA stands for the word visa.
Eric Dondero|1.20.08 @ 6:09AM|#
Transgender Libertarian, I'm sorry you're the fist victim of
this, but I've adopted a new line here at Reason H&R not to
respond to anyone who uses silly psuedonames on line, initials or
post under Anonymous.
I will respond to people who completely disagree with me who use
their real names, people like Jake Boner, Franklin Harris, John
Randolph, Matt Welch, Joe Allen, et.al.
I have a policiy over at my Libertarian Republivcan Blog to delete
posts under Anonymous. Only consistent to keep that policy in
Forums that I attend.
Eric Dondero|1.20.08 @ 6:15AM|#
Okay, every one of you here needs to take a gander at the Web's
number one political junkie site for Republicans - Race42008.com
Big article this morning: "It's Over, McCain has won."
The thread is already up to 400 posts.
Of the 400, not a single mention of Ron Paul. The regular
Republicans are completely ignoring him.
His 13%, tied to 2nd place showing in Nevada has not phased them in
the least.
Not good news for me either, because the story line has shifted
from Romney's huge NV win to McCain, McCain, McCain.
Ironically, most of the posters are now saying that Rudy Giuliani
is the only one who can head McCain off. They're saying that the
only chance left to stop McCain is Florida with Rudy.
I don't agree of course. Mitt has more delegates than anyone else
in the field. Ironically, Mitt seems to deal better than anyone
else in Western States. NV and WY completely rejected McCain.
I suspect that would carry over to delegate rich California.
But, and I hate myself for saying this, only one Economic
Conservative candidate can remain standing.
Rudy and Mitt need to cut a deal. If they don't, we're stuck with
McCain.
Eric Dondero|1.20.08 @ 6:18AM|#
Oh, the one bit of really, really good news to come out of last
night for libertarian Republicans is that Huckabee is pretty much
finished. If he can't win SC, he can't win anymore. (Except for
maybe Arkansas, like Ron Paul has a shot in Alaska).
So, there's a silver lining for all libertarians Republicans from
last night's results.
I am all over the place on the political sites, and I have not seen
nor heard of a single libertarian Republican who is supporting Mike
Huckabee for President.
Well, strike that. There are two, and they are both sort of flukes:
Florida State Sen. Mike Haridopolous from Orlando, and Ted Nugent
of course. But I think Ted had a momentary lapse of Chuztpah in an
interview.
DavidS|1.20.08 @ 6:25AM|#
Transgender Libertarian, I'm sorry you're the fist victim of
this, but I've adopted a new line here at Reason H&R not to
respond to anyone who uses silly psuedonames on line, initials or
post under Anonymous.
Could you be more pompous?
|1.20.08 @ 7:59AM|#
I'm sorry you're the fist victim of this...
As if you not talking to me somehow makes me a victim.
I won't look a gift horse in the mouth.
|1.20.08 @ 8:15AM|#
Eric Dondero | January 20, 2008, 6:09am | #
Transgender Libertarian, I'm sorry you're the fist victim of this,
but I've adopted a new line here at Reason H&R not to respond
to anyone who uses silly psuedonames on line, initials or post
under Anonymous.
I cannot speak for others, but as for myself I would be more than
happy not to respond from now on to any posts made here by Dondero.
Would anyone else like to join me on that? I mean, the guy is
really becoming tiresome.
Rakune|1.20.08 @ 8:32AM|#
Kolohe - RE: your 2:24 a.m. post
Exit polls from MSNBC show the boomer and older set breaking for
Clinton/McCain. Your mother seems to be a little brighter than
most.
Eric Dondero|1.20.08 @ 8:37AM|#
You would think that I would have learned by now that arguing
issues is far more important than making some pompous stand about
names.
Especially since I changed my own name from Rittberg!
Let this post be a lesson to me.
Igor|1.20.08 @ 8:43AM|#
McCain won't win in November because he is against torture and he doesn't hate Mexicans enough.
Eric Dondero|1.20.08 @ 9:01AM|#
Someone is posting under my name yet again. Two posts up. Again, if any of you all wish to confirm that it's a post from me pick up the phone and call my cell phone. 832-896-9505.
|1.20.08 @ 9:06AM|#
If that's the real Dondero and not just a spoof, give me a
fucking break. (Although if you're a spoof, you've got his aura of
whiny entitlement down just fine.)
I figure that if anonymous handles were good enough for the writers
of the Federalist Papers, they're good enough for us.
Pompous idiot. Who in the hell cares if he answers any of us
posting? The man is an ex-parrot.
Eric Dondero|1.20.08 @ 9:07AM|#
Stark choices you all fringe libertarians need to make in the
next couple weeks. Y'all either back Romney or Rudy and abandon Ron
Paul, or you'll be stuck with John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton (and
Bloomberg).
The only scenario where this might be a positive is if the
Libertarian Party nominates someone decent like Bob Barr, Ed
Thompson or Wayne Root.
Worst case scenario for everyone:
Hillary Clinton - Democrat
John McCain - Republican
Michael Bloomberg - Independent
Steve Kubby or George Phillies - Libertarian
Decent scenario:
McCain, Hillary & Bloomberg
Wayne Root or Bob Barr - Libertarian
Good scenario:
Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney - Republican
Anybody, good or bad - Libertarian (Good might hurt Rudy or Romney
in the Fall, Kubby or Phillies the standard 350,000 votes which
would have little effect.)
Eric Dondero|1.20.08 @ 9:10AM|#
Matt Welch, any way to track down ISPs to see who is posting under my name? At the least, could you all number the posts so that I may easily reference the spoof posts. Thanks.
Eric Dondero|1.20.08 @ 9:20AM|#
And so who the fuck are you? I've never run into you out on the
petitioning trail for the Libertarian Party or the libertarian
movement. Never heard of you before.
Who the fuck died and made you boss?
What makes you think you're suddenly King of the Libertarians, able
to decide who is and who is not a "Real Libertarian."
Hey buster, I've got 22 years of hardcore libertarian activism
under my belt. I've been called "America's Greatest Libertarian
Political Activist." (See my site for just a tiny taste of some of
the quotes praising me at
www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com.)
Don' you fucking dare try to tell me who is and who is not a "real
libertarian."
I'll compare libertarian resumes with you any day of the
week.
Bring it on mother-fucker. Bring it on...
robc|1.20.08 @ 9:23AM|#
the fact that both parties have trouble uniting behind a
candidate reflects a factionalism that has not only split American
into red/blue, but produced rifts within the parties.
A GOP friend of mine has acknowledged and is upset over the fact
that the GOP seems split into factions just like he always accused
the Dems of. He is despondent over Fred never taking off, he doesnt
feel like he has a "real conservative" left to vote for.
Heywood Jablome|1.20.08 @ 9:24AM|#
Hitlery Clitler-- Democrat as President would usher in a
Renaissance in the militia movement
and Ron Paul could revive the New$letter$.
Rush Limbaugh will be swamped with callers proposing secession,-
the neo-confederate ranks will swell.
She may lose "the Blacks" for the Ds in securing the nomination
.
Moonbat lefties will join in as her foreign policy will be the same
as BushCo.
robc|1.20.08 @ 9:31AM|#
joe,
Did we ever come up with a name for the "petition in the snow"
fallacy?
|1.20.08 @ 10:22AM|#
I remain convinced that McCain must be some sort of decent candidate if Dondero hates him so much.
|1.20.08 @ 10:31AM|#
robc,
Appeal to "Who the Fuck Are You?"
Dondero, I know who Ayn Randian is, just as well as I know who Rick
Barton is.
Or do I get ignored because I'm just little-j joe?
|1.20.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Who the fuck are you? I gathered signatures in the snow! I gave
Murray Rothbard a back rub! Bring it on, Heloise! Let's roll!
Arrrooooooooooo!!!!
Dave Woycechowsky|1.20.08 @ 10:46AM|#
Must resist the manipulation.
O, kwais. coffee out nose lol here.
Fluffy|1.20.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Transgender Libertarian, I'm sorry you're the fist victim of
this, but I've adopted a new line here at Reason H&R not to
respond to anyone who uses silly psuedonames on line, initials or
post under Anonymous.
I hereby declare this "the Fluffy rule", otherwise known as "Fluffy
follows me around showing people posts where I advocate genocide,
and where I say that Saddam Hussein was behind the Oklahoma City
bombing, and where I say that Barack Obama is secretly a Moslem
programmed to be a Manchurian candidate - and I have no response to
give."
|1.20.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Sure, Dondero, Welch is going to e-mail you the IPs of everyone
who pisses you off.
If you're foolhardy enough to post your cell number on the
Internet, your skin should be thick enough to handle people
spoofing you.
What do you think you're going to do with IPs, anyway? Do you even
know enough about how the Internet works to know what info you can
and cannot divine with an IP?
BakedPenguin|1.20.08 @ 11:26AM|#
I remain convinced that McCain must be some sort of decent candidate if Dondero hates him so much.
L_I_T, I know what you mean, but you can't just go by the
Bizarro-Dondero vote (although Bizarro-Dondero love Ron Paul). ED
has also stated that Huckabee is the worst (R) candidate, and I
agree with him on that.
He has convinced me that Kubby would be the best LP candidate,
though.
|1.20.08 @ 11:40AM|#
Uh, spoofing anyone is not cool, even Dondero.
Also, I'm sorry you're the first victim of this policy, Dondero,
but I'm no longer responding to neocon fucktards. If you want to
verify that I am the real crimethink, you can call me at
1-800-EAT-SHIT.
BTS|1.20.08 @ 11:45AM|#
I will respond to people who completely disagree with me who use
their real names, people like Jake Boner
What about Dick Pound, Dondie?
|1.20.08 @ 11:51AM|#
I know a lot of people who never vote Republican or are apolitical independents who would vote for McCain in a minute. They just like the guy. If I had to bet my life on the election, I would say it is going to be McCain versus Hillary after Hillary emerges from a brutal divisive Democratic Primary where she uses every dirty trick in the book to maul Obama. Ultimately, people vote on likability for President as much as anything. The only really unlikable guy who has ever won an election in my lifetime was Nixon, but he won a very close election against Humphrey, after the Democrats completely imploded over Vietnam and then in a blow out election against the only real fringe candidate ever to win a major party's nomination. Nixon is a wierd exception. Hillary is a lot like Nixon. She could win a general election if the Republicans imploded over Iraq or ran a fringe candidate like Huckabee or Paul. Since that does not appear to be happening, I don't think there is any way someone with her negatives is going to win the general election. But I think her and Bill's money and ruthlessness will get her the nomination.
M|1.20.08 @ 11:53AM|#
Jim Bob - to turn this into a Teaching Moment, what info can and cannot one divine with an IP? I've wondered and confess that I'm too lazy to look it up.
alisa|1.20.08 @ 12:12PM|#
John --
I think there is a real distinction between politicians who depend
on wide popularity, and those who get their power from
organizational strategy. They govern differently; a popular figure
like Bill Clinton was extremely cautious about using the military
because he was concerned about public support, while Bush, who's
never had an electoral mandate, is comfortable with policies that
don't poll well. I worry about presidents who don't strive to be
liked; they seem to be more secretive, more likely to value loyalty
over dissent. In that, as far as I can tell, Hillary is like
Nixon.
But it doesn't mean she can't win. Voters right now would choose a
Democrat over a Republican, and I doubt the Democrats who dislike
Hillary would switch to Romney or Huckabee. A McCain-Hillary
general might be interesting, though.
libertreee|1.20.08 @ 12:15PM|#
I know a lot of people who never vote Republican or are apolitical independents who would vote for McCain in a minute. They just like the guy. If I had to bet my life on the election, I would say it is going to be McCain versus Hillary after Hillary emerges from a brutal divisive Democratic Primary where she uses every dirty trick in the book to maul Obama
This is why Ron Paul, IMHO, has to go negative on McCain and maybe
Romney.
His TV ads so far have been about: I am really a Republican. Not a
cook.
Now he has to go after the jugular more. Use the debate clips, his
speeches, etc.
As for McCain, there is plenty out there to illustrate his flip
flops and his terrible temper and warmongering attitude. Just ask
Matt Welch.
RP has to show that Hillary will beat McCain. Because she will. Why
vote for liberal lite when you can have liberal for real?
Joe Allen|1.20.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Lessee... Neocon thought police Coulter, Rush, Dondero etc. are endorsing Romney. Cosmotards are pushing McCain. I think I have to go with Paul just by default, just like Ilana Mercer, Vox Day, and all those hookers in Nevada.
Brett|1.20.08 @ 12:26PM|#
The last Ron Paul TV ad was very weak. It basically, said RP is a Republican, and the USA is a good place to live in. The money that has been wasted on his TV ads must be huge. He's got nothing to lose by hitting McCain or be emphasizing what makes him different - ending the drug war, civil liberties etc.
|1.20.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Hey Joe,
When you and Ron Paul are doing shooters and having fun with Iiana
Mercer and those hookers don't forget Paul"s other
supporters.
David Duke
Stormfront.org
William Pierce(Turner Diaries)
Hutton Gibson(Mel Gibson's anti-semite father)
9/11 truthers
John Birchers
Cindy Sheehan(I wonder if she will bring Lew with her?)
|1.20.08 @ 12:33PM|#
Interesting comparison to Nixon: people who despised him and
thought he was a joke voted for him in 1968, just because they
wanted to punish the Democrats for Vietnam.
And that was at a time when the public supported Humphry's party
over Nixon's on policy issues. Today, Hillary's Party is just about
running the table in policy polls.
The deck is really stacked against the Republicans this November.
It's only because of the popular image the press has created for
McCain that they have any chance at all.
Transgender Libertarian|1.20.08 @ 12:51PM|#
If any of you all wish to confirm that it's a post from me pick up the phone and call my cell phone. 832-896-9505. Ask for Erica.
Transgender Libertarian|1.20.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Common Sense,
Don't forget the transgender supporters of Ron Paul. We count too.
btw - I always thought Guilt by association was weak, but whaddya I
know??
Tranny Granny
Matt|1.20.08 @ 12:53PM|#
>>>If not, that's obviously a good thing, but we still
don't have much in the way of an exit strategy.
from yesterday, crimethink 10:16pm...Ever wonder that we never had
an exit strategy because we never plan to exit?
utter|1.20.08 @ 1:01PM|#
I don't know who's posting here, but there really is a transgendered Libertarian candidate out there
Joe Allen|1.20.08 @ 1:12PM|#
Hey, dont forget the loneliest Ron Paul Supporter: Shimshon
Weisman!
(he's the secret orthodox Jew Nazi)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/weisman1.html
Bhamba|1.20.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Does Hillary beat the future McCain-Lieberman ticket?
Hillary fires up the base on the right. McCain-Lieberman pick off a
big chunk of independents.
|1.20.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Echoing Trans-Lib,
If anybody wants to verify these posts are from me, call me on my
cell..wait no...fuck off. Dondero, you can go take a flying leap
off Dover cliffs. This is retarded.
|1.20.08 @ 1:16PM|#
I matters because Ron Paul refuses to disassociated himself with
these types. They have given $$$ and he will not return it.
Sharp contrast to say when Howard Dean in June 2005 got up and told
9/11 truthers that the DNC would not take their money and their
opinions were "vile, anti-semite rheortic"
Why can't Ron Paul do the same thing?
|1.20.08 @ 1:22PM|#
M,
I'm sure there are computer science-type people who can answer the
question more accurately than I can, but as far as I know an IP can
be used by anyone who can see it to identify someone's geographic
location fairly specifically (maybe down to the city level), but
not who that person is individually. In order to identify someone
personally the ISP has to dig through their logs and see what
person was assigned what IP at what time.
Static IPs are different in the sense that you'll always have that
IP, so it would be easier for your ISP to identify you to
someone.
|1.20.08 @ 1:26PM|#
I would say it is going to be McCain versus
Hillary
I think this is the only scenario in which a Republican could win.
Obama would kill any Republican.
|1.20.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Obama would have a much better chance against any Republican,
but once again the Democrats are too stupid to realize how to
win.
Hillary is the Democrat's Nixon--shes sneaky, secretive,
mean-spirited, and intelligent. Thats not a good combination.
|1.20.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Though I might might be tempted to vote for Clinton just so the neocons see what happens when their "unitary executive" isn't one of them.
Joe Allen|1.20.08 @ 1:33PM|#
It's funny that these "Vile, anti-semitic types" used to be
called "Reagan Democrats."
I'm going with Paul because the Reason/Cato strategy of
incrementalism hasn't produced ANY results. The country is going
backwards, which even Reason acknowleges constantly in
Brickbats.
The big difference is that now I am convinced that the Reason/CATO
strategy isn't intended to show any results.
Brett|1.20.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Clinton has the advantage of being able to portray herself as
the anti-war candidate, relative to McCain, and his ambition to
stay in Iraq for 100 years .
Also if Bush struggled in 2000 to get the evangelical vote out,
won't McCain struggle too, even against Clinton?
Tranny Granny aka Danna doer O|1.20.08 @ 1:59PM|#
common_sense, I've made a new policy to not be an uptight bitch.
Paul is wrong on the newsletter tip, and his excuse is lame.
However, how is he to surmise what supporters are truthers from
skinheads from trannies? He doesn't support their position and has
stated so. What else does he have to do? Howard Dean makes
sausage.
PS- I am a real person, let's keep it that way.
|1.20.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Dondero
Perhaps you could address John C Randolph's question about how you
can possibly consider a gun grabbing socialist to be a
libertarian
if possible please do this without dropping any names or any
personal stories of yours
From The Keystrokes of John Q.|1.20.08 @ 2:37PM|#
The Primary is still open on the Republican side. I think McCain
has the best shot, but he will still have to deal with the brokered
convention.
Hillary Clinton vs John McCain:
Sure, Hillary may not be liked, but she'll win. The two campaigns
represent the old school divide and conquer strategy. Hillary will
be looking to the soccer moms and McCain wll be looking to the
nascar dads. Interesting thing, for every white woman I've met that
will vote for Hillary for the sake of being a woman, I know another
white woman that won't just because she's a woman.
Problem is two fold: Hillary's Record isn't that different from
GWs. So she can say she's "responsible" about the war to promote
democracy at gunpoint. She can actually boast being tougher on
immigration than McCain. She'll talk about how the government can
provide healthcare coverage for the poor and the uninsured. She'll
talk about how the government needs to stop jobs from going
overseas and make things fair for the Middle Class.
McCain will talk about how he's been in government for 25 years.
He's the only one with the foreign policy to save us from unbathed
towelheads. He'll mumble on and on about some sort of half baked
market solution to healthcare in which most of the electorate won't
have time to understand inbetween flipping to their favorite tv
shows.McCain will also see how fickle his friends in specific media
outlets really are. Of Course CNN is routing for him, he's too
liberal for his own party. Wait until he gets the nomination and
the gloves come off. He's not a looker, he's doesn't have anything
new to say, and he's not offering me money from the government.
He's not gonna win.
Neither candidate appeals to young people, not that they'll vote.
McCain will be ultimately hurt by the fact that the Republican
Party is fracturing, isn't raising enough money, and they'll be
facing the political machine which got Clinton re-elected during a
huge correction to the Republican's Favor. Simply because McCain
won't be able to change the dynamic of this election and force
Clinton to compete by new standards.
If Hillary is really worried about the likability factor, all she
has to do is pick Obama as her running mate. A Hillary/Obama
ticket, McCain/ Other wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in
hell.
The real story of this election is how the internet has played a
huge role. The average person is afforded a bigger role in the
process. Where as in the past you needed to know somebody to really
get involved, now grass roots is making a difference. Now you can
meet up with anyone via the internet and distribute flyers in your
precinct. You will see direct mail budgets shrink in future
campaigns. You're going to continue to see that primaries in the
future will be broken up and fractured.
People in states that used to not make a difference will suddenly
find themselves with a more concrete opportunity to change the
electorate. The Money will follow as ratings will boost when they
promote the hype of later state's primaries. State and local gov
will also promote the new trend hoping to soak up some of the money
state's like Iowa and New Hampshire take for granted every four
years. The Traditional Media is not going to be able to compete
with an unregulated media. Now you can just email or text your
friends.
The average voter average is younger in this election and that
trend is going to continue downward for the next few election
cycles. As the internet continues to revolutionize our lives and
allow for revolutionary networking, you're going to see more and
more "Fringe" candidates raise money and compete on a national
level.
Brandybuck|1.20.08 @ 3:09PM|#
The reason I do not use my full name, do not post my real email
address, do not post my phone number, is because this is the
freaking internet! Yes I am tryin to hide. I am trying to hide from
the trolls and nuts and spammers!
If H&R had accounts (which I encourage them to adopt) then I
would have an account and Dondero would know that my posts are my
own. But I am not going to give him my phone number because I do
not want him calling me at three in the morning, screaming at me
about his libertarian resume.
Joe Allen|1.20.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Common Sense asked:
"So are you saying that Regan Democrats are all 9/11
Truthers?"
No. I have condemned the Truthers here on Hit and Run and in my
column "Truthers, Truth and the Man" on nolanchart.com. Dr. Paul
has publicly stated that they don't help him. I suspect you are
just trying to change the subject.
The Reagan Democrats are the southerners and rednecks that hated
the GOP because they associated it with Licoln.
It is a valid argument to say that Lincoln had noble intentions,
but used many immoral tactics. It is a cornerstone of ethics to say
that the ends do not justify the means. Jailing newsaper editors,
political opponents and suspending habeus corpus even in wartime is
unlibertarian and unamerican.
The unintended consequences of Lincoln and the civil war was a much
more powerful federal government. How any libertarian can support
that effect is beyond me.
Freeing the slaves WAS worth every life it cost and more, but it
may have been unneccesary. England and every other country I know
of ended the evil institution peacefully.
|1.20.08 @ 3:29PM|#
Does anyone else have the feeling that if it is indeed a brokered convention for the Republicans, that this could be a re-aligning election? Maybe the party system we've had since 1932 is breaking down.
|1.20.08 @ 3:29PM|#
Er, I mean since 1980. The New Deal coalition split up a long time ago. I think its the Reagan Coalition's turn to break up.
|1.20.08 @ 3:43PM|#
Really, right now the only completely unacceptable
Republican candidate is Huckabee. If we're going to get a fiscal
liberal, it might as well be an actual Democrat.
Giuliani is completely unacceptable here. As a person, as a
politician, as a mammal - unacceptable. My feelings about the
ignorant, hillbilly, whack job preacher have already been
expressed. My feelings today, if Obama gets the nomination, he'll
get my vote. If it's Hillary vs Romney, I'm leaning Hillary. If
it's Hillary vs. McCain, I'm leaning McCain. If it's Edwards vs.
moldy cheese, I'm backing the penicillin culture.
|1.20.08 @ 3:48PM|#
Edwards vs. Huckabee I leave the country for real.
Clinton vs. Romney I'm leaning to Romney.
Clinton vs. McCain I lean slightly to McCain.
|1.20.08 @ 3:51PM|#
Transgender Libertarian, I'm sorry you're the fist victim of
this, but I've adopted a new line here at Reason H&R not to
respond to anyone who uses silly psuedonames on line, initials or
post under Anonymous.
Darn, I so wanted to be the first "victin" of Dondi's no respond
policy. [sits in corner, sulks].
I cannot speak for others, but as for myself I would be more
than happy not to respond from now on to any posts made here by
Dondero. Would anyone else like to join me on that? I mean, the guy
is really becoming tiresome.
I'm with ya. The above was my last.
Josh|1.20.08 @ 4:16PM|#
"The last Ron Paul TV ad was very weak. It basically, said RP is
a Republican, and the USA is a good place to live in. The money
that has been wasted on his TV ads must be huge. He's got nothing
to lose by hitting McCain or be emphasizing what makes him
different - ending the drug war, civil liberties etc."
Let's be happy he didn't attack Martin Luther King.
|1.20.08 @ 4:46PM|#
I cannot speak for others, but as for myself I would be more
than happy not to respond from now on to any posts made here by
Dondero. Would anyone else like to join me on that? I mean, the guy
is really becoming tiresome.
Yeah, but that's probably an exercise in futility. He appears to be
one of those people who's the last to know when he's making an ass
of himself, no matter how many people let him know it....
|1.20.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Well, I personally think the worse possible candidate is
Guliani.
I seriously would much Rather a Hillary presidency than a Guliani
presidency.
Huckabee is horrible in so many ways. Except that he wants to get
rid of the IRS, if he can do that, I forgive most everything
else.
I guess my favorite is
Ron Paul
followed by Fred Thompson
followed by maybe Obama?
The only two talking about getting rid of the IRS are Huckabee and
Paul though.
|1.20.08 @ 5:21PM|#
Hey so um Rush Limbaugh endorsed Romney?
Well that is disappointing. I guess Romney is better than McCain.
Or at least what he pretends to believe now, at this moment, is
slightly better than McCain.
Still Dondero approves of the guy, so instinctually I feel there is
probably a strong reason the guy should lose.
|1.20.08 @ 5:30PM|#
Also as far as McCain running against Hillary or any other
Democrat. He may have the independent's vote but can he win without
the base? I don't think so.
I am kind of hoping that Ron Paul goes 3rd party and hands the Dems
a win.
Just because there is no Republican that is worthy.
I mean I more hope that RP gets the nomination, but that isn't
looking so likely now.
crw|1.20.08 @ 5:51PM|#
Giuliani is completely unacceptable here. As a person, as a politician, as a mammal - unacceptable. My feelings about the ignorant, hillbilly, whack job preacher have already been expressed. My feelings today, if Obama gets the nomination, he'll get my vote. If it's Hillary vs Romney, I'm leaning Hillary. If it's Hillary vs. McCain, I'm leaning McCain. If it's Edwards vs. moldy cheese, I'm backing the penicillin culture.
Well, barring a miracle, I don't think we're going to have
Giulliani to kick around much longer.
But, the way I see it, if it came down to Giulliani vs Hillary,
they'd both be equally bad in terms of government secrecy and
authoritarianism (don't forget both Waco and Elian occurred under
the Clinton DOJ - anyone really think another Janet Reno will be
any better than whoever Giulliani would bring in?). The difference
is Giulliani would continue divided government. With Hillary, the
Democratic congress will rubber stamp everything she wants and look
the other way when she abuses her power. With Giulliani, they'll be
all up in his grill and we can look forward to four more years of
gridlock. Which sounds pretty good to me.
|1.20.08 @ 5:53PM|#
Well that is disappointing. I guess Romney is better than
McCain. Or at least what he pretends to believe now, at this
moment, is slightly better than McCain.
Still Dondero approves of the guy, so instinctually I feel there is
probably a strong reason the guy should lose.
Well, Dondero isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I remember him
crowing about Paul Weyrich supporting Romney.
What Dondero may not know is that Weyrich has always opposed the
Iraq war, and Romney is the only candidate besides Paul who has
never explicitly said going into Iraq was justified.
I have a feeling Weyrich would never have given Romney his
endorsement without having gotten some assurances from Romney on
the matter.
|1.20.08 @ 7:23PM|#
The difference is Giulliani would continue divided
government. With Hillary, the Democratic congress will rubber stamp
everything she wants and look the other way when she abuses her
power. With Giulliani, they'll be all up in his grill and we can
look forward to four more years of gridlock.
See I was thinking just the opposite, that because Guliani is a
Republican, only the fringe groups would oppose his socialistic
ideas.
Where every Republican alive would vociferously oppose everything
the Hilderbeast did.
She would get nothing accomplished, and would be out in 4.
SIV|1.20.08 @ 7:53PM|#
If this was an open thread I would mention that kook fringe cosmotarians are now proponents of cultural marxism. Marxists are, to use Wilkinson's own words,far more willing to use the state to enforce those views than those who have opposed them have. Sice it is not an open thread I apologize for being off topic.
|1.20.08 @ 8:42PM|#
Pig Mannix:
What are you smoking? On Brother Bill's Fox Show, when asked about
Iraq Mitt Romney said, "I wouldn't presume to present a plan
different from that of the President. But I believe he was right to
take on the war on terror on an aggressive front rather than a
defensive front. We toppled the government ... walking away would
mean a humanitarian disaster. We're there and we have a
responsibility to finish the job." [O'Reilly Factor, FNC,
9/27/06]
I remember in one of the early debates, in answer to RP's comments
about how the War was crazy and we should just "come home" Romney
jumped in and said "Has he forgotten about 9/11?" And he's against
any timetable and basically had an orgasm for the troop
surge...
That tool is for the war alright (as long as such a position is
seen as helpful to him by his consultants).
|1.20.08 @ 8:44PM|#
Tranny, I think what that guy was saying is actions speak louder then words. Ron Paul could start by giving that $500 by he got from that neo-Nazis that made the natl news and say, "My campaign refuses to knowingly take money from such groups"
|1.20.08 @ 8:49PM|#
Rudy catches hell (and rightly so) for his gun control support.
Well, Romney has the same problem:
And as the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney lauded the
state's strong laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon
O'Brien. "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support
them," he said. "I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect
us and provide for our safety."
In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures
strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other
gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting
period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/14/romney_retreats_on_gun_control/
|1.20.08 @ 8:49PM|#
That tool is for the war alright (as long as such a position
is seen as helpful to him by his consultants).
Which pretty much describes all of his stances on the issues. He's
a weather vane in an expensive suit. And of the viable Republican
cadidates, he is one of the two least odious. After this election
I'll likely be pounding the drums for congressional supremacy.
SIV|1.20.08 @ 9:02PM|#
I find Romney worse than Rudy.Giuliani offers explanations for why he held a position and says what he intends to do in the future. Mitt just flip flops with no explanation. Rudy strikes me as wrong but consistent and doesn't deny what he believes. I have no idea what Romney believes on much of anything other than that Jesus made a second trip to North America to meet with some white supremacist mound builders who don't appear in the archaeological record.
tarran|1.20.08 @ 9:19PM|#
Romney
Supports socialized health care, corporate welfare to benefit the
manufacturing sector, and an aggressive foreign policy.
Honestly, I just don't understand why some people are so worried
about McCain winning the Republican nomination rather than Romney.
All the Romney supporters need to do if Romney doesn't get the nod
is to cast their votes for Hillary Clinton, and they'll get a
president who will happily enact Romney's policies.
|1.20.08 @ 9:27PM|#
Please, guy whose handle refers to his passionate support for cockfighting, tell us more about who is properly described as a "kook fringe."
SIV|1.20.08 @ 9:37PM|#
joe,
In the wide world of libertarianism no one is kookier or more
"fringe" than marxist "libertarians".There is a bit of an
unresolvable ideological clash there.
SIV|1.20.08 @ 9:41PM|#
There is nothing "fringe" about cockfighting in America.
From Wiki:
Cockfighting has a very long tradition in American culture and
history. Many of the founding fathers participated in the sport of
cockfighting including Washington and Jefferson. [7] First the
British and then the Irish brought in their favorite breeds of
fighting roosters. These breeds make up most of the modern American
breeds.[citation needed] With the influx of immigrants from Central
America and Asia, they have each added new forms of
cockfighting.
|1.20.08 @ 9:55PM|#
SIV,
We used to hang people in the town square. Folks brought their
family, a oicnic lunch and partied down. The highlight of course
was the execution of a human being, Yeah, we used to do that. We,
as a cxulture, have outgrown it. We, as a culture, have outgrown
animal fights to death for entertainment. If you fell bad about
being left behind, look inward.
SIV|1.20.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Public executions are better both as deterent and to remind
people that State violence, however justified, is conducted in
their name right out in the open.
That said, State violence is irrelevant to a wholly private,
consensual activity--particularly a traditional one like
cockfighting with roots as deep as civilization.
joe is responsible for this mini-threadjack.
SIV|1.20.08 @ 10:09PM|#
We, as a culture
J sub D
Who appointed you, or animal rightists in general, as cultural
arbiters?
Your assertion is both collectivist and anti-liberty.
|1.20.08 @ 10:13PM|#
We used to allow parents to send their kids to work for other
adults for 60-70 hours a week. That was consensual (the employer
and the parent agreed, the kid often had no say, just like the
cock). Was prohibiting that OK?
What if we had the kid fight another kid for our amusement? Or have
sex with another kid for our amusement? All the adults involved
would of course be there by consent...
|1.20.08 @ 10:16PM|#
I agree with SIV on Rudy/Romney though. I even think Huck is better than Romney. If any place could justify a tax raise for infrastructure repair it would be Ar-Kansas.
|1.20.08 @ 10:18PM|#
I imagine even SIV would be against the kid fights and sex rings, even allowing the dreaded State to "arbitrate" in this cultural matter. The issue is not in whether it is always wrong to have the State coerce immoral behavior, its what types of moral behavior the state should be limited to applying coercion on (even heavy libertarians think the state should coerce me from assaulting you or squatting on your land w/out permission, probably because you find such behavior immoral (wrong).
|1.20.08 @ 10:22PM|#
I think a sensible libertarian position is that the State should
only be allowed to coerce behavior when it causes an unjustified,
rather direct harm to a being with some rationality, sentience
and/or ability to feel pain. The justifiation would have to be
commensurate to the harm (so something without much of the values I
list above, say, a cock, could be humanely killed to provide food,
but not inhumanely killed for mere amusement).
And S sub D, you think animal fighting is regressive? You cosmotard
;)
|1.20.08 @ 10:22PM|#
@Mr. Nice Guy
Pig Mannix:
What are you smoking? On Brother Bill's Fox Show, when asked about
Iraq Mitt Romney said, "I wouldn't presume to present a plan
different from that of the President. But I believe he was right to
take on the war on terror on an aggressive front rather than a
defensive front. We toppled the government ... walking away would
mean a humanitarian disaster. We're there and we have a
responsibility to finish the job." [O'Reilly Factor, FNC,
9/27/06]
I stand corrected, I hadn't heard that.
@SIV
If this was an open thread I would mention that kook fringe
cosmotarians are now proponents of cultural marxism. Marxists are,
to use Wilkinson's own words,far more willing to use the state to
enforce those views than those who have opposed them
have.
Does that surprise you? There's no such thing as a
"left-libertarian". When push comes to shove, they're inevitably
leftists before they're libertarians. If allowing free people to
exercise their legitimate rights doesn't produce the kind of
society they think we ought to have (and my money says that's
highly unlikely!), they'll be the first to reach for the
truncheon.
Turning your back on that crowd can have consequences that will
seriously mess with your serenity.
Cosmotarianism - Socialist Ends by Free Market Means!
SIV|1.20.08 @ 10:23PM|#
MNG,
Kids aren't chickens.
I dislike and disagree with Romney as much or more as I do the
Huckster and McCain.
I could be wrong about Romney as there is no telling what he would
actually do.McCain and Huck at least have some definable positions
and principals.
SIV|1.20.08 @ 10:34PM|#
Pig Mannix,
Not suprised in the least.The left-libertarian thing is what
brought me to H&R well before the "single issue".I had no idea
how widespread the bs had become beyond Brink Lindsey. I was also
under the mistaken impression that "left-libertarianism" was a
result of confusion among younger people who didn't fully
understand the ideology.I didn't realise commies would have the
chutzpah to try and coopt it.
Cosmotarianism - Socialist Ends by Free Market Means!
Mind if I use that sometimes? Kinda catchy, and apropos.
Kolohe|1.20.08 @ 10:37PM|#
guy whose handle refers to his passionate support for
cockfighting,
R/R explanation? Google reveals basically nothing (but our little
sandbox here) for "SIV" + "cockfighting"
|1.20.08 @ 10:38PM|#
@SIV
You not only have my permission, you have my encouragement! Spread
the meme!
Steven Horwitz|1.20.08 @ 10:44PM|#
PM and SIV,
Would you say that anyone who defends libertarianism/free markets
on consequentialist grounds is suspect? If I argue that the reason
I support libertarianism is because it produces certain results
that most people seem to like (peace, prosperity, and perhaps
especially for the worst off among us), does that make me
suspect?
After all, I'd abandon my libertarian policies if they produced
misery and conflict and/or would adopt other policies if they could
be shown to produce peace and prosperity.
Does that make me a "leftist before a libertarian?" Does that make
me likely to "reach for the truncheon?"
Before you answer, consider that this is more or less the position
that Mises held.
I'm happy to cede to you all the "I'm in favor of freedom even if
it produces misery, poverty, conflict, and strife" position.
SIV|1.20.08 @ 10:55PM|#
kolohe,
When I decided to largely use a single identifying "handle" in
commenting here I chose
"single issue voter". My first comments under this name were
disputing that there was anything libertarian about New Mexico
Democrat Party Governor Bill Richardson-then being touted as a "
democrat libertarian" hope for POTUS, who campaigned implying he
wouldn't advocate for or sign a ban on then legal cockfighting in
his state.Needless to say he was a lying SOB, probably for
politically expedient ends rather than ideological ones.
I shortened it to SIV (nothing to do with the then obscure
Structured Investment Vehicles)
I pledged to vote for whichever candidate most supported legal
cockfighting (I knew exactly where this was going as there was no
chance LA Democrat Chris John was going to run for President) as a
"libertarian purity test".
Cockfighting is a good issue for smoking out Statists and promoting
thought among urbanized libertarians.
Sorry for the long explanation. I'm supporting Ron Paul, despite a
few foreign policy disagreements, as there is no way he supports
any Federal Animal rights law unless it is in the
Constitution!
SIV|1.20.08 @ 11:13PM|#
Steven Horwitz :
Does that make me a "leftist before a libertarian?"
Actually Yes it does.Liberty is it's own virtue and end.
...would adopt other policies if they could be shown to produce
peace and prosperity.
I shudder to think, although dystopian novels and the empty
promises of tyrants offer a glimpse down that road.
I'm happy to cede to you all the "I'm in favor of freedom even
if it produces misery, poverty, conflict, and strife"
position.
I'm not, Mises was an excellent economist though.
I reject utilitarianism and I suppose "consequentialism" on moral
grounds.
SIV|1.20.08 @ 11:29PM|#
I'm happy to cede to you all the "I'm in favor of freedom
even if it produces misery, poverty, conflict, and strife"
position.
I have no doubt collectivists will find all of those in abundance
in any free society and proceed to undermine it by force.I have
faith those natural human conditions will be minimized but that
isn't why I am for freedom.
|1.20.08 @ 11:31PM|#
@Steven Horwitz
Would you say that anyone who defends libertarianism/free
markets on consequentialist grounds is suspect? If I argue that the
reason I support libertarianism is because it produces certain
results that most people seem to like (peace, prosperity, and
perhaps especially for the worst off among us), does that make me
suspect?
I'd say at a minimum, they're missing the point. First, I have no
reason to believe libertarianism will necessarily secure any of
those results, at least not any better than any number of other
systems. Scandinavia seems to do quite well producing those things
with social democracy, in fact, I'd say they've done a better job
of it over time than the United States has done.
I don't claim to answer for the welfare of society at large. Nor
can I. I claim my rights not because they're "good for society", I
claim them simply because they're my rights.
After all, I'd abandon my libertarian policies if they produced
misery and conflict and/or would adopt other policies if they could
be shown to produce peace and prosperity.
I offer you the history of the first 150 years of the United
States. I'll grant that it wasn't a perfect libertarian society,
but I submit that if you were to exclude it from your list of
examples you wouldn't have many to make a case with!
Does that make me a "leftist before a libertarian?" Does that
make me likely to "reach for the truncheon?"
Before you answer, consider that this is more or less the position
that Mises held.
I offer you the views of another econ professor, one
Friedman:
Note that he doesn't defend freedom on the grounds that "it works";
he concedes up front that it's unstable. I submit history has
handed more ammunition to Friedman than Mises.
I'm happy to cede to you all the "I'm in favor of freedom even
if it produces misery, poverty, conflict, and strife"
position.
I'm not in a position to say what it will produce. Given that more
societies have been failures than successes, I submit that nobody
really knows what elements are necessary to produce successful
societies. I advocate for freedom not because I can guarantee good
results as a consequence, but because freedom is a good in itself.
If I trade my freedom for your social democracy/fascism/communism,
I have no assurance of any improvement of my situation, all I have
is the assurance I'll be exchanging a certain good that I have for
hypothetical goods that may never materialize.
|1.20.08 @ 11:57PM|#
It is irrelevant who wins the Republican nomination. Does anyone
actually think the public mood could possibly change enough by next
fall such that a Republican could be elected? I seriously doubt
it.
For all practical purposes, it is down to two people: Clinton and
Obama.
I beg you. I plead with you. I grovel before your almightyness. I
will do anything in order for you to choose Obama over
Clinton.
There is no significant policy difference between the two. One is
likeable, one is a complete phoney whom is loathed by a third of
the country and disliked by a whole bunch more.
A vote for Clinton is a vote for 4-8 years of partisan bickering.
Obama won't make it magically go away, but it will at least be
muted. The Republicans I knoew LIKE Obama, even if they disagree.
That is a rare thing, and we should take advantage of it.
SIV|1.21.08 @ 12:15AM|#
It is irrelevant who wins the Republican nomination. Does
anyone actually think the public mood could possibly change enough
by next fall such that a Republican could be elected? I seriously
doubt it.
Coin flip 50-50
This is a conservative country and there are endless scenarios
under which even the worst Republican candidate could win.
That said , I prefer Obama over Clinton as he probably has less
knowledge of where the levers of power are located and might
actually have desires beyond the mere exertion thereof. I'd like to
think his election(or even nomination) might deal a blow to some
popular collectivist notions of identity politics as well.
|1.21.08 @ 10:01AM|#
I gotta confess, I've been wrong about Dondi. He may be on to
something with Romney. Of all the Republicans he may be the least
of the evils.
This Newsletter thing with Ron Paul has got me less supportive of
his candidacy. Rockwell should come clean and save Paul the
embarrassment. Unless Paul explains what happened, I'm moving
towards Romney.
alisa|1.21.08 @ 10:02AM|#
About this consequentialist business --
let's take a concrete example.
A. Some people oppose a minimum wage hike because it will cause
unemployment and contribute to poverty.
B. Some people oppose the minimum wage, period, because it
interferes with the rights of workers and employers to voluntarily
agree on a price for labor.
A utilitarian or consequentialist would take position A, but not B.
I tend to think this diminishes the importance of individual
freedoms, which is why I'm not a strict utilitarian. But arguing,
as some libertarians do, that social concerns like A are
irrelevant, misses the fact that there are dangers besides the loss
of liberty. When someone comes to you and says that the challenge
of the present is to end extreme poverty, do you say, "Sorry, not
interested"? Or do you say, "Yes, and libertarian policies are the
best way to achieve that"?
I don't think Steven Horwitz was advocating communism or fascism,
and neither am I. This is just a plea for pragmatism; too few
people are even aware that individual rights are valuable.
Friedman wasn't saying that a free society doesn't work, only that
there will always be political forces seeking to overturn it. He
was more than willing to argue that the free market could reduce
racism and poverty, improve education and national security, in
addition to the intrinsic value it gives to human freedom.
|1.21.08 @ 10:05AM|#
Sorry J sub D, but Rudy is more principled than Romney. I'm
leaning towards him.
I agree, the Newsletter scandal has hurt Ron Paul. And his sorry
showing in Nevada and South Carolina doesn't help. He should have
won Nevada easy. But he got creamed by Romney with 3 times less
votes. And Paul campaigned in the State, bought radio ads.
I've lost my faith in Paul's campaign and in his ability to run an
honest effort. Why is he holding back on Rockwell?
Well, Rudy seems the best shot we libertarians have at this point.
Romney's okay. But Rudy's at least good on taxes.
|1.21.08 @ 10:08AM|#
I agree, Ron Paul is finished. It's been two weeks now, and he
still hasn't named who wrote those Newsletters. We all know it was
Rockwell. So, I don't understand why he won't just throwin him
under the bus.
I'm going with McCain. I agree, Rudy is good on taxes. And yes,
Romney seems Pro-Business, entreprenurial. But McCain is best on
spending.
|1.21.08 @ 10:11AM|#
Count me in too, Brandybuck. I'm going with McCain. If Dondero
doesn't like him, he must be good.
And Paul has just lost it. 3.6% in South Carolina? That should've
been a state where he did well. It's very NeoConfederacy, States'
Rights, and all.
|1.21.08 @ 10:21AM|#
Yeah, I'm ditching Paul too. The way he's handled this
Newsletter scandal. I'm not a PC guy, and I don't think the
comments in those Newsletters were over-the-line. But surely he
could have just saved face by admitting that they were written by
Rockwell.
I'm torn between Romney or Giuliani right now. They're my fallback
candidates. And since I can no longer support Ron Paul, I guess its
one of them.
Scooby|1.21.08 @ 10:25AM|#
A vote for Clinton is a vote for 4-8 years of partisan bickering. Obama won't make it magically go away, but it will at least be muted.
When the two parties are clamoring for different flavors of bigger
government, then partisan bickering might be the best we can hope
for.
crw|1.21.08 @ 10:40AM|#
I don't think the newsletters have hurt Paul too much. They're a
symptom, not a cause.
The root cause, which has become abundantly clear in the past few
weeks, is his staff is completely incapable of running a serious
campaign. They have the war chest, but they're still more or less
running an ideas campaign. Their 'serious' attempts like the ads
come off as amateurish at best. Honestly, they'd be better off just
cleaning up and running some of the Youtube ads the movement has
created.
T|1.21.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Sorry J sub D, but Rudy is more principled than Romney. I'm
leaning towards him.
Yeah, but it's his principles that are the problem. Giuliani
clearly believes in social order at the expense of liberty. Sorry,
but that's a principle I can't support and it's one of the few
Giuliani's entire career makes clear.
|1.21.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Here's all the "luck" McCain needed:
South Carolina wouldn't vote for a non-conservative candidate like
McCain in a hundred years (or more like 300.) He benefited from the
very calculus Ron Paul's most optimistic supporters (like me) were
counting on:
When your appeal is limited to about 1/3 of the electorate (South
Carolina Republicans), your only hope to win is if the other 2/3 of
the vote is split between more traditional candidates -- in this
case, Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson.
I suspect that if Thompson had dropped out after dismal showings in
Iowa and New Hampshire and Michigan, Huckabee would have won South
Carolina and the "Mac is back" chants would sound even cornier than
they do now.
The more conspiratorial among us might wonder if this wasn't Fred's
role all along -- campaign hard enough to chip away at Romney's and
Huckabee's and Paul's support, to allow "establishment" candidate A
(Giuliani) or B (McCain) to win.
SIV|1.21.08 @ 12:44PM|#
I haven't commented since 12:15 AM
Should be pretty obvious that last one isn't me
anyways.
|1.21.08 @ 6:07PM|#
Lost_In_Translation said...
Count me in too, Brandybuck. I'm going with McCain. If Dondero
doesn't like him, he must be good.
And Paul has just lost it. 3.6% in South Carolina? That should've
been a state where he did well. It's very NeoConfederacy, States'
Rights, and all.
OMG, I've been spoofed. I'd feel honored, but I think someone just
forgot to change their name when spoofing me somewhere else.
Congratulations spoofer, I'm blushing.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245