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
The Friday Political Thread: Extra-Stimulated Edition
The real action is tomorrow in South Carolina, but here's a quick wrapup:
Quote of the week
"Shame on you!" - Former President/respectable person Bill Clinton telling a CNN reporter to STFU about the race issue. It's unclear whether he said this before or after cutting a radio ad asking blacks to vote for his wife.
The week in brief
- The Democrats paid tribute to Martin Luther King by holding their ugliest-ever debate. We learned that Hillary Clinton started Wal-Mart, Barack Obama is a slumlord, and John Edwards is a wimp among wimps.
- The Republicans held a mostly colorless debate in Florida.
- Ron Paul scored the endorsements of Gary Johnson and Don Luskin and raked in $1.8 million in a MLK Day moneybomb.
- Dennis Kucinich teleported out of the presidential race.
- The FISA retroactive rolled on, and Chris Dodd pledged to filibuster retroactive immunity after the Senate defeated a measure that would have stripped it.
Fact-checking Rudy. Byron York does a hell of a service reporting what actually happened to the Rudy Giuliani campaign over this past month. Giuliani's campaign manager spins that the early primaries were not really winnable and York stands his ground:
Yes, Giuliani’s rivals were strong in those states. But Giuliani was, at times, strong, too. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, he was second in Iowa as late as the first of October. He was second in New Hampshire as late as the first of December. He was leading in Michigan as late as mid-December. And he was tied for the lead in South Carolina at the same time. All those competitive positions were gone by the end of December.
The Giuliani strategy was to come in second or third in the very
early states, and ad spending in those states reflects it. How
they've gotten away with arguing that Rudy wanted a Florida
showdown all along, I don't quite know.
Paul's Resilience. After Fred Thompson left the race, Ron
Paul's campaign site ran a triumphant image of the five remaining
candidates: Paul, Mitt, Rudy, Mac, and Huck. The next day USA Today
ran a cover story on the race showing... everyone except Paul. The
candidate's 2nd place finish in Nevada has done nothing to break
him into stories on the race, and it's virtually certain that,
without Thompson and Hunter doing latrine duty, Florida will give
Paul his first last-place finish.
The upside is that he still has millions of dollars—more than Huckabee—and his support in the Feb. 5 states isn't being influenced at all by the war at the top of the ballot. Rasmussen (which overestimated Paul's finish in New Hampshire) puts him at 12 percent in Georgia, a state where libertarians have usually fared well, thanks in part to the influence of radio icon Neal Boortz. Campaigners in smaller states like Montana and Alaska feel good about replicating the Nevada finish and racking up delegates. But the once-promising California primary, where delegates are awarded by congressional district, looks like less fertile ground. Polling in the Bay Area shows John McCain with a solid lead and Paul only in high single/low double digits.
Below the fold
- David Frum pokes at a wobby stool.
- Brad Warthen thinks Obama's young, grassroots organization will be the story out of South Carolina, if he wins.
- Phil Klein witnesses the birth of Mitt Romney, populist.
And in case we're starting to lose track of what's really
important, I turn Politics and Prog over to Geddy Lee and
company.
|1.25.08 @ 6:17PM|#
The candidate's 2nd place finish in Nevada has done nothing
to break him into stories on the race, and it's virtually
impossible that, without Thompson and Hunter doing latrine duty,
Florida will give Paul his first last-place finish.
I think you mean "certain", not "impossible".
Shane Brady|1.25.08 @ 6:32PM|#
There was no story because was a distance second place, and hasn't been competitive anywhere else.
|1.25.08 @ 6:40PM|#
As Reason should know, it is all about patience and education in promoting freedom for the individual. Besides we have one more debate and the release of the 4th quarter fund raising where Ron Paul will do well. Maybe the Louisiana results will get straightened out as well, which should give Paul a boost. Additionally, Giuliani will likely be out of money and drop out. Huckabee is broke but he does not need much money to stay in. Paul has the bucks and the will to keep on trucking. He will stay in. Additionally, if there is a brokered convention, there is a back up strategy to pick up Paul delegates on the 2nd and third rounds of voting when the delegates legal commitments have expired. That is why Louisiana and other delegate selection states are important. That means all of them. Keep the faith. It ain't over until it is over. And there is always the education component. A lot of college students are hearing about libertarian principles for the first time. This all seems like a win win scenario for Ron Paul and his libertarian message.
Click \'n\' Learn|1.25.08 @ 6:49PM|#
1. If Reason would like to encourage better debates and better
MSM coverage, they have it within their power to do so. As I've
pointed out a few times here in the past, it wouldn't cost more
than $10k or so to put on one or two of these.
2. If Reason readers would like to encourage better debates and
better MSM coverage, get out there and do it yourself by asking the
candidates the questions the MSM is afraid to ask, then uploading
the responses to video sharing sites.
3. In other news, if the MSM were doing their job, John McCain
would be out of the race because of this: one of
McCain's outreach directors is a former official of the
MexicanGovernment. Needless to say, the tranzis at Reason
would probably agree with McCain's choice.
4. Bubba and Arnie forgot to tell you something.
5. At least BarackHusseinObama won't try to grab
your guns.
6. Here's a long article about the MSM's failures vis-a-vis
coverage of my fave issue: tinyurl.com/25emdr (FrontPageMag)
7. The U.N.'s Institute International de l'Anti-Proggue a
recommendu this
antidote for all prog-related symptoms.
|1.25.08 @ 6:53PM|#
I didn't realize how much Romney was kicking ass. I'm suprised,
he has as many delegates as everyone else combined. Well close,
he's one shy from that claim. Paul has three times as many as
Rudy.
Romney - 73
McCain - 38
Huckabee - 29
Paul - 6
Guiliani - 2
Total - 148
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#R
stephen the goldberger|1.25.08 @ 6:59PM|#
Yeah Romney is in front, has the money to stay in, and if he can pick up voters from the other candidates to overtake McCain will win the nomination. The race is also so wide open because of the number of winner take all states in the republican race, no one will have any idea who the nom will be until after super tuesday, or perhaps until the convention.
Eric Dondero|1.25.08 @ 7:03PM|#
"Second place Nevada finish for Paul"??
Gimmee a break. He finished barely ahead of McCain. They were
essentially tied. And 3 times less votes than Romney received. How
is that a "victory"?
Funny nobody in the Ron Paul campaign talks about Wyoming any more.
That was the State they were "definitely going to win."
Not a single delegate from WY to Ron Paul.
And now headlines all over Paulist Blogs like NolanChart.com "Ron
Paul wins Louisiana."
Actually, he placed 3rd behind "Pro-Life Uncommitted," and McCain.
Hardly a "win" for Paul.
Where's Ron Paul's win gonna come from? Strong Paul States like
Nevada, Wyoming and even neighboring Louisiana have all given him
the thumbs down. Hell, he couldn't even break double digits in New
Hampshire.
(No, Paul did not get 10% in NH as his supporters report, but
rather 9.7%).
|1.25.08 @ 7:03PM|#
"[Ron Paul's] 2nd place finish in Nevada has done nothing to
break him into stories on the race."
Exactly! The media prefers to talk about "everyone but Paul" as if,
through determined neglect, the $20 Million Dollar Man will simply
cease to exist. Because, of course, if Big Media isn't covering
you, you really aren't there, get it?
But at what point does plausibly-deniable neglect turn into
detectably-deliberate obtuseness?
Ah, those troubling Paulites, who keep flashing their signage in
the background of every other candidate's photo op! A curse on
their seemingly limitless pockets, which they keep tapping to keep
their man running.
Paul may be going nowhere... but, er, that is precisely the problem
for the GOP machine bosses and the media who'd rather see him gone
already. Paul just won't get the memo: Washington and their allied
punditry don't want you, Dr. Ron.
But many Americans do. And we'll continue to make our presence
felt, media blackout or no.
Eric Dondero|1.25.08 @ 7:05PM|#
The Louisiana results have been straightened out. They were
straight 4 days ago.
Ron Paul lost and lost bigtime. He didn't even place 2nd, but
rather a distant third.
Of course, the Ron Paul kool-aid drinkers keep drumming up
conspiracies under every rock.
Eric Dondero|1.25.08 @ 7:08PM|#
Because Paul doesn't deserve nearly the amount of media he's
already received. He has proven nothing at all in the first 5 to 6
contests.
His big state should have been Wyoming. He got body slammed there,
not even gaining a single delegate.
Nevada should have been his territory next. Again, disastrous
defeat for him, despite cries from his supporters for days before
that he would "easily win Nevada."
Now he's polling 3% in Florida. But somehow his supporters will
spin his 3% FL showing as a "victory." Or, they'll say "Florida was
stolen from Paul."
|1.25.08 @ 7:13PM|#
Eric,
But you can't very well cast stones--Giuliani is not exactly
shaking the pillars of America, either. McCain's likely to win
Florida, and, if he doesn't, Romney will. Giuliani's done if that
happens.
By the way, Jack Kemp is apparently endorsing McCain. Kemp's got
pretty good libertarian credentials (why isn't he running?), so
that endorsement was quite a surprise.
|1.25.08 @ 7:15PM|#
- Ron Paul scored the endorsements of Gary Johnson and Don
Luskin and raked in $1.8 million in a MLK Day moneybomb.
Luskin is here:
http://www.poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp
Hey Weigle, why doesn't Reason like Luskin?
|1.25.08 @ 7:25PM|#
"Gimmee a break. He finished barely ahead of McCain. They were
essentially tied."
"(No, Paul did not get 10% in NH as his supporters report, but
rather 9.7%)."
So, to sum up, being precise about what happened in Nevada is
somehow misrepresenting the situation there, but _not_ being
precise about what happened in NH (rounding up 0.3% for fuck's
sake) is somehow misrepresenting the situation there.
Care to explain that logic a little more, Eric? Or should I call
you Hacky McHackington?
|1.25.08 @ 7:28PM|#
Eric, don't you see? Look at the times, it's a conspiracy. Go here to learn more.
|1.25.08 @ 7:47PM|#
That chick in the video has a HUGE beak. Ugly as sin ta
boot.
->slinks away quietly in his red barchetta to worship in the
temples of the syrinx
Brandybuck|1.25.08 @ 7:49PM|#
Why isn't Paul doing better in California? The answer is poor
campaigning. I'll say more in a post-mortem after the primaries are
over, but it essentially boils down to the official campaign
providing no leadership, and the grassroots campaign being a bunch
of lunkheads.
For a couple of months I was trying to get voter registration data
for my county. The price for non-campaigns was over $500. I tried
and tried to get the campaign to get it for me (it would have been
free to them), but they were unresponsive and when they did reply,
gave me instructions that were not applicable to my county. I
finally got it, but no thanks to the campaign. Then a month later
they sent out a California coordinator to teach us all how to do
door-to-door campaigning. He came to our county on Thanksgiving Day
morning, the worst possible time slot of the month. Overall the
official campaign in California has been non-responsive, inept and
scarce.
Then there are local grassroots lunkheads. With less than two weeks
to the primary, we need to be going door-to-door and telephoning
every registered Republican. But more people are showing up for
silly sign waving than are going door-to-door or telephoning.
Meetup assistant organizers are actually telling people to wave
signs instead of canvassing! Meetups aren't discussions on how to
win the campaign, but conspiracy rumor swapmeets.
I attended the local county Libertarian Party meeting last week,
and they have more organization in their little finger than all the
Ron Paul meetups do combined. Sigh.
Click \'n\' Learn|1.25.08 @ 7:59PM|#
The real conspiracy here is that it only took him at most three seconds to switch guitars... if you believe the video. Unless... could the video be missing time? If so, what happened to it? Did they use the Randian Time Shifting Powers available only to 32nd Level Inducted Libertarians?
|1.25.08 @ 8:05PM|#
Notice how Dondero always fails to respond to a challenging
point.
From my strange convoluted mind,
Eric Dondero--->ED--->Educationally Disabled.
SIV|1.25.08 @ 8:05PM|#
Paul is doing well in GA despite Neal Boortz.
Neal endorsed him back in '88 but he is all about the %30 + VAT tax
now. He has hardly mentioned Paul except to diss him.
I'd argue that libertarian sentiment in GA has helped Neal's career
as much or more than he has libertarianism.
I was in the geographic corner where AL, GA, and TN all meet this
week and every intersection had a Ron Paul sign. Paul should do at
least high single digits in most of the former "Confederate
States"
|1.25.08 @ 8:08PM|#
behind Lifeson was a roadie with the strat. he holds the guitar with the strap raised and lifeson removes the one and steps into the other. seen it with other bands many times.
|1.25.08 @ 8:11PM|#
Ask John McCain about his Hispanic outreach director, Juan
Hernandez (former Mexican government official)
Lonewacko, now that I have your attention, this is for you.
♬They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!♬
♬To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!♬
Apologies to Napoleon the 14th
|1.25.08 @ 8:11PM|#
The FISA retroactive rolled on, and Chris Dodd pledged to
filibuster retroactive immunity after the Senate defeated a measure
that would have stripped it
Is it to late to support Dodd for president?
|1.25.08 @ 8:14PM|#
The Klein article is good. Jesus, everyone knew that Romney has
flip-flopped many major positions for this election, but heck now
he's flipping during the campaign. He's a creep...But as I
predicted long ago he's got the best chance for the nomination.
He's got the money to play for every delegate and he is not
consciously targetd by any of the stalwarts of the GOP coalition
(NRA, anti-taxers, immigration, pro-lifers) the way Rudy (NRA,
pro-lifers), McCain (immigration), and Huck (anti-taxers)
are.
Hillary really came off as a selfish d*ck at the last debate. She
could not get through a sentence without attacking Obama. It seemed
a bit obssessed and maniacal to me. She's hurting whoever the
eventual nominee will be...I hope she gets whupped...
|1.25.08 @ 8:19PM|#
"Notice how Dondero always fails to respond to a challenging
point."
I think it might be because no one who's asked him a challenging
question has used their real name, and he's boldly taken the
principled position that he wouldn't respond to "anonymous"
posters.
Also, he's the biggest hack who ever hacked in these here
parts.
|1.25.08 @ 8:22PM|#
"""""Second place Nevada finish for Paul"??
Gimmee a break. He finished barely ahead of McCain. They were
essentially tied. And 3 times less votes than Romney received. How
is that a "victory"? """"
You can question the term victory but Ron Paul coming in second
place in Nevada is beyond question. McCain came in third.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NV
"""Not a single delegate from WY to Ron Paul. """
Neither did anyone else but Romney. So what's the point?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#R
Doonnnnddddddeeeerrrrrrrooooooooooooooooo
Kolohe|1.25.08 @ 8:35PM|#
Frum's piece started out OK, and has a decent overall premise,
but really trailed off at the end.
Some wince inducing phrases at first reading:
Last, foreign-policy conservatives must recognize that crucial
blocs of voters have wrongly but unmistakeably put
9/11 behind them (my emphasis)
Jesus, by this time we had 'put behind us' the Maine, the
Lusitania/Zimmerman telegram, and Pearl Harbor. By the next
inauguration, about enough time will have passed for us to put
behind us both Gulf of Tonkin and Lexington/Concord.
What the Republican Party desperately needs is a domestic
program that responds to the values and needs of the tens of
millions of American families making around $70,000 a
year.
Overall, you're earning more than 2/3 of the households in the
country if your household income is $70,000. And based on
this there are just about 15 million of your peers (+/- 10k of
70K) not 10's of millions.
And in the parts of country where Republicans dominate, $70,000 is
considered rich.
Kolohe|1.25.08 @ 8:57PM|#
Oh, and count Fort Sumter and the Alamo as two more things it took less time to put behind us.
|1.25.08 @ 9:00PM|#
David, do you consider Boortz a libertarian (I noticed you only
called him a radio icon)?
Also, on what are you basing your assertion that libertarians have
fared well in Georgia "thanks in part to the influence of radio
icon Neal Boortz"?
If you've read my past comments, I'm sure you know where this is
going (SIV has already touched on it). Just curious.
Another topic... How come no mention of the Romney
whisper?
Dondero, for someone supposedly so interested in politics, you know
very little. The Louisiana GOP has a statement on their website
that says the results are unofficial. It goes on to state that, in
5 of the 7 districts (1,2,4,5,6), after the eligible provisional
ballots are added to totals, the outcome in each of those districts
may change.
In Nevada, no state delegates were selected (that is why Nevada
wasn't penalized for moving up their caucus). Only precinct
delegates were selected and they were selected before the straw
poll vote started. No one will know how many Nevada delegates each
candidate receives until March. None of the campaigns have released
any info on the leanings of the elected precinct delegates but it
is very possible that Ron Paul garnered a larger proportion of
delegates than suggested by the straw poll (and the MSM). The Paul
supporters have been trying to get a count on their own. I'm not
sure how accurate this information is but if you go through the entire
thread and compare the precinct numbers with the popular vote, it's
quite surprising. In some precincts where Romney got 60% of the
vote, Paul got 50% of the delegates. In some Nye county precincts,
80% of the delegates are Paul supporters. Again, I don't know how
accurate this info is (it's a public forum) but anyone who claims
to know the final delegate counts for Nevada is either lying or
psychic.
A precinct delegate's take.
Accurate info about how the Nevada Caucus works.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|1.25.08 @ 9:14PM|#
Going back to the beginning of the campaign, I never expected
Ron Paul to win. That having been said, and in fairness to anyone
who thinks otherwise, I have been extremely surprised at
how well he has done. I'm impressed at his vote totals; I had
originally expected him to pretty much get below 3% in most every
state (because I didn't think the Republicans would give any votes
to an anti-war candidate), and he has far outperformed that
expectation and continued to do so after neither winning any states
nor getting much media attention. I realize that to his strong
supporters, this must not be much comfort, but I think that even
though there's little if any chance he could even be a factor in
the nomination, his campaign has been surprisingly successful on
most levels.
Similarly, I have been surprised at how poorly Giuliani has done.
Though he is probably my least favorite candidate (yes, below
Huckabee), I expected him to do well. He has instead done worse
than Ron Paul in virtually every state. Unless I'm mistaken, the
only time he beat the man I expected to do so poorly was in New
Hampshire, where he was only barely ahead. I suppose that I
expected that Giuliani's popularity after September 11th would make
him a very tough contender. I guess I knew too little about his
personality for my expectations to be correct.
passivatedObserver|1.25.08 @ 9:36PM|#
psst... Kolohe.. it is "Mucho Grande" (at least from the movie)
BakedPenguin|1.25.08 @ 9:53PM|#
...I didn't think the Republicans would give any votes to an anti-war candidate...
My father, aunt and uncle all independently decided to vote for
Paul in the primaries (they're all long time R's) - mainly because
of he's the only anti-war candidate.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|1.25.08 @ 10:15PM|#
BP - that's good to hear. Watching the news and reading the news
online I think can give you a skewed view of the overall opinions
of Americans, right or left.
I don't vote, but when I checked out the candidates' positions,
apparently I'm anti-war enough (both Iraq and drug) that the
closest people to my position after Paul were Gravel and Kucinich.
This is even though I disagree with both of them on almost
everything economically (and with regards to gun rights).
economist|1.25.08 @ 10:29PM|#
Lots of us (nominal) Republicans are against the war in Iraq, and more than a few of us (myself and RP included) opposed it from the start. However, since the Dems seem dead set on a domestic policy of socialism and their foreign policy prescriptions aren't much better than our current situation, many of us hold our noses and vote for less than optimal Repubs (though if Huck or Rudy gets nominated, I won't bother voting. I'll just buy guns and ammo and drive out to the mountains to wait for either a revolution or the end of civilization).
|1.25.08 @ 10:30PM|#
About the Romney whisper, NBC says "As far as figuring out the mystery of who or
where it came from, that is being worked on, and we hope to have an
answer soon".
Maybe it was Dondero. Didn't he switch to Romney a couple threads
back? Can anyone confirm that Dondero was not in
Florida yesterday?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|1.25.08 @ 10:45PM|#
economist -
I've always disagreed with the Democrats on economics, but I've
never really bought into the idea that the Republicans were much
closer to Libertarians than were the Democrats.
Of the three-legged stool of Reagan about which you hear so much
these days, I only agree with really one of the legs. Social
conservatism doesn't really fit with libertarianism (I'd say the
only point at which it's even neutral toward it is on abortion) and
neither does the security / law and order leg (every time I see an
article by Radley Balko I remind myself of this). Of course the
Democrats aren't really any better. On a the civil rights angle
they may have an edge (again, as long as guns don't count) and on
social liberalism is mostly in line with libertarianism, but
there's so much that they are far off on as well.
Of course, I've long since given up imagining that any politician
even exists that will agree with me on much of anything.
BakedPenguin|1.25.08 @ 10:50PM|#
Unemployaphobe: I think they're exceptions, but there are a few
out there. Right after the debate, though, the local channel had an
interview with a few local voters. Included among them was some
matronly hag who said she had been for Giuliani, mainly because of
9/11, but after this debate, was going to vote for Romney because
she thought he looked like JFK. No, I'm not joking.
I always get Kucinich & Gravel high up in my "preference" on
those things, too, for the same reasons. One small positive about
that - there are three major party candidates who are talking about
ending the War on Drugs. Right now, they're the "kooks", but it's
still an improvement over just having the one L candidate saying
it.
Franklin - his phone number's on his website. Give him a call and
ask.
alisa|1.25.08 @ 10:53PM|#
"I have been extremely surprised at how well he has done."
Ron Paul has basically been a success story, in my opinion.
Libertarians don't normally make national news. College kids don't
normally get energized about the Federal Reserve. The ideas are out
there now. And I know lots of people who won't go so far as to vote
for Paul, but are vaguely sympathetic to the message.
B|1.25.08 @ 10:55PM|#
Why and the hell is this magazine still giving any positive
press at all to Ron Paul? Perhaps you are priming him to win the
1st Annual David Duke Political Courage Award.
I guess if someone calls you on supporting a bigot, you can always
just claim someone else wrote the article.
Ali|1.25.08 @ 10:58PM|#
Miss Teen USA South Carolina... No not the "US Americans" one, but the other one.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|1.25.08 @ 11:05PM|#
BP: Yeah for me, I think it was that Libertarian cowboy dude who
dropped out 80%, Ron Paul 77%, Kucinich and Gravel 58%, for
precisely the same reasons.
I'm still holding out for "Hypothetical Dream Candidate" though. He
panders to me in a way no other candidate does.
Ali|1.25.08 @ 11:15PM|#
Question: Why is Ron Paul's campaign trying to collect $5M more by Feb. 5? Wouldn't that be too late for Super Tuesday? I mean, what's the point? I thought he'd want the money way ahead of that date so that he can put more ads on TV. Are there important primaries after the 5th?
NP|1.25.08 @ 11:22PM|#
Newsflash: Sharapova just won her 1st Australian Open. Never been a big fan, but still congrats.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|1.25.08 @ 11:28PM|#
Ali: I think there are some people involved in Ron Paul's campaign who probably don't really know what they're doing. (At least I hope that's the case - otherwise I'd be afraid some of his campaign staff might just be trying to line their pockets.)
|1.25.08 @ 11:38PM|#
"Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law.
And the trees are all kept equal
with hatchet, axe and saw"
Probably says more about politics than 1000 threads here.
It;s pretty obvious to me that it'll be Clinton vs Romney or
McCain. The only good thing about the campaign now is watching the
food fight between Bill and Barack. No matter what, freedom and
liberty is on the run.
I'll still vote for Ron Paul on Super Tuesday. It's only because he
most closely represents my political philosophy. In light of the
TNR/Paul hoohaw, I'll have to hold my nose while doing it. I don't
know how culpable Paul is in all of that, but at the very least he
shows either no sense for detail or he's just plain lazy. At worst,
he's a fellow traveler with bigots and doesn't deserve to hold high
office. My worst fear is that libertarians will become tainted with
the bigotry that's been exposed. Fortunately, Bill Clinton has come
along to steal the racial angle. At any rate, Paul is a flawed
candidate and the more I see him (and his followers), the less I
like him.
The best we could have hoped is that exposure for Ron Paul could
help spread the message of libertarianism. I think what has
happened is that we've found out just how hard that will be. It's
going to take someone a lot more attractive and articulate than
Paul to do it.
The worst thing that happened this week was the twinbill of the Fed
interest rate cut and the bloom of bipartisanship in the form of
the stimulus package. Dust off your WIN buttons. You're gonna need
up later this year.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 4:37AM|#
Franklin-
Well, I know you weren't talking to me, but I won't let that stop
me from spouting off anyway.
I lived in Macon for two years right at the turn of the century.
Boortz was the second most popular radio show of any type in the
Atlanta market (limbaugh was first), so his influence is
substantial. Also, Boortz has afaik always called himself a
libertarian.
So, it's like how Ah-nold became a Republican;
many GA Paul voters will think
"I like what Boortz is saying, he says he's a libertarian, so
therefore I must be a libertarian. And if someone else calls
himself a libertarian I will vote for them."
Now, when I was there, Boortz's libertarianism was entirely self
consistent because it was composed of attacks on Clinton and
American liberals in general on economic matters coupled with
antipathy of the Jesus wing of the Republican party and their
cultural issues (forex, he was in favor of getting rid of the
Confederate battle flag on the GA state flag.) And he has been
quite straightforward at being against the drug war.
Looking at his website periodically since I left, he's taken a
LouDobbsian turn over the last year or so. He's more emphatically
populist than before: He's on the kick-em-out and seal-the-borders
side on the immigration issue, and is somewhat Giulliani-esque wrt
GWOT. I had left before the Iraq war run-up, so I'm not sure what
he's said about that.
passivatedObserver|1.26.08 @ 7:47AM|#
Kolohe - Hey, you're right!
I could swear it was "Mucho Grande", I thought that was the joke.
I'll have to watch the movies again, be like the first time all
over again.
Eric Dondero|1.26.08 @ 8:50AM|#
Rudy has morphed into Mitt Romney. When we started this
campaign, Romney was a Social Conservative. Now he's an Economic
Conservative. You hardly hear about social issues any more.
I attribute this to Romney's campaign getting an influx of
libertarian-minded supporters who've influenced him in that
direction.
Certainly the William Weld endorsement of Romney a few months ago
helped.
If Romney wins Florida, he'll have an excellent shot of gaining the
nomination. And libertarian Republicans will be quite pleased.
Eric Dondero|1.26.08 @ 8:53AM|#
"No switching" to Romney at all Franklin.
I've been a "Romney-Iani" supporter since July of last year. Check
the archives over at Libertarian Republican Blog.
When Weld endorsed him, I followed.
Eric Dondero|1.26.08 @ 8:55AM|#
Pro Liberate, McCain is not likely to win Florida. 4 out 5 of
the last polls had Romney ahead, but 2 to 3 points.
A Romney win in Florida will be something to cheer for all
libertarian Republicans and Fiscal Cons.
(Except those on the fringe with Mr. 3% - Ron Paul.)
gadzook|1.26.08 @ 9:31AM|#
How can a political wrapup not include the liveliest story of the week, which involved the mayor of Detroit, perjury, and spicy text messages that included use of the word "LOL."
Steve Horwitz|1.26.08 @ 9:59AM|#
Just a Rush-related note: Lifeson is more clever these days. He
created a stand for his acoustics to be anchored to so that he can
actually play the acoustic while leaving the electric hanging
around his neck. He may well have been using that on the ESL clip,
but I don't think he was.
You can see it here at 1:15 in a nice performance of "Entre Nous"
from opening night of last summer's tour:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1utF0J-tnw8
I'm somewhere the 9th row in front of him off to the side.
|1.26.08 @ 10:19AM|#
OK, everybody line up for the free govt candy:
Retirees living off Social Security are frustrated that they won't
get tax rebate checks through a bipartisan economic stimulus
package before the House. Senate Democrats Friday began efforts to
include them.
|1.26.08 @ 10:42AM|#
Eric-forgive me if I am wrong, but it struck me that very
recently you argued passionately that one of the major indicators
of Rudy's acceptability was his pro-choice stance (and I agree with
you, that in itself is a reliable indicator of how likely a
candidate will tell the Pat Robertson's to go engage in relations
with themselves). But now you say this:
"If Romney wins Florida, he'll have an excellent shot of gaining
the nomination. And libertarian Republicans will be quite
pleased."
Romney is one of the more anti-choice candidates running (well, at
least NOW he is). How do you square this? I can't think of any GOP
candidate who doesn't have at least a nominal stance of holding the
line or lowering taxes and spending. But we do have some that have
a better social record (Rudy and Paul) than others (Huckabee and
Romney).
|1.26.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Hell even McCain is more acceptable when it comes to social issues (if I remember he was not so strongly against stem cell research). And there is that whole "torture/detain/spy on American citizens" where Romney tends to suck butt...
Mike Laursen|1.26.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Crazy as LoneWhacko is, I gotta agree that it would be very cool to see the Reason Presidential Debate.
BakedPenguin|1.26.08 @ 10:54AM|#
MNG - Romney is a political tool who will do or say anything to get elected. DONDERRROOOOO!!! is a political tool who will do or say anything to seem relevant. He sees a like soul in Governor Morbot Goodhair, and his man-crush will not be stayed by the likes of policy.
|1.26.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Rudy has morphed into Mitt Romney. When we started this campaign, Romney was a Social Conservative. Now he's an Economic Conservative. You hardly hear about social issues any more.
In other words, Romney switches to whatever position will win him
votes. Wow how principled.
|1.26.08 @ 10:57AM|#
MNG, he can't. He told me one couldn't be libertarian and be anti-second amendment. I pointed out Rudy is anti-gun, and he denied this despite the fact that all of New York City is a second-amendment free zone. Try getting a handgun permit there unless you're a retired cop. You can't.
|1.26.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Meanwhile, over at the Wall Street Journal:
The national catastrophe fund backed by Mr. Giuliani would allow private insurers and state pools to buy protection from the federal government, reducing the danger for any one state and limiting insurance companies' exposure to big disasters.
Hurricane relief is the latest local issue that has, at least temporarily, gained prominence in the presidential competition. In Iowa, nearly all the candidates embraced ethanol programs and support for corn subsidies. In Michigan, Gov. Romney used Sen. McCain's support for higher fuel standards as a wedge with auto-industry executives and employees. Nevada successfully used its status as an early caucus state to pressure candidates to denounce a plan to dump nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.
One reason Florida pushed to move up its vote was to draw support for a national catastrophe fund, an idea strongly backed by Republican Gov. Charlie Crist and members of the state's congressional delegation. Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both said they support a federal catastrophe-insurance program.
Many consumer groups balk, arguing it is wrong for taxpayers nationwide to subsidize beachfront homeowners. The Consumer Federation of America, which represents groups such as AARP, favors improving FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program instead.
The Florida Democratic Party praised Mr. Giuliani for his support, while pillorying Mr. McCain's "inexplicable" opposition. "You wouldn't not support it," said Mark Bubriski, communications director of the Florida Democrats. "It's like saying you don't like oranges."
And McCain is the one who admits he doesn't have a particularly
good grasp of economics.
|1.26.08 @ 11:56AM|#
In other words, Romney switches to whatever position will
win him votes. Wow how principled.
I'm not worried about principled, I'm worried about trustworthy.
But yeah, he ain't that either.
Though, given two candidates who claim to support awful policies,
I'll take the one who can't be trusted to implement them over the
one who can be trusted to do so...
Neu Mejican|1.26.08 @ 11:59AM|#
Back to Rush again...try branching out a bit...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kkTFo-AZysQ
|1.26.08 @ 11:59AM|#
As much as I dislike McCain, I've decided to vote for him just to piss Dondero off. Congratulations Dondero, your assholishness is really paying off.
|1.26.08 @ 12:02PM|#
How can a political wrapup not include the liveliest story
of the week, which involved the mayor of Detroit, perjury, and
spicy text messages that included use of the word "LOL."
gadzook,
Knowing that Detroit is always going to elect a democrat (Jeffery
Dahmer, (D) would trounce Mother Theresa (R) here) I was actually
warming up to Kwame Kirkpatrick. Some progress in the city has been
made over the last 3-4 years.
It isn't be the first time somebody wasted their political capital
on poontang. Expect our dysfunctional city council to take the lead
in not running the city till a new mayor is elected. As I see it,
the county prosecutor, Kym Worthy, has no choice but to bring
charges against Kirkpatrick and his lover/chief of staff, Christine
Beatty. I can't find a silver lining in all of this. I knew Kwame
had flexible morals, but I had hoped he'd be smarter than this.
|1.26.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Ok, what exactly happened to the Mayor of Detroit? Did he pull a Mark Foley or something?
Neu Mejican|1.26.08 @ 12:09PM|#
They are still around that New Model Army...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dqFZ55iHfDY
|1.26.08 @ 12:09PM|#
OK, everybody line up for the free govt candy:
Fly the helicopter this way! Over here, over here!
|1.26.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Subject: Will the disparity between black and white Democratic voters in South Carolina be reflected nationally, or is it a Southern thing?
|1.26.08 @ 12:18PM|#
Subject: Will the disparity between black and white Democratic voters in South Carolina be reflected nationally, or is it a Southern thing?
Its national. Hillary Clinton has successfully and very skillfully
turned Obama into the "black candidate". She will clean up with
whites and hispanics on super Tuesday.
|1.26.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Ok, what exactly happened to the Mayor of Detroit? Did he
pull a Mark Foley or something?
He lied in a civil lawsuit brought by fired cops about his love
affair with his chief of staff, Then the Detroit Free Press got
ahold of some text messages between the two that unequivocally
demonstrates the perjury.
Here is a summary of what's going on.
|1.26.08 @ 12:30PM|#
Ah, I thought he went after a 14-year old girl or
something.
Dirty scandal, but still nothing compared to having the chairman of
your local public school board post nude pictures of himself on a
gay sex site. Thats what happened down here about a year ago.
|1.26.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Maybe, Cesar. On the other hand, this is the first contest in a
state with a non-trivial black population, and it's in the South,
in the state where John Edwards grew up in a mill tahn.
What makes you conclude that there's something happening
nationally? You saw polling results from Strom Thurmond's old
state?
|1.26.08 @ 12:41PM|#
What makes you conclude that there's something happening nationally? You saw polling results from Strom Thurmond's old state?
Its basically what the MSM has been saying for a while now.
Obama has a big problem with hispanics also. Hispanics generally
don't vote for the black guy--at this point in time its been shown
they are even less likely than white people to do it. Nevada
confirms this, which makes California and other Super Tuesday
states with big hispanic populations look very bad for Obama.
|1.26.08 @ 12:55PM|#
...still nothing compared to having the chairman of your
local public school board post nude pictures of himself on a gay
sex site.
Wow. The local press must have creamed their jeans over that
one.
|1.26.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Cesar,
Yeah, that's what MSMBC (heh) has been saying. But once again, they
seem to be drawing a conclusion about the national race purely from
what's happening in SC.
|1.26.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Wow. The local press must have creamed their jeans over that one.
They're used to it. Between he and Gwen Hedgepeth its par for the
course in Richmond city politics.
Hedgepeth took $100,000 in bribes on camera from undercover FBI
agents, then proceeded to say it was really a woman made to
look like her by the Bush administration (!) because they
don't like "powerful black women".
Brandybuck|1.26.08 @ 1:30PM|#
I attribute this to Romney's campaign getting an influx of libertarian-minded supporters who've influenced him in that direction.
Hah hah hah hah! That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week! If
it's true, then we need to fear that covert Clintonistas might
"join" his campaign and influence him in the direction of universal
health care. Oh wait, that already happened!
I continue to be amazed at your Bizarro World claims that Rudy,
Mitt, et al, are libertarians but Ron is not. It's hilarious that
you've been in the libertarian movement for so long, can drop a
dozen libertarian names per second, yet you don't have the first
clue what a libertarian is! Hint: Neither Rudy nor Mitt are
libertarians. They're conservatives. Duh!
|1.26.08 @ 1:35PM|#
I was actually warming up to Kwame Kirkpatrick.
Fess up. It's that "hip hop" mayor thing, isn't it?
Have they sold off the electric system yet? Some of my best
memories are driving down dark streets where the traffic lights
don't work.
|1.26.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Heres a subject--whats the most corrupt scandal thats ever taken place in the politics of your city? I just gave mine.
|1.26.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Fess up. It's that "hip hop" mayor thing, isn't
it?
Not really. But we have been getting some restoration of empty
buildings, turning them into lofts and store. Particularly onlong
Woodward.
Have they sold off the electric system yet? Some of my best
memories are driving down dark streets where the traffic lights
don't work.
Nope. It gets brought up annually, shot down annually. What a waste
of money. OTOH, no more city funding for the DIA or the zoo. They
stubbornley continue to provide art and exotic animals to the
public for viewing. If an economically rocked city like Detroit can
support the cultural amenities w/o city help, your metropolitan
area can do so as well.
We still elect the city council at large vice using a ward system.
The incumbents naturally like it that way. So much to do here, I'd
welcome Democratic activists because the status quo sucks. Kwame it
least wasn't status quo. This perjury stuff is gonna bring him
down.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 2:03PM|#
P Brooks:
I know all the Democrats have come out specifically against Yucca
mountain. I did not think the Republicans had, though. (and afaik
only Romney and Paul actively campaigned in Nev, right?)
|1.26.08 @ 2:06PM|#
By the way, the Detroit Institute of Arts and the Detroit Zoo are both world class operations. The DIA just finished a huge expansion/renovation, without city funding.
Amazed|1.26.08 @ 2:13PM|#
Wow! Ron Paul raised $1,8 million on a day set aside to honor
the man he called a pedophile in his newsletters.
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/december1990.pdf
After all, according to Ron Paul's newsletters, King "seduced
underage girls and boys," was a "comsymp," and should NEVER have
had a federal holiday named after him:
"What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" "We can thank him for
our annual Hate Whitey Day."
Will wonders never cease?
SIV|1.26.08 @ 2:19PM|#
Subject: Will the disparity between black and white Democratic
voters in South Carolina be reflected nationally, or is it a
Southern thing?
joe, it is a Democrat thing and it is National.
White Democrat voters in South Carolina are largely Yankee
transplants.
|1.26.08 @ 2:41PM|#
I thought Hillary was married to the First Black President. Though in my experience black chicks aren't fond of white women involved with black men.
|1.26.08 @ 2:46PM|#
While white Democrats in South Carolina give Obama a level of
support in the low twenties, a national ABC News/Washington Post
survey released January 14 found that among white Democratic voters
across the country; Obama does much better than among white
southern Democrats.
The ABC/Post poll showed 33 percent of white Democrats backing
Obama nationally, with 41 percent supporting Clinton and 14 percent
in Edwards' corner. Nationally, there was only an 8 point spread
between Clinton and Obama. Obama did less well among white voters
nationally in a CBS poll released January 13, winning 24 percent to
Clinton's 42 percent and Edwards' 13 percent. But he still beat
Edwards by a solid 11 points.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Some dude on Foxnews from Baron's just said Ron Paul is the best candidate to answer voter concerns on the shaky economy. He drew parallels to Perot in '92, but he strained it a bit by trying to equate the political effect of the current Iraq war with v 1.0
|1.26.08 @ 2:59PM|#
So, contra the wishful thinking of some, that Obama has higher
support among white Democrats nationally than among white Democrats
in the South.
The question is, there has been a trend in South Carolina, at
least, that shows his relative share of the white vote dropping and
his relative share of the black vote rising; is this a national
trend or a southern trend?
Most of the national polls show the race tightening, with Clinton's
lead down to the single digits. It's unlikely that could be the
result of only black voters switching to him. It is a certainty
that it could not be the result of black voters switching to him
while white voters move away from him.
|1.26.08 @ 3:01PM|#
Whoa, gotta preview. That first sentence should be,
"Contra the wishful thinking of some NON-DEMOCRATS, WE KNOW that
Obama has more support among white Democrats nationally than in
South Carolina."
|1.26.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Joe, all that says is the Clintons haven't worked their
political strategy on other states yet.
Shes not really trying to drive a wedge between white and black
voters as much as between hispanic and black voters anyway. Its the
Clintons "hispanic strategy". I bet we'll see some racial
push-polling directed at hispanics in California and New York in
the next week magically pop up.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 3:09PM|#
don't know about the trend in the white vote.
But, i recall that early polls (circa sept/oct 2007) had Clinton
with decisive leads in all demographics, including to the surprise
of some african americans (by something like 65-35). This was
attributed correctly to Clinton's better name recognition and that
Bill Clinton is held in the highest regard of just about any living
politician by many (most?) african americans.
This turnaround among African Americans from 65-35 for Clinton, to
75-25 for Obama (i'm not sure of the exact #) is striking. My guess
it's due to more exposure to Obama, many voters found they could in
fact identify with him better than H Clinton. And, Iowa was a
tipping point that proved Obama was electable by the body politic
at large, which made Obama not a protest vote, but actually a
positive one.
BakedPenguin|1.26.08 @ 3:11PM|#
...is this a national trend or a southern trend?
With Obama & Clinton going after each other, it had to happen
that the glow would fade from Obama. His "fairy tale" campaign was
bound to be ended by the Clintons, one way or another.
He gets attacked, and fights back - so there is going to be a
segment of (mainly white / hispanic) voters who no longer see him
as the shiny, happy candidate, which is a lot of what he has going
for him. The AA vote might shore up around him, as a conscious or
unconscious "closing ranks" mentality comes about.
WE KNOW that Obama has more support among white Democrats nationally than in South Carolina."
Some of the low support for Obama is due to Edwards being perceived
by white southern Dems as a homeboy. However, that doesn't explain
the relative difference in support between Clinton & Obama.
|1.26.08 @ 3:13PM|#
Wait a second, Cesar, has Clinton not yet tried to work this on
the national level, or has she been working to divide black and
Hispanic voters nationally?
And of course she's been working her campaign on a national level.
She's spent a great deal of the last two weeks outside of South
Carolina in order to campaign in Super Tuesday states, leaving Bill
in SC in her stead.
Not to mention, all of the free media about the Democrats for the
past two weeks has been about South Carolina, so for the most part,
the campaigns they've been running there ARE their national
campaigns.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 3:17PM|#
What really beats the heck out of me is the divide between the
hispanic vote and the african american vote wrt relative support
for Clinton and Obama.
Serious question what do mean by "the Hispanic strategy."?
I'm thinking of the Chris Rock routine that starts "ima 'merican,
yeah!" and ends with the punchline "this is where I start paying
attention, because next it's the n****** and the jews." In other
words, a hispanic strategy to try to drive a wedge between
(Democratic) hispanics and blacks I would think would backfire.
|1.26.08 @ 3:17PM|#
Kolohe,
When discussing that turnaround among black voters, remember the
"white people will never let a black man win" issue. Obama's big
victory in pasty-white Iowa seems to have gone a long way towards
knocking that down.
Baked Penguin,
But Obama's numbers have been RISING nationally, including over the
past two weeks.
But it is an interesting question whether Edwards' impressive level
of support among white Southern voters extends outside of his home
state.
|1.26.08 @ 3:19PM|#
I'm thinking of the Chris Rock routine that starts "ima 'merican, yeah!" and ends with the punchline "this is where I start paying attention, because next it's the n****** and the jews." In other words, a hispanic strategy to try to drive a wedge between (Democratic) hispanics and blacks I would think would backfire.
Local politicians play that game all the time in California and
other states from what I understand. And they do it successfully.
Its dirty and shameful, but remember we're talking about Hillary
Clinton here.
Joe-, shes already started yes and it was very successful in
Nevada. After a second place finish in SC that she will spin
masterfully as "A very close second place finish!" shes going to
that plan into over-drive nationally.
|1.26.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Kolohe,
It is entirely possible that the "cuz I know the...are next" effect
only works one way.
Black voters have shown that they don't like it when good ole boy
minority-bashing is unleashed on groups other than themselves -
immigrant-bashing and gay-bashing come to mind - but I don't know
if Hispanics would rebel against the appearance of anti-black
politics, or if it would have no effect, or if it would actually
work for them.
I can't think of any previous examples of races where this dynamic
happened.
|1.26.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Joe-, shes already started yes and it was very successful in
Nevada.
OK. Based on Obama's rising national numbers, it would appear that,
if indeed she is doing that, it is either not working, or it is
alienating more people than it is winning over.
Here's an interesting scenario: Hillary manages to do serious
damage to Obama among HIspanics as Cesar theorizes, Obama wins the
nomination anyway, and faces John McCain, sponsor of the
comprehensive immigration reform bill.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 3:27PM|#
joe
Re: your 3:17 Yes that what I was trying to say with my last
sentence of my 3:09; thanks for saying it better.
|1.26.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Here's an interesting scenario: Hillary manages to do serious damage to Obama among HIspanics as Cesar theorizes, Obama wins the nomination anyway, and faces John McCain, sponsor of the comprehensive immigration reform bill.
Joe-, if they Republicans had any brains they'd try to appeal to
hispanics by driving a racial wedge between them and blacks. But
they'd rather rant about the MexicanGovernment instead.
Even if McCain is the nominee, the down-ticket people will alienate
too many hispanics. The Republican party is stupid, stupid
stupid with their nativist strategy the last few
years.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Obama's rising national numbers: I am under the impression that
the rate of change has slowed (2nd derivative magnitude decrease)
Clinton stills has pretty sizable leads in a bunch of big states.
Obama will get a bounce from a win today, but I don't think it will
be enough to close the gap prior to Feb 5.
But, I thought Dallas would still be playing football, so who
knows?
|1.26.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Cesar,
It might be a difficult November for racist Latinos.
I'm not sure if down-ticket candidates actually hurt presidential
candidates, though.
|1.26.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Kolohe,
It's the same dynamic in every Democratic contest this year; Obama
starts out almost 20 points behind a few months out, closes the gap
to a single-digit lead with less than two weeks, and then he either
closes the deal or he doesn't.
|1.26.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Cesar
I think I have told you that my parents live down South in
Richmond, and they remind me of one Mayor Rev. Leonidas Young who
they say was taking money from parishioners to pay for a penis
implant...Does that scandal win?
|1.26.08 @ 3:39PM|#
Ask Rudy! about national polls and how much they
mean
You mean the guy whose national numbers have been steadily trending
downward, which has caused him to lose his lead in the one state
he's been campaigning in?
I'm not sure how that's relevant, unless you're comparing him to
Hillary.
|1.26.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Joe, I think the way in which the Republican Party has ranted
and raved against latinos has screwed them out of any support from
that demographic for a decade at least. Meanwhile, in compensation,
they'll recieve the much sought after old conservative white guy
vote. Which they had to begin with.
I think I have told you that my parents live down South in Richmond, and they remind me of one Mayor Rev. Leonidas Young who they say was taking money from parishioners to pay for a penis implant...Does that scandal win?
Oh God, not that idiot. Yeah, it probably wins.
|1.26.08 @ 3:42PM|#
We once had a City Councilor who refused to resign from his job
as a headmaster in the High School after being elected, despite
being directed to by the state ethics commission.
Ummmmmm, the Council gave out towing contracts to bidders who
appear to have colluded.
I think the problem is that the people who get elected in my city
are too old to have sex.
|1.26.08 @ 3:42PM|#
joe-
I don't put much stock in national polls as opposed to state
specific ones. The national ones seem shaped by performances in the
specific contests...
I'm disappointed to see the dynamic in SC, but there you have it.
It could be that the whites down there feel compelled towards some
'racial solidarity/awareness' due to the black vote so
monolithically going Obama (as I called a couple of weeks
ago).
SIV-do you have any proof of what % of SC's population is recently
transplanted from the North are you talking out of your ass?
|1.26.08 @ 3:46PM|#
Subject:
Black democrats are to the Democratic Party what the Religious
Right is to the Republican Party. (monolithic support, charlatan
leaders who can command them to turn out in goofily high numbers,
both often counted on and then taken advantage of but returning to
the flock, and both making demands on the party that ultimately
harm the party and thereby get the opposite party in power [which
then is of course much worse for their interests]).
It's unuanced and I feel slimy just saying it, but there you have
it imo...
|1.26.08 @ 3:47PM|#
MNG,
National polling can be useful for some things, such as assessing
whether dynamics are playing out on a national level.
But if you're talking about predicting who's going to win the next
state-level contest, you're absolutely right.
This year, as both party's contests seem to be shaping up to a race
for delegates to bring to the convention, rather than as a race to
see who can get a majority of them a few months before the
convention, the national numbers are even less important.
|1.26.08 @ 3:49PM|#
Black democrats are to the Democratic Party what the Religious Right is to the Republican Party.
I'd amend that to say "black urban politicians are...". Black
democratic politicians in the suburbs are no worse than their white
peers. They become corrupt in the cities because urban areas are
basically little one-party states.
|1.26.08 @ 4:02PM|#
I think he meant voters, Cesar.
The Religious Right is a much larger % of Republicans - perhaps a
third of all primary voters - than African Americans are - perhaps
a fifth? a quarter? - of Democrats.
Now, who was the last Religious Right candidate to gain substantial
backing in the Republican primary from elements of the party
establishment?
Look at how the Republican press has been writing about Huckabee
vs. how the Democratic press has been writing about Obama.
|1.26.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Don't say "Bush." Bush is a business conservative who can play to the rubes, not an actual Religious Right candidate.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Re SC transplants:
Per this 39% of
SC population was born out of state. Per
this 3.5% is foreign born, so about 35% born out of state but
in the US. Can't find yet the mason-dixon division of this 35%.
|1.26.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Joe-
Easy. Huckabee is to Bush what Jessie Jackson is to Obama. Obama
isn't really an Al Sharpton/Jessie Jackson type black
urban politician, but hes close enough to appeal to black voters
while still being moderate enough for the establishment.
|1.26.08 @ 4:09PM|#
FWIW, polls breaking down the white Democrat vote in SC show Obama doing best among upper-income voters, Clinton doing best among middle-income voters, and Edwards doing best among lower-income voters. It's probably safe to say that the population of people born out of state skews towards the upper end.
|1.26.08 @ 4:11PM|#
That doesn't really work, Cesar.
Obama is actually a black politician. Dubya is not actually a
religious right politician.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 4:13PM|#
uh yes it does
Obama is actually a half-black politician. Dubya is actually a
half-religious right politician.
|1.26.08 @ 4:17PM|#
Obama is actually a black politician.
Hes black but hes not Al Sharpton "black", if that makes any sense.
What I mean is hes not black politician who is part of some
one-party urban political machine.
Let me put it his way: before he was a national figure I bet he
couldn't win a city council primary race in any given medium sized
majority-black city. Any black politician that could wouldn't
seriously be considered by the Dem establishment for a Presidential
nominee. (See: Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton).
|1.26.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Dubya is not a half-religious-right politician.
Obama actually is African-American.
Too cute, by "half."
|1.26.08 @ 4:23PM|#
What I mean is hes not black politician who is part of some
one-party urban political machine. Neither are most black
voters. A majority of black voters live in the suburbs.
Before he was a national figure I bet he couldn't win a city
council primary race in any given medium sized majority-black
city
Oh no? Look up Anthony Williams on wikipedia.
If you're going to try to compare black - the racial category -
voters and politicians to Religious Right - the
ideological/cultural category - voters and politicians, you can't
change your argument halfway through to exclude "not really black"
voters and politicians.
|1.26.08 @ 4:31PM|#
More importantly, let's look at what black voters want:
universal health care, hate crimes legislation, strong civil
rights/voting rights enforcement, anti-poverty programs,
redevelopment and economic development programs in troubled cities:
the Democrats deliver those things.
Now, let's look at what Religious Right voters want: abortion bans,
the criminalization of homosexuality, religious instruction in
schools, an end to the teaching of evolution: the Republicans, even
at the height of their power, provided only symbolic, token
victories on these fronts.
One way to describe this is to say that Democrats pander to their
black voters more than Republicans pander to their Theocratic
voters. Another way to describe it would be to say that black
voters' agenda and the agenda of the institutional Democratic Party
are closely aligned, while the agenda of the Religious Right and
the institutional Republican Party are not.
Either way, the situations are not really the same. And, once
again, the Religious Right is a bigger segment of Republican voters
and African Americans are of Democratic voters.
|1.26.08 @ 4:35PM|#
I just went to the US Census page and in the 2000 Census 11% of
S. Carolina residents said they lived in a different state in
1995.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=factsheet_1&_lang=en&_ts=
My point about black Dem voters and the GOP Religious right voters
is that both compel their party to take positions which hurt them
in the population as a whole, and both often bitch about not
getting enough from their party and sometimes threaten to "sit out"
or back a 3rd party and screw over the party that tends to favor
them (though not as much as they want).
It's simplistic of course, but I think there is something
there.
I can think of one big difference though between black democratic
voters and religious right GOP voters: one has weird views of the
world in large part because of the f*cked up views American society
has and does hold about them, the other seems to have freely chosen
their weird views...
stephen the goldberger|1.26.08 @ 4:35PM|#
Dubya is not a half-religious-right politician.
Obama actually is African-American.
Too cute, by "half."
I think the analogy holds. Bush is a born again christian and takes
his religious beliefs very seriously. He obviously promoted it for
political gain but that doesn't mean he's insincere.
The same can be said of Obama. He's promoted his African ancestry
for political gain, when he's also half-white. It doesnt mean he's
not half-black.
Also the point of the analogy is to represent that Bush and Obama
are mainstream figures who can channel support from a small, but
powerful voting bloc. Whereas Huckabee and Sharpton/Jackson cannot
move beyond that bloc.
VM|1.26.08 @ 4:39PM|#
Cesar | January 26, 2008, 1:52pm | #
Heres a subject--whats the most corrupt scandal thats ever taken place in the politics of your city? I just gave mine.
um... Mayor Daley gets up and goes to work in the morning?
|1.26.08 @ 4:43PM|#
s the g,
Being a Christian of whatever stripe, and taking those beliefs
seriously, does not make on a member of the Religious Right. Jimmy
Carter is a born-again Christian who takes his beliefs
seriously.
Once again, there is fuzzy back-and-forth movement between a
politicians' demographic description and a political
movement.
Half-black is not the same thing as whatever "half-religious-right"
is supposed to mean.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 4:44PM|#
joe-
I'm trying to figure out why you so resist the notion that African
Americans are in many ways the mirror image of the religious
right.
I agree that the 'racial identity' is meaningless, but there is
undeniably a strong colleration between that superficial attribute
and the idelogical/cultural one. Of course it is not monolithic.
But look at congressional districts. The majority of congressional
districts with african american candidates are majority african
american. This was deliberately done after the '90 census to get
more 'minority-majority' districts, specifically for the purpose of
increasing the african americans in Congress. Why would they do
this if there was no correlation between being a 'minority' and
voting for one?
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 4:49PM|#
I agree that Obama bases his political identity upon some the same political capital as Anthony Williams
|1.26.08 @ 4:51PM|#
I think the problem is that the people who get elected in my
city are too old to have sex.
We don't have that problem here. Google [Kwame perjury Detroit] for
details.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 4:51PM|#
Obama also bases his political identity upon some the same political capital as Harold Ford Jr.
BakedPenguin|1.26.08 @ 4:51PM|#
Moose - If you Chicago people get to tell corruption stories,
there's no way anyone else can win. Also, we'll be here all
day.
joe - where are you getting the figures about the national polls? I
looked up the numbers on Rasmussen, and the story seems to be that
Obama was really trailing until Iowa, when he nearly caught up.
Then Clinton rebounded and has had a lead of 5 - 10% or so (until
yesterday).
I suspect that Edwards's decline will help Clinton more than Obama.
Obama's "empty-suitedness" and high rhetoric are probably going to
be more attractive to the NPR liberal looking for a new JFK than
the populist working class voter looking for nuts & bolts &
gov't gravy.
|1.26.08 @ 4:55PM|#
Could it possibly be, Kolohe, that the theory is simply not
true?
I've listed a number of actual arguments, using examples of logic,
to explain why I think that. Nobody has even attempted to refute
any of them. Is it, maybe, within the realm of possibility that the
beloved "the two parties are exactly the same" narrative isn't
always true? Naw, of course not.
And your observation about a correlation between race and party has
nothing to do with the discussion we've been having. Yes,
African-Americans are a solid voting block for the Democrats the
way that the Religious Right is a solid voting block for the
Republicans. That wasn't the question - the question was about the
roles those two voting blocks play in their parties.
|1.26.08 @ 5:04PM|#
BakedPenguin,
I've looked at Zogby and PollingReport, which reports a lot of
polls. My comment about Obama closing the gap nationally was meant
to refer to the past couple of weeks. I'm talking about a
tightening that has occurred since Clinton's post-New
Hampshire rebound. As you say, the polls have only started to catch
this in the past few days.
|1.26.08 @ 5:08PM|#
It's this part of MNG's theory I disagree with: both often counted on and then taken advantage of but returning to the flock Black Democrats actually do command respect from the party leadership, help set the party's agenda, and are not merely "taken advantage of," in a way the religious right does not.
|1.26.08 @ 5:12PM|#
joe
Don't you think that the positions that each bloc foists on their
chosen parties are very harmful to the parties come election day,
but that both parties feel they can't live without em and both
blocs are fairly inflexible in refusing support to a candidate to
who failes their respective litmus test so the parties cater and
run from them at the same time? Think of how affirmative action
hurts the Dems, but imagine a Democratic Pres candidate daring to
say they are against it! Such a candidate would get about 1% of the
black democratic vote regardless of their position on health care
and the minimum wage...
Compare the flexibility of unions in their support for the Dems to
the African American bloc...
|1.26.08 @ 5:13PM|#
I think the religious right gets respect, though maybe grudging, from the GOP...
alisa|1.26.08 @ 5:16PM|#
BakedPenguin:
I'm not sure you're right about Edwards voters going to Clinton.
Let's look at South Carolina -- plenty of populist working class
voters there. Obama has been rising in the past month and a half,
from 26% to 43%. (These are Pollster numbers.)
Clinton has been falling, from 39% to 28%. And Edwards is rising
slightly, from 13% to 17%.
So where are those Edwards votes coming from? They're not former
Obama supporters -- Obama is surging. So Edwards is poaching off
Clinton's territory. People are dissatisfied with Clinton, and
switching to Edwards. If he loses, would they switch back to a
candidate they rejected?
Obama has been painted as the Adlai Stevenson type,
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 5:23PM|#
That wasn't the question - the question was about the roles
those two voting blocks play in their parties.
They both:
1) provide a solid voting block that will not readily vote for the
other team
2) cannot veto the pick of the parties candidate, but ambivelence
will cause them to just stay home and thus the other team will
win.
3) are at odds economically with other core constituencies of their
party (Blacks vs Hispanic immigrants, Evangelicals vs Wall
Streeters, or for that matter Hispanic immigrants.)
|1.26.08 @ 5:29PM|#
Actually, a lot of evangelicals like Hispanic immigrants because loads of them are converting from Catholicism to evangelical Christianity. This is why Mike Huckabee said things like "nobody is illegal in America" and so on.
BakedPenguin|1.26.08 @ 5:31PM|#
alisa - Adlai Stevenson might be a better reference point for
Obama than JFK - although I don't think Obama is seen as being as
intellectual as Stevenson was. Nevertheless, Clinton would be the
Lyndon Johnson type opposing them - a scheming, lying horse trader,
but one who "gets things done". Edwards would be Huey Long.
I believe the Edwards & Clinton voters are similar in their
voting characteristics for something other than race. Local
mileage, as always, will vary.
|1.26.08 @ 5:33PM|#
MNG,
I agree somewhat with that part. I think both groups have shown
themselves willing to turn out regardless of who the nominee is,
just to deny the other party victory.
Kolohe,
joe | January 26, 2008, 5:08pm | #
It's this part of MNG's theory I disagree with: both often
counted on and then taken advantage of but returning to the
flock
Black Democrats actually do command respect from the party
leadership, help set the party's agenda, and are not merely "taken
advantage of," in a way the religious right does not.
|1.26.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Cesar, excellent point at 5:29!
I hadn't made that connection to Huckabee's unRepublican stance on
immigration.
|1.26.08 @ 5:35PM|#
alisa,
I think that, like so much else, the dynamics of an Edwards
withdrawal would mean something in the South than in the rest of
the country.
|1.26.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Kolohe,
I don't think the policy differences between African-Americans and
other Democratic factions have much to do with economics.
I think there is a fairly broad consensus on economic issues across
the Democratic Party.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 5:37PM|#
And revisiting your 4:31
So hate crime legislation is not token symbolic gesture? And I must
have missed the Universal health care that the democrats were able
to deliver in '92-'94.
And as far as what they want that has been delivered: tax cuts,
aggressive foreign policy (with a explicitly pro-Israel component),
more censorship of naughty language or naughty bits showing on TV,
anti-gay marriage (at the state level), their views on birth
control as it pertains to foreign aid, and to an extent NCLB.
And one comment on alignment with the institutional party:
On immigration African Americans are most closely aligned with the
religious than either group is aligned with the institutional
party, and the institutional wings of the party are more closely
aligned with each other than any other combo.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 5:41PM|#
I did not mean necessarily in their economic views - both partys' central organizing principles is a a broad general agreement on economic policy and that it is different from the other team. I mean that there personal economic interests are sometimes in conflict with other members of the coalition.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 5:48PM|#
It's this part of MNG's theory I disagree with: both often counted on and then taken advantage of but returning to the flock
Black Democrats actually do command respect from the party leadership, help set the party's agenda, and are not merely "taken advantage of," in a way the religious right does not.
Colbert had a woman on this week from Mother Jones who was sharply
critical of his Sister Soulijah comment, as well as the rhetoric
from the last two weeks, but nontheless is still a pretty steadfast
supporter. Anecdote, not data, I know, but it's better than the
run-of-the-mill "my black friend said" because she is likely an
opinion leader, no?
alisa|1.26.08 @ 5:49PM|#
I was going to say (before I mis-clicked)
that Obama is a man. He leads among male voters of various incomes.
He's able to deliver emotional rhetoric in a way that would make a
woman appear weak. There's a contingent that's serious enough about
its opposition to Hillary that 33% voted "uncommitted" in Michigan.
If she's seen as a "horse trader," then there are some who would
find a horse trader in a skirt particularly repellent.
But I do like your Stevenson/LBJ/Long breakdown.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|1.26.08 @ 5:49PM|#
crimethink:
Though, given two candidates who claim to support awful policies, I'll take the one who can't be trusted to implement them over the one who can be trusted to do so...
This is both awesome and depressing.
Cesar,
Is Richmond really as crazy a place as you're painting it? Maybe I
should have accepted my job offer there.
|1.26.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Is Richmond really as crazy a place as you're painting it? Maybe I should have accepted my job offer there.
The city is halfway normal. The city government, however, is
completely fucked up/corrupt beyond repair/endlessly
entertaining.
I can't think of any other place where the lead-in on the local
news is "THOUSANDS OF PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGES FOND ON CITY COUNCIL
COMPUTERS!"
|1.26.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Kolohe,
So hate crime legislation is not token symbolic gesture?
No, the bills that the Democrats have passed have been almost
exactly what their African-American faction wanted past. We're
talking about their opinions and interests here, remember. Not
yours.
And I must have missed the Universal health care that the
democrats were able to deliver in '92-'94. The Democrats voted
overwhelmingly for that, and when it didn't pass, created SCHIP.
Oh, yeah, SCHIP, whose expansion was supported overwhelmingly by
African Americans, which has now passed both housed of Congress
twice.
I think you've lost your aim. Let's recall the premise: More
importantly, let's look at what black voters want: universal health
care, hate crimes legislation, strong civil rights/voting rights
enforcement, anti-poverty programs, redevelopment and economic
development programs in troubled cities: the Democrats deliver
those things.
The Democrats actually fight for the agenda supported by their
African-American faction. They deliver when they have the power,
and when they are stopped, it is because the Republicans stop them.
Not universally, not every single time, but to a much larger degree
than the Republicans deliver and fight for the Religious
Right.
tax cuts, aggressive foreign policy (with a explicitly
pro-Israel component), more censorship of naughty language or
naughty bits showing on TV, those are positions of all
Republicans, not positions pushed by the religious right
faction
anti-gay marriage (at the state level), their views on birth
control as it pertains to foreign aid Nice qualifiers. That's
what I meant by "symbolic, token gestures They won't do anything
big, but they'll toss them bones. and to an extent NCLB.
Also not a religious-right issue per se.
Which means I should have left out the bit about health care,
because that's a universal issue for Democrats. Which leaves us
with affirmative action (check), urban redevelopment (check), hate
crimes legislation (check), strong civil rights/voting rights
programs (check) and anti-poverty programs (check).
On immigration African Americans are most closely aligned with
the religious than either group is aligned with the institutional
party, and the institutional wings of the party are more closely
aligned with each other than any other combo. Yeah, that's a
good point. I'm not sure it's relevant to this particular
discussion, but you're probably right about that.
|1.26.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Colbert had a woman on this week from Mother Jones who was
sharply critical of his Sister Soulijah comment, as well as the
rhetoric from the last two weeks, but nontheless is still a pretty
steadfast supporter. Anecdote, not data, I know, but it's better
than the run-of-the-mill "my black friend said" because she is
likely an opinion leader, no?
Uh, so?
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 6:01PM|#
Also, on respect from party leadership.
Ralph Reed was the head of the Georgia Republican party for a bit
earlier this decade.
All the republican candidates went to the Value Voters summit, as
compare to say those who showed up at Morgan State. (on the other
side of the coin, IIRC all the Dems went to their Tavis Smally
(sp?) debate, but none went to Foxnews - I may be misremembering
details of one or both of these last two)
I believe that most of any assymetry we see now is that Democrats
and their values are politically ascendant while the republicans
are declining. Thus it appears their bases have diminished power.
Compare now with the late '90s; the democrats had taken a hit, and
african american political influence had dipped. Thus, welfare
reform was able to be passed over the objection of the african
american base (or at least its notional leadership)
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 6:05PM|#
Uh so?
It is unitary example of someone who was counted on and then taken
advantage of but returned to the flock
|1.26.08 @ 6:07PM|#
Ralph Reed was the head of the Georgia Republican party for
a bit earlier this decade.
And Ron Brown was head of the Democratic NATIONAL Committee.
I'll agree that the Religious Right hold a commanding position in
some Republican state parties.
All the republican candidates went to the Value Voters summit,
as compare to say those who showed up at Morgan State. (on the
other side of the coin, IIRC all the Dems went to their Tavis
Smally (sp?) debate, but none went to Foxnews - I may be
misremembering details of one or both of these last two)
Fox News is not a Religious Right organization, but a Republican
Party organization, close to the leadership. And showing up at
debates means nothing, either way. It costs no political capital -
in fact, it's a way to increase one's political capital with the
host-group, without actually doing anything for them.
I don't see how any of this helps your argument.
Now, as for the ascendant/descending idea, and how it relates to
internal factions, that's very interesting. I'll have to give that
some thought. Wouldn't a hardcore, loyal partisan group see its
influence increase in a party that's shedding people?
|1.26.08 @ 6:09PM|#
It is unitary example of someone who was counted on and then
taken advantage of but returned to the flock
1. It's an anecdote.
2. The "Sistah Souljah Moment" was meaningless political theater.
On substance, Bill Clinton was the most pro-black president, and
the most popular among African-Americans, in 40 years. I don't
think you've shown any meaningful betrayal.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 6:18PM|#
The Democrats actually fight for the agenda supported by
their African-American faction.
No disagreement. What I think you overstate is that the African
american community is taking *leadership* on stuff like universal
health care vice allying with those on which it is the most
important issue. Likewise, the religious right provided electoral
support for W reelection on staying the course in Iraq, without
leading the way.
The Congressional Black Caucus definitely takes the lead in
democratic party on urban issues, with not as a clear counterpart
on the religious right. But there's a broader spectrum of policy
options available to appear to be 'doing something' about urban
issues, than it is right-wing cultural issues
And you can't have it both ways wrt hate crimes legislation. Yeah,
its not important to me, but neither is it to a majority of
democrats. But it is clearly a tools to deliver 'progress' to a
base.
Kolohe|1.26.08 @ 6:20PM|#
Yes i said it was an anecdote.
And political theater is how elections are won and lost
|1.26.08 @ 6:57PM|#
I was actually making the opposite point, that black democrats
and the religious right often force their parties into unpopular
positions with the general public, and they are two of the more
inflexible blocs that do this.
If a Dem presidential candidate came out against affirmative action
they would instantly recieve very little black votes. This would be
so even if they took a position on health care, the minimum wage,
Iraq, etc., that was popular with black democrats. There are
certain positions that black democrats hold sancrosanct and they
will not only NOT vote for such a candidate, they will often
fanatically (or threaten to) torpedo such a candidate if they get
to be the nominee. I'm thinking of Doug Wilder talking about
running against Owen Pickett for Senate in VA if the Dems chose
Owen Pickett as their candidate (this resulted in the Dems
capitulating and choosing a less powerful candidate who then lost
to a Republican who was far worse than Owen Pickett would have been
in the eyes of civil rights organizations), or the threats to
torpedo Cardin in Maryland because the party did not do enough for
Mfume (who wold have been a disasterous candidate in the general
election).
The religious right is much the same way (look at their threats to
form a third party if the GOP dare nominate a pro-choice
candidate)
|1.26.08 @ 6:58PM|#
I was actually making the opposite point, that black
democrats and the religious right often force their parties into
unpopular positions with the general public, and they are two of
the more inflexible blocs that do this.
Agreed Mr. Niceguy.
|1.26.08 @ 7:02PM|#
Again compare to unions. If a Dem candidate said they were
against a striker replacement ban they would certainly not
automatically lose the support of unions...
I'm not necessarily trying to disparage the black voting bloc
within the Democratic party. You might say that unions are a better
team player and more flexible. Or you might say that they are too
"well behaved" and don't tie their bloc to unconditional support of
something important to them...
But I imagine the GOP and Dem party heads probably think of the
religious right and the civil rights establishment as that
grandmother who won't come to family functions unless her
conditions are met, all else be damned, but without whom they
cannot have the function...
|1.26.08 @ 7:07PM|#
I would also note that such monolithic voting blocs may be more
vunerable to charlatans (look at hucksters like Jackson, Sharpton,
etc. in relation to the civil rights establishment and Robertson,
Falwell, etc. for the religious right)
Again, I think such bloc voting (and the related peril of being
hoodwinked by some unscrupulous leader) are typical of blocs formed
by people who are relatively lacking in power and influence. But
the cause of this among the religious right strikes me as the
embracing of a credulous workdview in life in general...The lack of
critical thinking that leads one to think God created aids to
punish gays can also prevent one from seeing the rather obvious (to
others) hucksterism in a crooked leader...
Michael Jones|1.26.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Dear Sir/Madam (minus The Posh English 'Hugh Grant' Voice You
Stereotype Us With!)
I have been following your politics for a couple of years now as to
be quite frank its more interesting that English politics as it is
more corrupt. (no offence) or should i say equally as corrupt but
the difference is our primeministers at least come across as
slightly intelligent. To vote someone in like President Bush there
must be something seriously wrong with people. Me and my family
have good laughs at him on youtube. surely people can see through
that guy. Now im not the most intellectual guy in the world as you
can probably tell by my spelling!
But the only genuine guy in your presedential race must be Ron
Paul. I Dont care if its a cool thing or the done thing to say
these days because its rebellious to support him and seems like a
revolution.
In the last year or so i have realised how the media control us. I
watch the news from the moment i open my eyes in the morning and i
believe what they say because deep down i used to think 'Why would
they lie to us?' but when you get deep down to the nitty gritty
(English phrase sorry!) There are lots of reasons why. Now I have
introduced my wife to the presedential race in your country and
even she thinks the exclusion of Ron Paul is strange. She Said 'Its
funny and childish. Like a kid a kid who doesn't want the popular
kid at school to get attention'. Now i found that funny. But this
is your country and you are turning into a laughing stock. Other
countries report on Dr Paul but you don't. Does that tell you
something?
Im just saying from an outside view he is the only one who is
genuine and is not lying to you.
It is written over his face (The Truth)
I see the other candidates in debates and im sorry to say you
country needs help if they vote for any of them because they look,
act and come across as liars at the worst. At The best they are
trained Hollywood Actors.
From this side of the pond I have spoken to many people and they
say your elections are like a gameshow. I tell them how it is and
your country has been manipulted. We all believe what we see on
TV.
Im from London.
People think about 7/7 and are scared of terrorists but i explain
things to them. They were doing training excersises that day at the
same stations at the same time (same as 9/11) and they are shocked.
Same stations at the same time? Come on>? Thats in the billions
to One!!!
Our governments think we are stupid.
I have woken my family and people around me to the truth.
The funny thing is when people see the facts they know the
truth.
Truth is reality.
Good Bless England And America.x
|1.27.08 @ 12:53AM|#
We had the House Minority leader charged with felony sexual
assault, groping a woman on a plane.
Another male rep was caught soliciting a male undercover police
officer in a public restroom (actually asking for sex, not just a
wide stance).
We've had numerous politicians jailed for extortion, drunk driving,
you name it.
We're not quite New Orleans here in Hawaii, but plenty to keep the
reporters hopping -- and these are just the ones who got
caught.
|1.27.08 @ 1:54AM|#
"I lived in Macon for two years right at the turn of the century. Boortz was the second most popular radio show of any type in the Atlanta market (limbaugh was first), so his influence is substantial. Also, Boortz has afaik always called himself a libertarian."
Small world. I was in Macon around that same time (mid-96 to
early-99) and have been in Atlanta ever since. You are 100% correct
that Boortz has substantial influence (more so in Atlanta) and has
always called himself a libertarian but David stated as much in the
original post so that doesn't really answer my question. The
question was...
"...on what are you basing your assertion that libertarians have fared well in Georgia 'thanks in part to the influence of radio icon Neal Boortz'?"
The assumption is reasonable (especially if you haven't been
listening to him since 9/11) but, as I've said in past comments, my
experience in Georgia is quite different. The vast majority of
Boortz listeners are Republicans and identify with him quite well.
They are fiscally conservative, pro-Iraq war and, while some of
them may now call themselves "libertarian" because of Boortz, they
still vote Republican religiously. But Boortz's real negative
effect is that his popularity allows him to turn off many would-be
libertarians that think his views align with the LP platform. Based
on your comment, I bet you'd be surprised at the number of people
who think libertarians are pro-empire for no other reason than it
is Boortz's position. In fact, I'm surprised you don't remember the
controversy that arose when Boortz was allowed to speak at the 2004
convention.
Boortz is not only enthusiastically pro-war, he won't even allow a
rational discussion on the issue. He thinks the FBI has every right
to surveil and investigate anti-war demonstrators and his most
recent degradation of the word "libertarian" was to openly endorse
Mike Huckabee (maybe one of the reasons Huck is polling so high
here).
Based on my experiences, he does a great deal more damage to
libertarian rep than he does good. The number of pro-war
Republicans he gets to vote "L" is severely outweighed by the
number of people he scares away.
Colbert writers disturb Congress (and one shouts
"Ron Paul for President").
Eric Dondero|1.27.08 @ 8:24AM|#
Actually Franklin, the "Pro-Empire" position is held by the
Anti-War Libertarians. They are Pro-Empire, only Pro-Islamo-Fascist
Empire. They support the establishment of a Muslim Caliphate across
the Sahara from Morocco to Persia, but also to include Southern
Spain, parts of Italy and the Balkans.
They are also fine with growing Radical Muslim influence throughout
Europe and even Canada and the United States.
So, if you are a Pro-Islamo-Fascist, by opposing the War on Terror,
you should call yourself "Pro-Empire."
tarran|1.27.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Eric,
Where do these growing Islamists get their recruits?
Why is Osama bin Laden able to rally so many more people to his
banner than the founder of the Aryan nations is?
I'll give you a hint. When the founder of the Aryan Nations says
that "the Jews are looting the White Race" most people look around
and laugh and only a few deluded souls believe them.
On the other hand, when Osama Bin Laden says "the Christian
Crusaders are oppressing us", he gets a lot more traction because
sane people look around and notice that the U.S. government is
bankrolling the repressive Egyptian, Pakistani and Saudi
governments, supporting the Iranian shah, and then when he got the
boot supporting Saddam Hussein, and then bombing the shit to of the
Iraqi people after he turned on the U.S. government.
So instead of only the wackaloons rallying to his banner, the sane
people start rallying too since what he is claiming is actually
matching reality on many points.
Or, as some British-educated Muslim cleric once pointed out in an
editorial, "George Bush is Osama Bin Laden's top recruiting
sargeant."
Note, the Aryan Nations, who for the longest time wanted to
overthrow the U.S. government and purge the US of those pesky jews,
has been markedly unsuccessful. At this point the only thing that
keeps them going are the large number of prisoners in the gang and
their drug running operations. In order to attract competent
membership they had to focus on things like making money and
running protection rackets and to give up their dream of a white,
christian, anti-zionist nation.
The U.S. government isn't sending B-1 bombers to bomb the shit out
of Idaho. It isn't rounding up the membership of Stormfront and
waterboarding them. Yet despite the fact that the Aryan Nations are
big, well-organized, have murdered hundreds of people in the U.S,
what you would characterize as the U.S. government ignoring the
threat posed by the posed by the Aryan nations has not resulted in
the slaughter of Jews and Blacks in the U.S. It hasn't resulted in
the overthrow of the U.S. government.
So, Mr Dondero, it's you and your ideological companions, the
faux-libertarians who believe that it is moral to kill people
solely because of of their religion or ethnicity, that collective
punishment is a just thing, are the guys who are driving people to
support Al Queda. It is you who are making Al Queda's 'imperial'
ambitions possible.
So again, Mr Dondero, even by your own criteria, it is you who is
pro-empire, not us.
Eric Dondero|1.27.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Funny how you blame our foreign policy on Muslim hatred for the
US, and not our cultural values.
I've been to the Middle East. Spent 9 months of my life in Bahrain
and Djibouti. I speak basic Arabic. They hate us for who we are. If
you believe the crap that Leftwing America-haters spew, that they
hate us for our foreign policy, you are an absolute idiot.
Leftwingers have a stake in the War in Iraq. The War cannot be won,
or else they look like huge losers. So, of course, they want to
blame our foreign policy. They can't risk the truth, that it has to
do with Gays, Britney Spears, Baywatch, HBO, Hollywood movies, and
Hip Hop.
Doubt this? Go to Europe. See how Radical Muslims are throwing
stones at Gay lovers walking down the streets of Amsterdam holding
hands. Watch them burn down Newspaper offices who published
cartoons critical of Islam. Watch them burn down hundreds of cars a
night on the Streets of Paris.
Last time I checked those "crazy" Dutch and French weren't
intervening in Middle Eastern countries. So, why the Muslim
animosity expressed towards them?
Answer: Culture.
Eric Dondero|1.27.08 @ 10:51AM|#
The only "faux libertarians" around are those who claim to
support liberty, yet turn a blind eye to Radical Muslim oppression
of Dutch libertarians like Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
If you're a real libertarian you'll stand up and fight against the
forces of Naziism who want to murder Geert and Ayaan.
All for the crime of standing up for free speech rights. And the
American libertairan movement stays silent.
tarran|1.27.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Eric,
You collosal moron. You live in the fucking bible belt. You work
among people who are complaining constantly about how the liberals
with their permissive society are destroting this country. Guys who
claim that Britney Spears is corrupting our youth and support laws
against adultery, bans on birth control and the such.
Yet somehow all of these people who are offended by U.S. cultural
exports of sex, women's rights and the like somehow (with the
exception of a few guys like Eric Rudolph) aren't conducting
terrorist attacks.
If it was U.S. cultural exports that was the problem, Al Queda
would be the least of our worries, it would be the crusaders coming
north from Orlando's suburbs who would be the problem (once they
finished destroying Disney World that is)
Again, Al Queda and the radical clerics, just like the founder of
Aryan nations are dangerous crazy bastards.
Every society has them. The question is, how do you limit the
damage they can do. Following their apocalyptic script, doing the
things to innocent people that they accuse you of doing is a great
way to help them recruit followers.
I've been to the Middle East. Spent 9 months of my life in Bahrain and Djibouti. I speak basic Arabic. They hate us for who we are. If you believe the crap that Leftwing America-haters spew, that they hate us for our foreign policy, you are an absolute idiot.
Wow the moron who thinks the WMD's were shipped to Syria, the guy
who claims Al Queda has the capability to sneak Scud missiles into
Mexico is calling me an idiot. Ouch.
Hey moron, I am middle eastern, and I served in the U.S. Navy too
where I deployed to Persian gulf. If you had managed to avoid your
trait for picking fights and acting like an "ugly American" you
might have actually learned a few things there. Knowing you, you
were too busy getting drunk and chasing tail to pay any attention
to what was going around you.
The source of anti-americanism is caused by the U.S. governments
support for Iran's shah, Saudi Arabia's king, Israel, Saddam
Hussein, then our starvation blockade on Iraq when we opposed
Saddam Hussein, Pakistan's dictator, Indonesia's Suharto, the
Moroccan rulers etc ad nauseam. These guys live in societies with
secret police, secret prisons, the risk of being picked up and
tortured at the drip of a hat, and they know whose paying for
it.
When the local government that is arresting your relatives and is
torturing them is bankrolled by the U.S. and its allies, guess
what? People are going to get a little bit resentful at the
financiers.
And, by the way, the French do intervene in the Middle East.
There's this place called Algeria...
The problems in Europe with the radical islamists is quite simple -
they have a huge welfare state and they have employment laws that
guarantee a huge unemployed population. So you have guys who have
enough money to survive and not many prospects of improving their
lot, with lots of time on their hands. Couple that with a culture
where everyone is trained to sit and wait for the big government to
save them, and the results are quite predictable.
You want to fight radical Islam in France, go out there and agitate
for economic liberalization.
Finance the guys translating Mises into Arabic.
As to libertarians staying silent. Ha!. There's enough straw in
that statement to feed an entire herd through the winter.
Eric, the way you fight the crazy people is by punishing them (and
only them!) for the their acts while persuading potential
supporters not to rally for their cause.
You seem to think that unless I am calling for Mk-82's to be
dropped on their houses, I am supporting them. That is not the
case. Your methods of fighting them not only don't work, but they
actually strengthen the radical islamists' hands.
I am sure Osama Bin Laden is grateful for your support. The longer
the U.S. government fights him using the tactics you support, the
more powerful he gets. He barely could afford the Keny attacks; his
middlemanagement were ready to quit because they hadn't been paid
in months. Bill Clinton's bombardment of Milk factories in the
Sudan in retaliation really helped him out. Keep it up, and I 'm
sure that in a decade or so Al Queda will have those Scud missiles
in Mexico that you were wetting your pants over.
Anyway, I'm done. I have work to do. I just wish you would
recognize that you are a moron and stop trying to lecture people
about matters that require intelligence. I don't tell baseball
players how to hit because it would be a waste of their and my
time. Similarly you should stick to whatever your core competency
is because all you are doing is making youself an increasingly
bigger laughing stock.
|1.27.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Wow the moron who thinks the WMD's were shipped to Syria,
the guy who claims Al Queda has the capability to sneak Scud
missiles into Mexico is calling me an idiot. Ouch.
tarran,
Dondi called me insane a month or three ago. I use that as
indiputable evidence of my metal stabilty, and rational thought
processes. You now have a clincher of a rebuttal if anyone
questions your mental acumen.
"Oh yeah, Eric Dondero called me an idiot!" Solid evidence of
intellectual prowess, I'd say.
|1.27.08 @ 3:06PM|#
I use that as indiputable evidence of my metal
stabilty
J sub D -- I've been saying for some time that you have metal
stability, that you're really an android like the Mittster, and no
one believed me. Thanks for finally coming clean.
Not quite as good as Ali's ass thing, and on a dead thread to boot,
but comedy gold ... ;)
Ali|1.27.08 @ 3:13PM|#
Is it now the infamous "Ali's Ass" thread? Cool, I am continuing the legacy of "Ali Baba".
Ali|1.27.08 @ 3:47PM|#
Cesar- Be patient, wait two more days and not getting an answer for that question will be way more delicious. Mmmmmmm.... I can't wait!
Kolohe|1.27.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Franklin-
I left macon in aug 2002, so the war drums for iraq were still just
a few riffs on the high hat. And do mean the 2004 Rep or LP
convention? I didn't really pay attention to either one as the
former was uncontested, and I believe the latter was a resurgence
of the Harry Browners looking to continue the use of the LP as
their own personal jobs program. (but I could be mixing the LP one
with 2000)
I see what you mean based on what you telling me regarding Boortz's
Iraq war position. I think my process was right "I like Neil
Boortz, thus I will follow his recommendations" but I had the
initial conditions wrong. And I think he's been on the fair tax
bandwagon since the late 90's, so that is probably why he's a
Hucakabee supporter. And so Boortz will probably generate support
for Huckabee outside the 'jesus uber alles' wing (which like SC, is
I believe at least 50%) of the Georgia Republican party.
|1.27.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Oh yeah, Dondero:
The Dutch intervened in the largest Muslim country in the world for
300+ years. Its called "Indonesia". Moron.
|1.27.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Oh, and in addtion to the French in Algeria, they also had
colonies in:
Morocco
Tunisia
Syria
Lebanon
Senegal
Just about all of West Africa sans Nigeria
And they're all Muslim countries. You know, Dondi, if they had been
smart enough to mind their own business instead of setting up
colonies all over the Muslim world they wouldn't have any
immigration from those same countries now.
Whats ironic about all of this is, thanks to your pal Bush, we're
going to end up getting thousands of Iraqi refugees because we're
responsible for turning their country into a bombed-out hell hole.
You don't like Muslim immigrants, but the very policies you
advocate will probably end up bringing Muslim immigrants here.
God, you're an idiot!
|1.27.08 @ 4:52PM|#
... God, you're an idiot!
In other news, the sky is
blue,
ice floats, and Betty
Grable had great legs.
|1.27.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Seriously though, how come Dondero never makes this
connection?
When you get involved militarily or politically in a foreign
country, you usually end up having quite a few immigrants from said
country.
Its no accident some of the biggest immigrant groups are
Fillipinos, Koreans, Hmong, and Vietnamese.
|1.28.08 @ 10:27AM|#
Eric Dondero | January 27, 2008, 8:24am | #
Actually Franklin, the "Pro-Empire" position is held by the
Anti-War Libertarians. They are Pro-Empire, only Pro-Islamo-Fascist
Empire. They support the establishment of a Muslim Caliphate across
the Sahara from Morocco to Persia, but also to include Southern
Spain, parts of Italy and the Balkans.
If you don't support Eric's Big Government plan to stop X, that
means you actively support X. Oh, and Eric is not only a
libertarian, but a better libertarian than you.
Scooby|1.28.08 @ 11:27AM|#
If you don't support Eric's Big Government
counterproductive plan to stop X, that means you
actively support X. Oh, and Eric is not only a libertarian, but a
better libertarian than you.
You forgot a word, joe.
For those of you who don't believe in non-interventionism for
philosophical reasons, can you at least consider it for pragmatic
reasons?
|1.31.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Say what you will, we're down to four candidates out of eleven for the Rep nomination and Paul is among 'em. For those of you preoccupied with trying minimalize Paul, thank you. In so doing you have aptly drawn attention to him on the net. It should be abundantly clear that he will be around for awhile, the whole time gathering strength... how much strength remains to be seen. Huckabee is a nice guy, but his pro-war stance will be his un-doing. Besides, he's on fumes. BTW, NOBODY won any delegates in Florida. You knew that, right?
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