Libertarian Newspaper Publishers for Obama

Freedom Newspapers CEO Scott Flanders—he who heads up a chain of libertarian broadsheets, including the Orange County Register—is voting for the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Flanders said he voted for Libertarian nominee Ed Clark in 1980 and for Bill Clinton in 1992, but has otherwise voted Republican... There was some back-and-forth over the practical vs. the philosophical approach to politics, and Flanders said that in this election, for him, "the No. 1 issue is who will get us out of Iraq."

OK, I'm thinking, if you really mean that, there's only one major candidate you can support. But there's no way you are going to stand there and say you support him.

Editorial writer Steve Greenhut told Flanders he thought he was really making an argument for not voting. Not true, Flanders said, and then he did it. He said the words, "Barack Obama." As in, that's who any true freedom-lover should vote for.

At that moment, I thought the wailing ghost of R.C. Hoiles would burst through the ceiling and the floor beneath us would split into a ragged, cleaving maw we'd all tumble into – swallowed whole by the earth. Better no company at all than one whose CEO supports a Democrat for president.

But there was a hush as Flanders reasoned that Obama is the best candidate to work on four top libertarian reforms: 1) Iraq withdrawal, 2) restoring the separation of church and state; 3) easing off victimless crimes such as drug use; 4) curtailing the Patriot Act.Obama will probably raise taxes, Flanders says, (although, then again, maybe he won't, ala J.F.K.) and in 2012, it will be time to put a Republican in the White House.

I think the logic of Flanders' 1992 Clinton vote still holds up: It paved the way for a Republican Congress that cowed and limited Clinton, and moved him to compromise on some good laws. I can't say what R.C. Hoiles' ghost thinks about this.

Brian Doherty profiled Hoiles and Freedom Newspapers last year, and all you need to know about the company's place in the libertarian movement is in Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism.

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

  • ||

    Add me to the list of Libertarians for Obama.

    The "socialist" meme is such a false notion - less than 10% of our non-entitlement federal spending goes to the 'welfare queens' (and I include HUD).

    More important is a ridiculous and useless one trillion dollar war, GOP corruption, and the loss of civil liberties.

    Go Obama!

  • ||

    Drink!

  • ||

    well hell, if he is able to do any of the 1, 3, or 4, he may well find coffers overflowing and no need to raise taxes

  • ||

    Now Ive been happy lately, thinking about the good things to come
    And I believe it could be, something good has begun

    Oh Ive been smiling lately, dreaming about the world as one
    And I believe it could be, some day its going to come

    Cause out on the edge of darkness, there rides a Barack train
    Oh Barak train take this country, come take me home again.

  • ||

    As a follow on to my post yesterday about overblown rhetoric and the cult of personality.

  • ||

    What shrike said.

    Thus has it ever been; regardless of era, it's the military that uses up the most tax dollars, and that tends to be the most wasteful about it, since nobody wants to be seen as skimping on national defense.

    If Obama can even get us most of the way out of Iraq, he will not have to take the unpopular step of raising taxes.

  • ||

    Although I don't think Obama will win, I'm dubious about him doing much good in office. Not to mention that if the Congress stays in the hands of the Democrats, we could see losses across the board for libertarians. I doubt seriously that he'll back off one iota from the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, or the War on Us. Last time around, Clinton made an extra effort to cater to the security and law-enforcement apparatus to avoid appearing weak. I'd expect the same, if not worse (due to post-9/11itis) from Obama.

    As for the economy and our apparently inevitable turn to European-style socialism regardless of who is in power, ye gods--we're doomed.

  • PC||

    We get this garbage all the time, Republicrat X is so much better than Republicrat Y, then a couple of fools fall for his rhetoric and we spend eight more years bitching about the supposed savior.

  • ||

    "As a follow on to my post yesterday about overblown rhetoric and the cult of personality.

    Like the Cult of Reagan? The simpleton who "cut and ran" from the Islamists after 240 US Marines were killed in Lebanon - the Mexi-Amnesty Bill of 1987, the guy who "talked" to the USSR like Obama proposes....

    btw, Reagan's financial brain, Paul Volcker, just fell into the Obama cult and like a zombie - endorsed him.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/01/31/volcker-i-endorse-obama/

    Time for a new wingnut meme....

  • PC||

    And Zbigniew seems to be very intent on being World Police Chief.

  • ||

    See, the reason T-Bone's comment was so convincing was the way he demolished the supposed reasons to vote for him, thus demonstrating that his support is cult-like and unmoored from reality, rather than just making an assertion wholly removed from any evidence or logic.

  • ||

    Ok, the "hes a cult leader!" is out of the way.

    Who will be the first person to start talking about his middle name now?

  • Geotpf||

    If I were King of America, I could balance the budget in about an hour.

    1. Shrink the military to the size that is large enough to prevent foreign countries from invading and no larger. Stop building things like fighter jets and submarines and missile defense shields that are mainly designed to battle the Soviet Union. Close all overseas bases and bring the troops home (not just from Iraq, but also from Afghanistan, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and the dozens of other countries where they are stationed on a permanent or semi-permanent basis).
    2. Legalize all victimless crimes (drugs, prostitution, gambling, whatever), and tax them. Fire all judges, police officers, public defenders, prosecutors, baliffs, court reporters, prison guards, etc., who spend their time arresting, trying, convicting, and jailing people who were convicted of those laws, and free everybody currently in jail for such crimes.

    The net result would be a huge budget surplus (on both a federal and local level) that could be spent on roads or schools or health care and/or used to reduce general tax levels.

  • ||

    But Geotpf! TEH CALIPHATE!!!!oneomg will follow us home!!11

  • ||

    I'm not a wingnut, and I don't get the Obama love at all. He strikes me as a little too tied into the Democratic machine in Chicago--which is a bad thing--and a little too light in experience to be running for POTUS. Just the fact that someone like him, Edwards, or Clinton can run with a straight face says something about the state of politics today and even more about the hubris of our politicians. Sure, I'd like an outsider without the wrong kind of "experience", but neither of the remaining Democrats can say that, either. And I'm not picking on the Democrats--it just happens that they have the lightweights this time. Quayle was a similarly distressing and sound-bitish candidate. As was Bush, for that matter.

    Too bad McCain is so awful. Yet another non-choice choice.

    joe, ask people why they support Obama. It's not exactly unreasonable to be disturbed when people vote on platitudes. I remind you that such occurred in 2000. This isn't a unique event, I'll grant, but I'd rather see a little more voting on actual issues.

  • ||

    Pro, to a lot of people Obama is a blank slate they project their own political beliefs onto.

    To crossover Republicans hes a moderate, to the far-left hes George McGovern, to libertarians supporters hes libertarian-leaning, etc, etc. Thats probably about 60% or so of his supporters.

  • ||

    BTW, I forgot to add this works in the other direction as well--people who dislike Obama project their worst fears onto him.

  • ||

    Cesar,

    That's exactly what I'm afraid of. In some ways, Paul served the same purpose, even though his positions were much clearer and more solid.

    I don't get this species at all. I include myself in that pronouncement.

  • Geotpf||

    "Cesar | February 27, 2008, 3:15pm | #

    But Geotpf! TEH CALIPHATE!!!!oneomg will follow us home!!11"

    Well, that's certainly the type of thinking that's given us all the retarded "Obama is a closet Muslim and traitor to America" lines of attack against him (see the debate thread for Eric Donero's ridiculous version of such).

    Electing Obama will be an absolute repudiation of that line of thinking, partially because of his policies, and partially because his middle name really is Hussein. He's the anti-Bush. In many ways, Obama winning the election will cause certain neocon and "America Fuck Yeah" type morons even more grief and anguish than electing Hillary "She-Devil" Clinton.

  • ||

    Pro I don't like (or get it) either. Something tells me if hes elected he'll be less JFK and more like Jimmy Carter.

  • x,y||

    If Obama becomes the next president, every last one these libertarian(ish) promoters will regret it. Mark my words.

  • ||

    Geotpf -

    Another bonus is it makes the far-left European crowd that constantly crows OMG AMERICA IS A RACIST HORRIBLE XENOPHOBIC IMPERIALIST COUNTRY FULL OF MORONS! crowd STFU.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    At that moment, I thought the wailing ghost of R.C. Hoiles would burst through the ceiling and the floor beneath us would split into a ragged, cleaving maw we'd all tumble into - swallowed whole by the earth. Better no company at all than one whose CEO supports a Democrat for president.



    Amen Brother.

    And, btw, once Obama is elected, I expect all of you who voted for him to compensate me for the ills I will suffer as a result.

    Drink!

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    people who dislike Obama project their worst fears onto him.

    I don't dislike him at all. He's quite charismatic and projects a likeability that may be a grand facade but probably isn't.

    I also project no fears whatsoever, he's anti-gun and pro-socialized medicine. He's for higher taxes as well. If you think he's getting us out of Iraq I offer Limo-Liberal Pelosi as Exhibit # 1.

    His website is very clear about his positions. He's a left of center Democrat and has little to offer me to entice a vote.

    Would he be better than St Hillary? Maybe. Would he be better than McCain? Maybe.

    I will not vote for a man who plans to stab me in the eye to keep someone else out of office who plans to stab me in the back.

    The man is no libertarian.

    Drink!

  • ||

    TWC I wasn't speaking of people who actaully know his policy positions and disagree with them. Hell, I'm in that camp. I was referring to the "Muslim Manchurian candidate/scary black nationalist" krewe.

  • ||

    He WOULD be better than Hillary though. I'll take a Jimmy Carter over a Lyndon Johnson.

  • Paul||

    less than 10% of our non-entitlement federal spending goes to the 'welfare queens'

    Really, shrike? You're including Boeing, GM, Sears, and a dozen other queens in your 10% figure, I'm to assume?

  • Geotpf||

    "x,y | February 27, 2008, 3:23pm | #

    If Obama becomes the next president, every last one these libertarian(ish) promoters will regret it. Mark my words."

    Well, ignoring Hillary, look at the other option. McCain really is doing a very good Teddy Roosevelt imitation (except instead of just claiming all of the Americas, he's claiming pretty much the entire planet).

  • GILMORE||

    I STILL DONT GET THE DRINKING RULES! NOT FAIR

    I am probably drinking anyway FWIW. Working from home is not improving my discipline.

    I think people need to get over the whole fucking Obama vs everyone else thing. Out of a pool of horrible shitcocks, we get this guy. I mean, would we be happier in a GIULIANI vs HILARY campaign? Christ, thats like Satan or Cthulu.

    I agree Mike (TWC) that Obama panders heavily to the left, but my feeling is that he's appealing to moderates because his "change" codeword is convincing them he'll govern from the center.

    The one thing that makes me ill about ALL the candidates at the moment is the anti-trade talk. McCain was nice with his "these jobs arent coming back" truth-to-power thing, but he didnt exactly say "we're going to drop all agricultural subsidies and do free trade agreements with Africa and blah blah".

    Frankly, I think on the economy, ALL of the candidates are functionally the same, whatever they say. It's like abortion. They will get up and rally their base to vote for them by screaming "Life!" or "Choice!", but when it comes down to actual policy, they just agree to find some minor compromise, like limiting partial birth abortion. No one really wants to go whole hog one way or the other. Same with Immigration. The GOP sort of fucked themselves last year on this, by stirring people into a froth over the topic, then backpedaling and proposing a policy that sounded far too weak to the Nativists they'd rallied. All of the candidates will probably say in private that the best solutions on issues arent as extreme as the rhetoric that flies around. They just talk like that to sound more hardcore than the other guy, so they can get elected.

    Im surprised one of them hasnt offered every American a pony if they're president.

  • ||

    "Really, shrike? You're including Boeing, GM, Sears, and a dozen other queens in your 10% figure, I'm to assume?"

    Of course not!

    Those are the "welfare kings".....

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    I'll take a Jimmy Carter over a Lyndon Johnson.

    Cesar, I dunno, Johnson delivered us the welfare state and Viet Nam. Carter cost me my business with his horrible economic policies. Plus he gave away the Panama Canal.

    Settled. I wouldn't give you a nickel for a whole bagful of those guys. :-)

  • ||

    I never got the angst over the Panama Canal. Its not like if Panama closed it we couldn't bomb them to smithereens to make them open it again. I hear Panama is a nice country but a Great Power it is not.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    I STILL DONT GET THE DRINKING RULES! NOT FAIR

    If you say anything that remotely resembles:

    YOUR NOT A REAL LIBERTARIAN ANYWAY

    Then we all get to drink.

    I figure that questioning someone's libertarian bona fides (in this case, Obama's and the new president of Freedom Communications, which was sold and therefore is not in the Hoiles libertarian clan any longer) is close enough. Like horsehoes, hand grenades, or shotguns.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Attention Grammar Police: I know it should have been YOU'RE and not your.

  • GILMORE||

    x,y | February 27, 2008, 3:23pm | #

    Mark my words.


    Whatever.

    Hey joe - regarding our last non-bet... what do the odds look like now?

    I think you might have taken my money if you'd taken my 1-and-1 prediction (ohio/Texas). I broke them the wrong way I think. but the offer to go Obama for both would probably have cleaned up.

    Meaning, I suspect Obama will win both. I'd guess polls by fri in Ohio will have them head to head, and by mon, he'll be 5 points up.

  • ||

    Stupid Flanders!

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Gilmore, I more or less agree with your take on things. We are, in essence, screwed either way. Not as screwed as we could be. Not as screwed as the other guys want us to believe we'll be if we don't throw down with their lot.

    Obama v McCain?

    I'm voting for WHOEVER the LP puts up. Or writing in Bugs Bunny.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Homer wins the thread. LOL.

  • Geotpf||

    Obama's doing better in Texas than in Ohio, although if the trendlines continue, he'll win both. But then again, polling this go around has been amazingly bad, so there's no way to know for sure.

    In any case, I think Clinton came off pretty badly in the last debate. At the minimum, the debate did nothing to stop Obama's momentum.

  • ||

    I won't lie. I'm glad to see the Clintons eliminated as a force in Presidential politics, even if it is by another arch-liberal.

  • ||

    I figure that questioning someone's libertarian bona fides (in this case, Obama's [...])

    Then we all get to drink.


    Well, yeah generally that is true TWC, but doesn't someone have to, you know, actually have some libertarian bona fides before questioning them earns us a drink? I don't think you can apply that rule to just anyone. For example, if I say Castro is no libertarian I'm not sure that's drink-worthy.

    But then again, what the hell am I doing arguing against an excuse to drink... (not that I need one) so never mind.

    Drink!

  • ||

    The "socialist" meme is such a false notion - less than 10% of our non-entitlement federal spending goes to the 'welfare queens' (and I include HUD).

    When you exempt a massive block of welfare, of course only a small amount of federal spending goes to welfare.

  • ||

    Good to know I'm not the only one who noticed that 10% figure left our SS and Medicare, which are about half our budget IIRC.

    And since I'm 26, I'll never see a penny!

  • anon||

    Shrike, seriously, go away.

    I'm voting for Obama, and you're not helping our cause.

  • GILMORE||

    Oh, right (DRINKING RULES)

    Frankly, I would not want to meet someone's criteria of "REAL LIBERTARIAN", ever.

    For Donderooooo it would mean we should preemptively nuke all muslim nations

    For LoneWacko it would mean destroying our economy to protect the melanin balance within our country's gene-pool

    For Paulistas it would mean... being really really naive.

    For LaRouche types it would be... well, i never was sure. Fucking weird? Believing the jew-alien-communists are behind it all. Who knows.

    The only place I admit to libertarian tendencies is on this board. In polite conversation, I am an "independent", or the always useful, "socially liberal, economically conservative", which most people seem to swallow without thinking too hard about it.

    I've been in way too many situations in NYC, like cocktail parties, where I'll say something like, "they should dissolve the fucking department of education, get rid of the teachers union, and..."

    -the record will scratch, the room goes silent, and dozens of liberals are looking at me with this kind of unholy terror, like i just said something like, "Hitler had a point, you know".

    I know i'm not libertarian enough to anyone until I own a few guns.

  • Taktix®||

    I won't lie. I'm glad to see the Clintons eliminated as a force in Presidential politics, even if it is by another arch-liberal.

    I'm in this camp too. I think a McCain-Obama matchup would be prime breeding ground for a 3rd Party.

    I even heard Glenn Beck talking about going for Wayne Allen Root today, because they're so sick of the Republicrats.

    Not that I believe Beck, but if a right-winger of that caliber would even consider it, I think that signifies a broad change on the horizon.

  • ||

    Isn't Root the warmonger? No wonder Glenn "Caliphate" Beck is rooting for him.

  • ||

    They'll always be with us, Cesar. The scuttlebutt from my friends with the Clinton administration (I was a fellow at the White House/OMB in the mid 90s) in late 1999 was that Clinton was hoping for a Supreme Court appointment if Gore won. Not sure he could get that from Obama if the latter holds a grudge, but it's still on the table, I bet. I'm okay with Clinton on the Court if he gets as large as Taft was when he got appointed ☺

    I wonder if Senator Clinton will actually be a long-term senator in New York? I have my doubts, though the power of the Incumbent Side is strong.

    Andrew/Cesar, yeah, I noticed that, too. Except for the socialist stuff we don't have much socialist stuff. Except for the war, we don't have that much military spending.

  • ||

    Pro I'm terrified of her being Attorney General, personally.

  • GILMORE||

    I wonder if Senator Clinton will actually be a long-term senator in New York?

    Depends if the party machine dumps her. She was a shoo in in last 2 elections. Nobody in the party really even tried to compete. After getting her ass whooped in presidential campaign, maybe someone will grow some balls and basically be like, "you're not effective anymore - we need fresh blood. You're damaged goods. Retire, write a book, start a charity or something".

  • Kolohe||

    Shrike, seriously, go away.

    I'm voting for Obama, and you're not helping our cause.



    FWIW, I think shirke's doing just fine. He (she?) is right on the qualitative and quantitive difference between entitlement spending and the rest; and the quip of welfare kings vs queens showed a quick wit and alludes to a larger political truth

  • ||

    Gilmore,

    You're a NYC-ite too, eh? Funny, I don't claim to be a "PURE LIBERTARIAN (TM)", but I find I get three reactions to telling others at parties that I am "Libertarian:" a tiny minority pick a fight with me, most nod and say "oh," because they don't know what it means, and a sizable percentage say, "oh, me too. I totally agree."

    Any way you slice it it makes for good conversation.

  • robc||

    GILMORE,

    I know i'm not libertarian enough to anyone until I own a few guns.

    They let people without guns post on here? For a magazine called Reason....drink!

  • ||

    I stick to economic conservative/social liberal, or just "Classical liberal". Everytime I tell someone I'm libertarian I get a really stupid response along the lines of "Oh, so you're like Bill O'Reilley!"

  • Vermont Gun Owner||

    I know i'm not libertarian enough to anyone until I own a few guns.

    I own two, does that count? What if I don't have them with me (they are about a 90 minute drive away) because of campus gun control laws?

  • DannyK||

    Look at it this way -- Obama's not all that bad, he'll move to the center in the general and probably stay there if he wins, and the Republican party would benefit tremendously from a really big kick in the butt right about now. If they don't get one, I'm afraid that they'll conclude that right-wing statism, surveillance, cronyism, fearmongering, etc. are a winning platform after all. And that would be bad.

  • ||

    Frankly, I would not want to meet someone's criteria of "REAL LIBERTARIAN", ever.


    Well, GILMORE, not that there is such a thing, but I certainly wouldn't consider any of your examples up there "real libertarians" either. It gets tiring trying to battle a lot of the images and preconceptions people have based on some of those types you enumerated. I hesitate to use the label myself unless it's in a situation where I know I'll have the time to explain what it means to me and to distance myself from the wacko-wing of the so-called libertarians.

    And, yeah yeah, drink 'em if you got 'em...

  • robc||

    DannyK,

    Wouldnt be nice if we could give the Dems a giant kick in the butt at the same time? Switching butt kickings back and forth doesnt work. They take it as support that they win half the time.

  • ||

    Cesar,

    A Clinton running Justice; a Clinton as a Justice. Perfect.

    Guess Janice Rogers Brown is not an option for the high court anymore, huh?

  • ||

    Biggest nightmare? Pres. Obama, appoints Bill to the SCOTUS, and works with Senate Majority Leader Hillary, with 60 Democratic senators.

    McCain will, at least, be restrained by the fact his coattails aren't long enough to put the GOP back in charge of Senate or House.

    But I'll still probably vote for the Libertarian knowing my one vote won't mean diddly anyway.

  • ||

    I want to buy massive puts on the party that explains to the electorate that their Social Security entitlements are a "socialist" grab -- from the rightful ownership society and must be eliminated in order to pave way for worldwide democratization and Christianization.

    A lousy retirement plan? Hell Yes. Socialism? Tell that to the Archie Bunker types who have paid into it 40 years and see how it flies.

    Technically, forcing someone to pay into such a system is untenable. But depriving collection from such after a lifetime of payment based on a smarmy platitude is political suicide.

    Luckily, the LP has always readily adjusted to the latter.

  • ||

    shrike,

    Call it what you want, but many of us paying that glorified tax right now are expecting to see very little of it when we reach retirement age. And even libertarians talk about phasing it out or privatizing the fund, not killing the whole program and laughing at old people afterwards.

  • ||

    I'm still in favor of raising the retirement age by a small amount - say three months - every year, indefinitely. The people already collecting or about to collect will see virtually no change, and they'll get their money. The younger you are, the more you'll have to fill that gap - that whole personal responsibility thing. Then the payroll tax begins to get phased out.

  • Urkobold™||

    THE URKOBOLD FAVORS THE CAROUSELIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY. RENEW!

  • Geotpf||

    "GILMORE | February 27, 2008, 4:23pm | #

    I wonder if Senator Clinton will actually be a long-term senator in New York?

    Depends if the party machine dumps her. She was a shoo in in last 2 elections. Nobody in the party really even tried to compete. After getting her ass whooped in presidential campaign, maybe someone will grow some balls and basically be like, "you're not effective anymore - we need fresh blood. You're damaged goods. Retire, write a book, start a charity or something"."

    Nah. Kennedy got his ass handed to him in 1980 and is still in the Senate. She has a Senator-for-life position in the bag, if she wants it. And, all things considered, that's not that bad a gig.

  • ||

    If Barack loses the election, he can walk into the job of Governor of Illinois. I think we might even waive the election process since it would be a waste of taxpayer money and time. Now that our current gov (Rezko-vich)has been labeled "Public Figure A" by the feds, I think we can even skip that whole Democratic primary thing.

    /mmm, Kool-Aid

  • ||

    Scott Flanders-he who heads up a chain of libertarian broadsheets, including the Orange County Register-is voting for the presumptive Democratic nominee.

    Obama??! Is he f***ing nuts??

    For economic policy, Obama is one of the most anti-libertarian senators-Including being one of the biggest spenders in the senate:

    http://www.ntu.org/misc_items/rating/VS_2006.pdf

    He's anti Iraq war, and that's to his credit. But if he's elected with the current Dem majorities in both houses of congress, we will pay a terrible price in our liberty and, in turn, our prosperity to end this shameful and tragic war.

    Obama is also willing to crucify our liberty and prosperity on the cross of his belief in anthropogenic global warming.

    A better idea, instead of endorsing this economic illiterate, is to not lift a finger for the war monger, McCain and assume that Obama is going to win and work hard to elect more Republicans to congress to mitigate the harm that Obama and a Dem congress will do. This way, the war will end but our economy won't be reduced to third world status.













  • ||

    Pro Libertate -

    I am in the same boat.

    But I keep hearing how the GOP/Bush is more "small government" than Obama - the same GOP that foists an $800 billion price-fixed Medicare Pharma Drug Plan and a $1 trillion dollar "war on terror" whilst simultaneously curtailing liberty for a just whim of safety.

    I understand the depths of any cynicism but cannot understand defense of the GOP "small government" lie.

    Until the GOP regains my respect I won't give it any. The Dems have never purported to be anything other than they say they are (a low bar to be sure).

    We need a "fiscally conservative" party (balancing the budget is just one priority there).

    But neither party can make that claim these days.

  • sandman||

    THE URKOBOLD FAVORS THE CAROUSELIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY. RENEW!

    Remember, Urkobold, there is no sanctuary.

  • x,y||

    I'm not saying the other candidates are any better. Only that he's not sufficiently libertarian to receive all the praise he's getting from libertarian(ish) people.

    The LP is an option (depending on the candidate). So is not voting.

  • ||

    GILMORE,

    Yup, we both low-balled it. Obama is going to kick ass in Texas and win in Ohio.

    MARK MY WORDS!!!11!1 :-))

    Well, yeah generally that is true TWC, but doesn't someone have to, you know, actually have some libertarian bona fides before questioning them earns us a drink? Yeah, you don't get to drink if someone says I'm a liberal.

  • ||

    No, the GOP has no small-government component, at least as represented by its behavior in Washington. What's odd about that is that I believe a good number of GOP voters do have a definite tendency to distrust government and to prefer something more limited. I imagine it gets frustrating for the GOP faithful to continually vote against the Democrats in the hope that some of that old GOP limited government rhetoric actually will mean something.

    In the end, the spiral towards a tyrannical central government continues without abatement, regardless of the party in power. The temptations of power are apparently too great. Each party seems to crap on its core values when it holds the baton. Of course, perhaps that's just because the core values they profess to the (yes, yes, I know) hoi polloi aren't their true core values. I think we can guess what those true core values actually are.

    I'm voting LP. Again.

    joe, I agree--Obama's going to wrap it up next week. And Hillary's going to lose her temper and kick his ass. Yes, I mean fisticuffs. That's my prediction, and I'm stickin' to it.

  • ||

    The scuttlebutt from my friends with the Clinton administration (I was a fellow at the White House/OMB in the mid 90s) in late 1999 was that Clinton was hoping for a Supreme Court appointment if Gore won.

    I seriously doubt if someone who gave up their law license while being investigated for unethical conduct could be appointed to the Supreme Court.

  • ||

    R C Dean,

    Duh, forgot all about that. You're entirely right. Even a huge Democratic majority in the Senate wouldn't want to try to overcome that stigma.

    That wasn't an issue at the time, of course. I don't think he surrendered his license until 2001 (for five years, I think, so I guess he has it again).

  • ||

    I thought he only gave up his license to argue before the Supreme Court. No?

    Which would certainly do the job of keeping him off the bench.

  • ||

    Joe,

    I'm working from memory here, but I think his agreement to avoid disbarment was to voluntarily surrender his license to practice law in Arkansas for five years. I'm sure I'm getting something wrong in this, but the accurate state of affairs is surely all over the web. In any event, it is unlikely to the extreme that a lawyer with any black mark whatsoever can get appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court.

    I note parenthetically that the Constitution says zip about qualifications for the Supreme Court. Don't have to be a lawyer, a citizen, or even a human being. In fact, I should've included "Appoint my PC to the Supreme Court" in my Libertarian President Top 100.

  • highnumber||

    If Barack loses the election, he can walk into the job of Governor of Illinois.

    Why would he want that? Way too much downside. He's escaped the stink of Springfield. Most of it has washed off already. He's not leaving Washington. He'd be a fool.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    ........job of Governor of Illinois. I think we might even waive the election process....

    Isn't that pretty much what you guys do anyway? Waive the election process?

    Or is that just Cook County?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    For LaRouche types it would be... well, i never was sure. Fucking weird? Believing the jew-alien-communists are behind it all. Who knows.

    This type doesn't exist as LaRouche was a registered Democrat and not a libertarian. That damn Newsweek (Time Mag?) story still persists in infecting even our own people.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Brian Courts, you make a good point, my man. I guess we don't get to just say, Hey, Dick Nixon, you ain't no Ron Paul!

    Now Drink!

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Scott Flanders-he who heads up a chain of libertarian broadsheets, including the Orange County Register-is voting for the presumptive Democratic nominee.

    I don't know Flanders politics, but according to Alan Bock, one of the OC Register's Op-Ed guys, the paper has been ALLOWED to retain it's libertarian opinion pages since the entire organization was sold a year or two back.

    Apparently, there was some question as to whether or not that would happen and the decision was made based upon the long running market history of the OC Register and the popularity or its libertarian op-ed pages with the readership in Orange County Ca.

    I would not go so far as to say Flanders is not a libertarian, because then we'd have to drink, but I will say that he is an outsider, a corporate guy who came from Columbia House, and is not in anyway connected to the family that owned the paper for generations. He may be no more of a libertarian than Daily Kos or he may think he's libertarian because he's anti-war. Or he may just be one of many libertarians that don't have a problem voting for Obama or Bill Clinton.

    It's still important, but it's not quite as dramatic is it appears at first blush.

  • ||

    Obama is also the only one of the candidates who has said loudly and clearly, that he will bring back Habeas Corpus.

    I'm voting for that. Plus I don't want the Supreme Court shoved any further to the right.

  • ||

    Yeah, you don't get to drink if someone says I'm a liberal.

    Heh, I hope not, joe. As much as I'm farily, well... liberal, in my willingness to imbibe for just about any reason (or none at all) I do have some limits.

    See, TWC, this is why we need some standard for that particular rule. Otherwise even your (I'm guessing) formidable wine collection would be quickly depleted by such a (here we go again) liberal application of the drinking rules. :)

  • ||

    If Obama loses, he should try to take over Chicago. That would be a feat.

  • ||

    If Obama loses, he should try to take over Chicago.

    Or maybe the Doobie Brothers...

  • Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L||

    Wait, joe is liberal? I'll drink to that! Keep up the liberalizing, joe!

  • TallDave||

    for him, "the No. 1 issue is who will get us out of Iraq."...four top libertarian reforms: 1) Iraq withdrawal,

    Apparently Iraqis don't get any liberty.

    I can just see these guys in 1864, supprting McClellan because "the No. 1 issue is who will get us out of the Confederacy."

  • TallDave||

    Yeah, you don't get to drink if someone says I'm a liberal.

    Shouldn't joe be drinking himself silly celebrating the fact a century of global warming has suddenly been mitigated in one year of all-time-greatest cooling? GW was the most important issue of our time, wasn't it?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Brian, that was very bad. But I LOL anyway.

  • ||


    I can just see these guys in 1864, supprting McClellan because "the No. 1 issue is who will get us out of the Confederacy."



    Yeah Dave, because defending your own national integrity from its very destruction is completely the same as occupying a foreign country thousands of miles away. Nice try. Next.

  • ||

    TallDave is a good at history as he is at climate science.

    No, dimwit, one measure showed a cold January. One month.

  • ||

    Geotpf,

    Maybe all that money you'll save by cutting the military down to the size of France will help pay off everybody who wants a piece of America when the realize we just castrated ourselves. Worked for Rome.

    Seriously, when was the last time a country voluntarily cut down its military and proceeded to GROW in strength?

  • ||

    Seriously, when was the last time a country voluntarily cut down its military and proceeded to GROW in strength?

    Britain under the Tories?

    The US in the 90s?

  • ||

    Re: Obama Love:

    This is Willful Ingorance. You'll end up being bitterly diappointed.

  • ||

    I'm not a real Libertarian anyway (I'm just a conservative who likes parts of the Libertarian agenda (it isn't solid enough to call it a platform) and appreciates having them around, sort of like canaries in the mine shaft. None of the present candidates are particularly thrilling to this conservative - McCain is too fond of regulation and seems to buy the global warming crap, Hillary is Hillary (nuff said), and Obama is a hald-left socialist with ties to the Weathermen and the most lefty voting record in congress, but he comes in a happy, hopeful, non-threatening, nice guy package - and have you seem his proposals for "Patriot Companies"?

    Get real - hold your nose and vote for McCain or stay home - both are valid and defensible choices. Vote for Obama if you want a rerun of Wlsonian Progressivism, which IIRC, ain't exactly about liberty.

    Drink Lots, it'll help numb the pain.

  • ||

    Never posted here before, but I didn't notice one mention of Kelo. Is BO more or less likely to appoint judges sympathetic to that decision?

    Some of you think the Constitution is being shredded now, e.g., Patriot Act etc. But just wait until the Warren Court 2.0 takes over. The Second, Fifth and Tenth Amendments will disappear by fiat. New or strengthened, but mostly previously undiscovered, "rights" will be enacted again by fiat. (E.g., the "right" to health care; the "right" to immigrate; the "right" to racially discriminate to effectuate the goals of affirmative action; the "right" not to be offended by uncovered women at the beach; the "right" to have a driver's license with your face completely obscured).

    Good luck with that.

  • TallDave||

    Yeah Dave, because defending your own national integrity from its very destruction

    Ridiculous. The Confederacy was no threat to destroy the United States. (Fearmonger!) They just wanted to live in peace with their slaves. (Warmonger!)

    occupying a foreign country

    The Confederates were pretty adamant about being a foreign country, and didn't like being occupied by the U.S.

  • TallDave||

    TallDave is a good at history as he is at climate science.

    Why thank you!

    No, dimwit, one measure showed a cold January. One month.

    Uh no, genius, it showed a one-year drop in temperature, not a one-month drop in temperature. It's the difference between Jan 08 and Jan 07, not Jan 08 and Dec 07.

  • TallDave||

    Also, it wasn't "one measure," my denialist friend. It was ALL of them.

  • GILMORE||

    Me | February 28, 2008, 11:57am | #
    Re: Obama Love:

    This is Willful Ingorance. You'll end up being bitterly diappointed.


    Yes...yes.... we'd all be MUCH happier with either =

    Huckabee?
    Giuliani?
    Hilary?
    Edwards?
    Romney?
    A talking Elmo doll?

    Seriously, whats the contest here? Give it up.

  • ||

    He's not leaving Washington. He'd be a fool.

    Being governor is the best stepping-stone to being President.

    Being Governor of Illinois, though?

  • Dan||

    I can't understand how any thinking Libertarian can even remotely support Obama. This is the most interventionist candidate to come along in a long time. His latest idiocy takes the form of a 'Patriotic employers act', in which he wants to push employers into doing all sorts of things he thinks are 'good things', such as forcing them to pay at least the poverty level for a family of three, pick up the tab for health care, create an employer-based pension, give equal pay to national guardsmen who are on duty, maintain their workforce in the U.S., not set up offices abroad, etc.

    This is not libertarianism. It's liberal fascism. And Obama's got lots of it.

  • ||

    Socialized healthcare is not libertarian, stopping free trade (including but not limited to NAFTA) is not libertarian, rewarding companies who don't send jobs away while punishing those who do is not libertarian, its mercantilist, Adam Smith would be appalled. Expanding government domestically is not libertarian.

    McCain will have a democrat senate (house is up in the air if he wins), Obama will have a united congress. Vote McCain.

  • ||

    restoring the separation of church and state



    good luck with that

  • Nike Dunk High||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement