Won't You Be My Nader?

David Weigel | June 23, 2008

The Bob Barr-as-Ralph Nader meme—a no-brainer that was first given form by reason's own Matt Welch—makes its way to the Associated Press.

"Bob could be the Ralph Nader of 2008," said Dan Schnur, a GOP consultant in California who worked on McCain's 2000 campaign but is not involved in this year's contest. Consumer advocate Nader is the third-party candidate many Democrats blame for helping George W. Bush narrowly win in 2000.

Rep. John Linder, a Republican who defeated Barr in 2002 after Georgia's Democratic-controlled Legislature redrew congressional boundaries to put the two lawmakers in the same district, said he didn't think Barr would top 4 percent of the vote.

"But in some states that may be enough," Linder said.

Democrats seem gleeful at the prospect. Tad Devine, a Washington-based Democratic strategist, said Republicans "are crazy if they aren't worried about Barr."

The one source who dismisses Barr is his old 1994 Revolution taskmaster Newt Gingrich, who argues, gut-splittingly, that "no reasonable conservative is going to vote for anyone except McCain." Barr refuses to play ball and says McCain will lose because "his message and his vision did not resonate with a plurality of the voters."

Over at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, David Brown asks if the big Paul vote in the GOP primaries portends a Libertarian groundswell.

If energy and money from what his backers call the Ron Paul Revolution flow into a third-party push, it spells trouble for McCain, who stands to lose more votes from such efforts than does Democrat Barack Obama, analysts say. Votes going to third-party candidates in key battleground states such as Pennsylvania, Florida, and even Georgia, could tip those states to Obama, they say.

"McCain's got a problem," said Micah L. Sifry, author of "Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America" and editor of techPresident.com, which tracks how the candidates are using the Web.

"In the last few primaries, Ron Paul kept getting double-digit levels of support. It's a sign of something we already know: the Republican base is divided and being pulled in different directions," Sifry said. "One of the directions it's being pulled in is the direction of the Libertarian Party."

Newsweek's Andrew Romano is convinced that Barr is putting Georgia in play.

Ultimately, [Obama's] performance depends on the two B's: Bob Barr and black voters. A former four-term Republican congressman from the Atlanta suburbs, Barr's been a known quantity in Georgia for two decades; now, as the Libertarian Party's nominee for president, he's guaranteed to sap a sizable number of votes from McCain, who lost the state's February primary to Mike Huckabee and inspires little enthusiasm among its largely Evangelical Republican base. Since February, only two polls have listed Barr as an option—and both were conducted by Insider Advantage. The Barr-less polls peg McCain's support at 53 or 54 percent—an insurmountable edge. But as soon as you add Barr to the equation, McCain's numbers plunge eight to 10 points. Released on May 21, the first Insider Advantage poll show Barr swiping eight percent of the vote and McCain slipping to 45; in the second, it's Barr with six and McCain with a mere 44. The moral of the story: if Barr's on the ballot in November—and he will be—McCain is vulnerable.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 10:02AM|#

[Sigh.] Gingrich? Shaddup.

Cue whining about Libertarians not playing well with others in 5...

Guy Montag|6.23.08 @ 10:03AM|#

There's one problem for Obama here that I never hear discussed. Georgia, like Indiana, has strict rules demanding that voters show photo IDs at the polls, and that could take thousands or tens of thousands of votes from Obama.

Glad you said votes and not voters there Dave :)

Might only be a few hundred to a few thousand actual voters for the case you mention.

Ironic|6.23.08 @ 10:07AM|#

John McCain will have one person to blame if he does not defeat Barak Obama. That person is John McCain.

Guy Montag|6.23.08 @ 10:09AM|#

In other news, George Carlin died in Santa Monica, CA, at the age of 71.

Could explain the low protestor count this AM in front of the building I work in. Only 4 protestors with about 20 signs.

Some of us grieve for a great comedian while we work, others take the day off.

Ironic,

Quite correct.

Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 10:09AM|#

John McCain will have one person to blame if he does not defeat Barak Obama. That person is John McCain.

That is because voter gremlins and liberal elves are not people, you see...

Ironic|6.23.08 @ 10:15AM|#

Elemenope, I think John McCain may get more votes from liberals than most Republicans. The problem is he will loose more Republican voters than he will gain among Democrats. Bob Bar may actually help some Republicans in Congress by giving people who are not socialists someone they can vote for.

Ironic|6.23.08 @ 10:16AM|#

"In other news, George Carlin died in Santa Monica, CA, at the age of 71."

I miss him already. He was great in Dogma and I loved his commentary on religion.

|6.23.08 @ 10:17AM|#

The GOP saw this coming when they were afraid Ron Paul would bolt and seek the Libertarian nomination. As far as I can tell, they did nothing to placate libertarians. Now they will probably go through a "destroy Barr's candidacy" act by challenging petitions, etc.
(Penna. needs like 40,000 valid ones). So it behooves 1)the various state LPs to sit down with the Obama campaign and seek help with petitioning and demands that Barr be included in debates, in media interviews, etc. and 2) that the Barr campaign vigorously pursue those Republicans who voted for Ron Paul, and not assume he will automatically get the bulk of them.

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 10:17AM|#

I'll be voting for Barr, and I can't say I will shed any tears for the Republicans if he costs McCain a few states.

Taktix&#174|6.23.08 @ 10:19AM|#

The one source who dismisses Barr is his old 1994 Revolution taskmaster Newt Gingrich, who argues, gut-splittingly, that "no reasonable conservative is going to vote for anyone except McCain."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Ho ho ho ho!

He he he he he!

Sucker! Sucker!

You have to be fucking kidding me. The GOP is really grasping at straws here. McCain is as conservative as I am Chinese (and I'm not).

The only vote McCain can get will be people who think Conservative = Whatever Asshole Hannity Says I Should Vote For.

This is great. The GOP blew it's credibility load on Bush, and is sinking faster than a popped balloon.

This is going to be a great election to watch.

|6.23.08 @ 10:19AM|#

If Georgia is close enough for the ID requirement to make a difference, we're looking at a landslide of historic proportions across the nation anyway.

John McCain will have one person to blame if he does not defeat Barak Obama. That person is John McCain. The theory being, it's just as easy for a Republican to win an election after 8 years of Bush and Cheney than before? I'm less than completely convinced.

|6.23.08 @ 10:22AM|#

Newt Gingrich is a exceptionally smart and thoughtful person.

So much so that it is blindingly obvious when he is spouting talking points and not saying what he actually believes.

Guy Montag|6.23.08 @ 10:22AM|#

Taktix®,

Um, I think that is why Mr. Weigel called it "gut splitting". :)

Taktix&#174|6.23.08 @ 10:25AM|#

GM,

Fair enough, but I seldom get to do the Rollins Band "Liar" laugh.

Ironic|6.23.08 @ 10:25AM|#

Joe, McCain had built a reputation as an "independent" or "Maverick" but in recent years "Maverick" seemed to simply mean "What can I do to piss of my base."

|6.23.08 @ 10:27AM|#

McCain should have an easy time of it, given Obama's inexperience and odd missteps. However, McCain is crazy, so anything can happen.

joe, I fear that you overestimate the lack of hate people have for the Democrats. The GOP hate may be fresher, but it's all bad. And the Democrat-controlled Congress has done very little to impress voters. Not that any of this matters. We're all doomed.

I'm voting for the other elephant, even though I'm wary of him, too. Babar in 2008. That's one B.

|6.23.08 @ 10:29AM|#

If there is a God, and he has a sense of humor, Barr's VP candidate will be someone named John Cocktosen. Or, perhaps, Dr. Rosenpenis, if the Jewish vote is critical for some reason.

|6.23.08 @ 10:30AM|#

9:30 EDT and not one post about the death of Carlin. Reason really has hit the skids.

|6.23.08 @ 10:31AM|#

Pro Libertate,

Since 2004, the % of people who call themselves Democrats has gone from rough parity with the Republicans to a 15-20 point lead.

Roscoe|6.23.08 @ 10:32AM|#

Carlin dies, Gingrich lives. Proof that God is an ass.

|6.23.08 @ 10:33AM|#

John,

I daresay a proper article about Carlin should take more than a few minutes. No doubt reason will cover it in depth. We posted a couple of Carlin videos (one really old one) at Urkobold, but that's a lot easier to do--just steal from others.

I'm not so sure that Barr will have that much of an effect here in Georgia.

Unfortunately, Hannity's "Stop Thinking Express" that plays on the radio every afternoon probably carries more weight here.

Guy Montag|6.23.08 @ 10:33AM|#

Idea to save the nation:

There's one problem for Obama here that I never hear discussed. Georgia, like Indiana, has strict rules demanding that voters show photo IDs at the polls, and that could take thousands or tens of thousands of votes from Obama.

Perhaps an agressive zoning program and State planning can remedy this situation so voting can be freed, like in Chicago and in other places? Maybe emergency federal legeslation is in order.

Guy Montag|6.23.08 @ 10:34AM|#

Bad tag, that blockquote should have been closed after paragraph 1.

|6.23.08 @ 10:34AM|#

joe,

I call myself God Emperor of Dune and answer polls accordingly.

I'll be voting for Barr. I've voted straight LP since I came of age in the mid 80's.

I hope Barr = Nader isn't the way this story plays after the election. The great thing about Nader 2000 was how he put the Green Genie back in the lamp.

Ironic has it right. The GOP had an opportunity to front an empty suit that could unify the disparate elements of the Republican coalition, even gain some independents, after the calamitous Bush administration. They chose instead to front a man who has a particularly narrow vision of what conservatism is, one that many self-identifying conservatives could certainly decline to endorse.

McCain doesn't need Barr's help to blow this election.

|6.23.08 @ 10:36AM|#

What does Boortz think of Barr? Boortz carries some weight in Georgia.

|6.23.08 @ 10:38AM|#

"Since 2004, the % of people who call themselves Democrats has gone from rough parity with the Republicans to a 15-20 point lead."

Joe that doesn't mean those people want socialized healthcare, a windfall profits tax, 60% marginal tax rates, and any number of giant giveaways to the public sector. No question that the Democrats have a great opportunity to capitalize on the Republicans screwing up and also no question they will fuck it up completely by interpreting numbers like that to mean people want a leftist wonderland.

Marcvs|6.23.08 @ 10:42AM|#

McCain would never have had my vote as I always throw my vote away for whomever is the LP candidate. That said, I would greatly enjoy it if the LP could take credit for McCain losing the election. I think I'll even donate to Barr's campaign.

|6.23.08 @ 10:44AM|#

"That said, I would greatly enjoy it if the LP could take credit for McCain losing the election. I think I'll even donate to Barr's campaign."

Even if that were true, Barr will never get credit for it. If Obama wins it will be because he is some kind of super human whose mere glance inspires hope and Chris Mathews to orgasm in his pants.

Sure, John.

Democrats are Democrats, except when they're not.

It's easy enough to look up issue polling, you know.

|6.23.08 @ 10:45AM|#

...that doesn't mean those people want socialized healthcare...

Funny you should mention that one, because I think a very large sector of the population actually thinks this is a good idea. I saw a poll that said the ratio was 2 to 1, although it dropped if it included waiting lists or limitations on doctors... but support for the concept is high.

|6.23.08 @ 10:46AM|#

A big turnout for Barr, like a bit turnout for Obama, would be primarily an indication of the public's rejection of the Republican Party.

Taktix&#174|6.23.08 @ 10:47AM|#

9:30 EDT and not one post about the death of Carlin. Reason really has hit the skids.

Uh, Reason isn't the AP wire (as much as I treat it as such). They don't seem to be the "breaking news" types, but rather the "closer look" types. We're not going to get a 5 W's story, because everyone already knows the basics.

H&R is based on a monthly magazine, after all...

|6.23.08 @ 10:47AM|#

I hope you all enjoy the socialist distopia you're creating. Me? I'm taking over the Hebrides and declaring a libertarian republic.

|6.23.08 @ 10:50AM|#

The problem is that we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. It's the whole problem with this two-party system, especially considering that neither party seems to represent the real interests of Americans in general. We're so [deleted to note Carlin's passing].

|6.23.08 @ 10:55AM|#

"Democrats are Democrats, except when they're not."

Yes because every Democrat is an unrepentent socialist. None of them are reasonable about anything and they all support the most radical leftist agenda out there. Jesus Joe, you have a worse view of Democrats than I do. There used to be reasonable Democrats. But maybe people like you have run them all out of the party. Maybe I am an optimist but I don't think most people are as stupid as your average Dem politican and think that the sollution to high gas prices is to stop all new drilling, sue opec, and nationalize the oil industry. Sure, people are gullible and don't beleive that anyone could be that stupid, but they really don't think they are getting that when they say they are Democrats.

Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 11:02AM|#

It's easy enough to look up issue polling, you know.

Sorry, joe, but gotta agree with John on this one. It is clear that issue-for-issue people in America prefer the Democrats' *goals*. But agreeing with goals has nothing to do with agreement on *methods*, of which people in America re: the Democrats generally abhor (higher taxes, more market intrusion, etc.).

Fluffy|6.23.08 @ 11:13AM|#

The key to the Gingrich quote is the word "reasonable".

I'm sure Gingrich thinks that "reasonable" conservatives understand that voting for a non-conservative is the "right" thing to do.

Look, I'll use the word with the Gingrich meaning in another sentence, so you can see what I mean:

"All you people who want actual conservative governance aren't being reasonable."

Or maybe:

"If you expected us to not grow government at the greatest rate since LBJ, you weren't being reasonable!"

Or perhaps:

"If you expected us to stick to the Constitution, that just wasn't reasonable!"

See how easy it is?

|6.23.08 @ 11:13AM|#

I just signed the petition to get Ron Paul on the LP ticket as VP, I know its probably not going to happen. But what else can I do. I dont have a candidate. You want to sign the Petition you can go to www.BarrPaul08.com

|6.23.08 @ 11:15AM|#

Can somebody make sure this fire extinguisher is the right kind for burning straw? I'd like to be sure before I wade into John's latest comment.

Barack Obama puts out a political program that is in line with the beliefs of mainstream Democrats, but if we pretend that he's put out a radical leftist agenda, we can further pretend that it is well to the left of most Democrats.

There used to be reasonable Democrats. But maybe people like you have run them all out of the party. That must explain why it is so much larger, then. And meeting with so much more electoral success; because it's become so much more radicalized, and smaller.

I love watching your ongoing meltdown, John.

Elemenope,

Polling that asks specifically about tax policy shows Democrats with a double-digit lead.

Fluffy|6.23.08 @ 11:16AM|#

There used to be reasonable Democrats. But maybe people like you have run them all out of the party.

Right, except for the fact that voter identification as Democrat has skyrocketed in the last 7 years, while the Republican party has shrivelled like a dick in a cold pool.

The problem is that the GOP has driven away reasonable people better, faster, and more thoroughly than the Democrats.

That will probably result in a Democrat administration in 2009, which will probably do lots of stuff I won't like.

It will suck, but it will be worth it, to see the current Republican establishment go down in flames.

Taktix&#174 (Former Trib Total|6.23.08 @ 11:17AM|#

Let me add that this is another flawless piece of copy, compliments of the brain trust at the Tribune-Review.

(P.S. The Trib started as a "non-biased" alternative to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. So as you can imagine, Fox News looks like the BBC by comparison.)

|6.23.08 @ 11:20AM|#

A majority of Democrats favor a single-payer health care system.

Hillary Clinton put out a plan that was well to the right of that, creating a multi-payer, mixed system of universal coverage.

Barack Obama put out a plan slightly to the right of hers, one that isn't even universal.

But Barack Obama isn't going to win the votes of those "reasonable Democrats," because they don't support socialized medicine.

Whatev.

Taktix&#174|6.23.08 @ 11:23AM|#

Joe,

Sorry, logic seems to be missing in your argument:

Hillary Clinton put out a plan that was well to the right of that, creating a multi-payer, mixed system of universal coverage.

Barack Obama put out a plan slightly to the right of hers, one that isn't even universal.

If the Democrats are so strongly in favor of universal health care, as you claim, why would both of the candidates' proposals be so "right" during the Democrat Primary?

|6.23.08 @ 11:26AM|#

Taktix,

Becasue they have to run on those proposals during the general election, too.

And because they have to present their plans not only as positive, but also politically viable.

BTW, "Democrat" is a noun. The adjective form is "Democratic."

BakedPenguin|6.23.08 @ 11:28AM|#

Since no one else has said it, great Mr. Rogers headline.

Taktix&#174|6.23.08 @ 11:30AM|#

Joe,

If universal healthcare is so strongly desired, why would one need to go right to be politically viable?

You're not making any sense.

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 11:31AM|#

Joe, why does messing that up make Democrats get angry?

Look, I'm Episcopalian and here people say "The Episcopols" all the time.

|6.23.08 @ 11:31AM|#

Actually, Taktix, if you recall back to the early-to-middle stage of the Democratic primary, when Hillary and Obama and Edwards were going on and on about their health care plans, Obama's line was that he would love to see a single payer system, but this is something that could work politically.

Whether you believe him or not, the fact that he framed it that way demonstrates that he recognized the need to defend himself not from the charge that he is ZOMG teh Socialist, but from the charge that he is a neo-lib sellout.

Taktix&#174|6.23.08 @ 11:32AM|#

BTW, "Democrat" is a noun. The adjective form is "Democratic."

I fully concede this point. Slip of the finger...

Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 11:32AM|#

Polling that asks specifically about tax policy shows Democrats with a double-digit lead.

Somehow I really doubt they rolled out both candidates' tax plans and had the voter on the phone decide, and I equally doubt that the average voter can suss out whose tax plan is whose without gigantic road signs.

That being said, I'd love to know the study's methodology and sources.

|6.23.08 @ 11:34AM|#

If universal healthcare is so strongly desired, why would one need to go right to be politically viable?

Party primary.

General election.

Democrats.

All voters.

C'mon, you don't understand this?

No Name Guy,

Joe, why does messing that up make Democrats get angry? Because deliberately mispronouncing someone's name is rude.

Oh, hey, this is my new boyfriend, Russell.

Hi, ROSS. How you doing, ROSS? Good to meet you, ROSS.

Actually, it's Russell.

What's that, ROSS?

Gee, why would somebody object to that?

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 11:35AM|#

Had they asked people, "Do you favor higher taxes in the name of "fairness"? I doubt that would have been a double-digit lead.

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 11:36AM|#

I just think its bad grammar and not a conspiracy.

Again, I always hear "The Episcopols" and "The Episcopalian Church", both of which are horribly wrong.

This is done on national tv, too, with anchors who come from Ivy League schools.

Taktix&#174|6.23.08 @ 11:36AM|#

Well, I don't remember that, so if that's what he said, good enough. I'll take your word for it because I didn't follow the DNC primary as closely as the Ron Paul stuff.

Something just didn't compute there for a second...

|6.23.08 @ 11:37AM|#

The asked people, which party do you prefer on the following issues, then read list of issues.

One could theorize that the American public just doesn't realize that the Democrats favor higher overall taxes than the Republicans, or a more progressive system, or rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, but one wouldn't have a great deal of credibility.

|6.23.08 @ 11:39AM|#

NNG,

The phrase "Democrat Party" actually goes back to Joe McCarthy, who was eager to explain that he was doing so intentionally, and why.

Taktix&#174|6.23.08 @ 11:39AM|#

People get the name of my company wrong constantly, and I don't get my feathers all ruffled.

What's the matter Joe, did Russel stop putting out?

|6.23.08 @ 11:40AM|#

If it was an occasional slip, no one would care.

Michelle Malkin actually interrupts people to "correct" them when they say "Democratic Party" on the air.

Rhywun|6.23.08 @ 11:41AM|#

I just think its bad grammar and not a conspiracy.

Except for the fact that the incorrect usage is common among frothing World Net Daily types for some reason.

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 11:43AM|#

Yeah, but bad grammar is common among those types, too.

Anyway, I've noticed some hyper over-correction. E.g., my State Senator said he was a "proud Democratic".

Taktix&#174|6.23.08 @ 11:44AM|#

Michelle Malkin actually interrupts people to "correct" them when they say "Democratic Party" on the air.

Not a representative sample when the group in question is "people."

|6.23.08 @ 11:44AM|#

The phrase "Democrat Party" actually goes back to Joe McCarthy, who was eager to explain that he was doing so intentionally, and why.

Michelle Malkin actually interrupts people to "correct" them when they say "Democratic Party" on the air.

Ah ha! So it wasn't just because it's rude to mispronounce "someone's" name

Episiarch|6.23.08 @ 11:45AM|#

Well, just call them ReTHUGlicans back. That's the normal level of discourse between the two parties anyway.

|6.23.08 @ 11:47AM|#

I recognize that it's something of a taunt, but this is deviating too much from the real issue.

Are there in fact a clear majority of people who really don't want universal healthcare? The answer is - no, there isn't

|6.23.08 @ 11:48AM|#

Oddly enough, you don't every actually see anyone in the media using the term "Rethuglican."

Whereas the formulation "Democrat Party" is de rigeur among any Republican talking head who appears on camera.

Guy Montag|6.23.08 @ 11:49AM|#

I just think its bad grammar and not a conspiracy.

LBJ was a Democrat and a school teacher, majority leader of the Senate, Vice President, President and leader of the Democrat Party, that is what he called his party. Feel free to listen on the LBJ tapes that have ben released by the national archives over the past few years if you don't remember his wording.

|6.23.08 @ 11:50AM|#

Ah ha! So it wasn't just because it's rude to mispronounce "someone's" name

THAT gets an "Ah ha?" The fact that the particular bit of rudeness gets more attention because it is common and deliberate warrants an "Ah Ha?"

'kay.

|6.23.08 @ 11:51AM|#

And as you can see, the most flat-headed of the partisans go to great lengths to defend the usage as appopriate.

Slips of the tongue don't generally come with pre-fab justifications.

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 11:52AM|#

LBJ didn't have great grammar, Montag.

I never heard Bush the Greater or Reagan say "Democrat Party" in their State of the Union Addresses.

Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 11:52AM|#

Had they asked people, "Do you favor higher taxes in the name of "fairness"? I doubt that would have been a double-digit lead.

No doubt. But even joe, I believe, and myself (two fairly Obama-friendly posters) have beat up Obama on that whole kerfluffle. Fairness is never a good reason to raise taxes, and in all likelihood Obama said this because he got caught with his pants down and did not have a solid wonky answer prepared.

JMR|6.23.08 @ 11:54AM|#

It's gone beyond "nothing to placate" libertarians. The Paul campaign provoked a hysterical whinefest among statists of various persuasions, which was magnified by blatant antilibertarian media bias. The result became a farce, where Jay Leno had to make up for some TOTALLY statist & unjustified Faux News "debate" bias which was studiously ignored by "conservative" and lefty media bias watching sites.
JMR

Guy Montag|6.23.08 @ 11:54AM|#

LBJ didn't have great grammar, Montag.

So now you are going to pick on one of the great Democrats for the 'incorrect' pronounciation of his Party every time he mentioned it?

Plenty of other Democrats of the day did that too, he just happens to be the one who sticks out in my mind.

|6.23.08 @ 11:55AM|#

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 11:55AM|#

If I'm looking for correct grammar, I'll take Bill Buckley (who said Democratic Party) over LBJ, thanks. I think hes a bit more educated.

Because a lot of people use it, doesn't make it grammatically correct.

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 11:57AM|#

Still, I don't know why Democrats get pissy about it. It just makes your opponents look like they have bad English.

Guy Montag|6.23.08 @ 11:58AM|#

Perhaps we need a national speech code, enforced through the revocation of broadcast licenses or fines for the holders of said licenses.

And zoning, we need more national zoning of private property to cure this nation of its speech problems.

Not Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 11:59AM|#

Montag what the hell are you talking about?

robc|6.23.08 @ 12:00PM|#

joe,

Oddly enough, you don't every actually see anyone in the media using the term "Rethuglican."

Unless you are going to argue that blogs arent media, I see it all the time.

robc|6.23.08 @ 12:02PM|#

joe,

personal theory - people who say Democrat Party are trying to enforce grammar rules. :)

Republican - Republican Party
Libertarian - Libertarian Party
Green - Green Party

Therefore, Democrat - Democrat Party. They are just trying to reform the language to make sense.

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 12:04PM|#

Catholic Church-Catholic
Baptist Church-Baptist
Methodist Church-Methodist
Episcopal Church-EpiscopALIAN.

English is a funny language.

robc|6.23.08 @ 12:07PM|#

NNM,

Instead of whining, the Democrat Party and the Episcopalian Church should change their names.

|6.23.08 @ 12:08PM|#

Since 2004, the % of people who call themselves Democrats has gone from rough parity with the Republicans to a 15-20 point lead.

Unfortunately, those extra Dems are probably the sort that support warrantless wiretapping, funding the Iraq war, and oppose reigning in executive branch abuses.

You know, the kind you disown as not being "good Democrats" every time the Dem-majority Congress bends over, spreads its cheeks, and calls Bush its daddy?

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 12:09PM|#

Do you want to be referred to as a "United Statesian" from now on, robc?

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 12:10PM|#

Thats right, Pot.

The Republican Party is the party of bad ideas, the Democratic Party is the party of wimps.

|6.23.08 @ 12:12PM|#

I saw that Eric Dondero is supporting Barr which surprises me, with Dondero being such a warmonger, I thought he would end up supporting McCain.

Guy Montag|6.23.08 @ 12:12PM|#

Do you want to be referred to as a "United Statesian" from now on, robc?

Idunno about him, but I kinda like USAian that I picked up from Slashdot years ago.

Perhaps new federal legeslation will solve this problem too.

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 12:17PM|#

No need for federal legislation, just decent grammar instruction from parents. Thats quite easy to provide in the private sector.

Guy Montag|6.23.08 @ 12:25PM|#

No need for federal legislation, just decent grammar instruction from parents. Thats quite easy to provide in the private sector.

We have no guarantee that parents are going to provide an adequate environment, so we must utilize the nation as a village to raise them.

robc|6.23.08 @ 12:32PM|#

NNM,

Full name - I want to be referred to as a United States of Americaian.

|6.23.08 @ 12:34PM|#

There are voters who are okay with universal healthcare, (wrongly) envisioning it as cheaper and less screwed up than what we have today. Most of those same people will tell you to go to hell when you tell them to pay more taxes. It's the Democraticals dilemma, one they try to avoid by taxing rich people and corporations, but usually end up stumbling over by overtaxing the middle class.

The problem for joe and other diehard Democratians is that the GOP is a far, far better minority party when it gets into "reform" mode, which usually sounds more practical and small governmenty. The Democrats were successful last time around as "Not Republicans", which is less than a ringing endorsement for the Democraticalish platform.

Barr got Dondero's endorsement? McCain's a shoe-in, now.

Elemenope|6.23.08 @ 12:37PM|#

We have no guarantee that parents are going to provide an adequate environment, so we must utilize the nation as a village to raise them.

Um, Clinton *lost*. Didn't you get the memo?

Guy Montag|6.23.08 @ 12:40PM|#

Democraticalish

You need to register that one in the National Political Speech registry.

|6.23.08 @ 1:01PM|#

Now that she has some free time, I'm eagerly awaiting Senator Clinton's sequel to It Takes a Village: It Take Some Pillage.

Guy Montag|6.23.08 @ 1:04PM|#

PL,

Pillage is a bit catchier than "windfall profits tax".

|6.23.08 @ 1:04PM|#

The name is the "Democratic Party" if only because that is the registered name of the party. You don't get to change someone's name just because you don't like it. The name comes from the "Democratic-Republican Party" of Jefferson.

BakedPenguin|6.23.08 @ 1:07PM|#

The Republican Party is the party of bad ideas

Not entirely. The Republic party stole some good ideas from us - then they watered them down or ignored them once they got into power.

|6.23.08 @ 1:09PM|#

Make that It Takes Some Pillage. I wish the Democratlings and the Republicans would put their respective positions in such plain-Carlinesque, if you will-language. It would make the displacement of libertarians and other limited government folk from the national discussion much more stark.

|6.23.08 @ 1:20PM|#

Warren | June 23, 2008, 10:34am | #
I hope Barr = Nader isn't the way this story plays after the election. The great thing about Nader 2000 was how he put the Green Genie back in the lamp.

See, I think just the opposite of this. Dems typically blame Nader, not the GP as a whole for the 2000 loss. I suspect it's because Nader was the personality behind the GP platform. In contrast, almost nobody who doesn't follow politics has ever heard of Bob Barr (even less so his running mate). If Barr/Root "steal" even one vote from either party, it won't be due to personal StarPower but rather either an refutation of what the big two have become or conversion to LP ideas.

I guess all of that was to say that unlike 2000, if there is a spoiler it will be the LP as a whole, not just the cult of Nader. I'd like to think some of the converts will stick around post election.

TallDave|6.23.08 @ 2:04PM|#

Georgia, like Indiana, has strict rules demanding that voters show photo IDs at the polls, and that could take thousands or tens of thousands of votes from Obama.

Ha! Pikers.

In Chicago, it would be millions.

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 2:07PM|#

Wait, since when did Indiana become a swing state?

TallDave|6.23.08 @ 2:15PM|#

Guy,

I like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Catchy, no?

TallDave|6.23.08 @ 2:18PM|#

The Republic party stole some good ideas from us

The GOP is with us to some extent on economics, the Dems on social issues.

Only we libertarians have the perspicacity to favor both social and economic liberty.

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 2:30PM|#

I take it you will vote for Barr then, Dave.

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 2:33PM|#

Silly me, I forgot.

Barr doesn't believe in the Forever War.

|6.23.08 @ 2:35PM|#

It just makes your opponents look like they have bad English.

That only works if people notice the mistake. The constant repetition is meant to get people to hear the incorrect term enough that it fails to register as incorrect.

If Democrats were going to do something similar with the Republicans' name, it should be 'Publican Party - as opposed to the Plebian Party.

|6.23.08 @ 2:36PM|#

Wait, since when did Indiana become a swing state?

2006. Ask Dennis Haster.

I guess we'll see how long it stays that way.

TallDave|6.23.08 @ 2:36PM|#

I take it you will vote for Barr then, Dave

I will indeed.

|6.23.08 @ 2:38PM|#

No, wait billions...no...ZILLIONS!

Yeah, that's it. Voter fraud by Democrats amounts to zillions of extra votes.

The fact that investigations into this fraud don't every actually find anyting just shows HOW HIGH THIS THING GOES, MAN!!!

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 2:40PM|#

Wasn't Hastert from Illinois?

Anyway if Indiana goes blue then that Illinois border for Obama really works for him. I figure thats why he does so much better in the Upper Midwest than Gore and Kerry. They won those states by thin margins, he is comfortably ahead.

No Name Guy|6.23.08 @ 2:46PM|#

Joe, don't you think some funny stuff was at least possible in Gary, IN during the IN primary?

|6.23.08 @ 2:47PM|#

Right, I'm thinking of a different special election, one in Indiana.

|6.23.08 @ 2:50PM|#

NNG,

I always try to keep an open mind about such things, because we need to be vigilant, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence of voter fraud in that primary.

I do remember seeing hysterical comments after New Hampshire that Hillary must have brought people in from Massachusetts to vote for her. Because there were cars with Mass plates in the parking lot of her rally the day before, you see.

TallDave|6.23.08 @ 3:09PM|#

Guy,

And just today, the imperialists were forced to surrender another province.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080623/wl_nm/iraq_anbar_dc_1;_ylt=AljwwaXZsxinoCGTmc5ks6FX6GMA

Truly, there can be no good outcome here.

Guy Montag|6.23.08 @ 4:10PM|#

I like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Catchy, no?

Yea, sounds like "single payer plan" for national healthcare.

Robert|6.23.08 @ 7:19PM|#

I like being a United Statesman, sounds so impressive.

MJ|6.23.08 @ 10:38PM|#

"A majority of Democrats favor a single-payer health care system.

Hillary Clinton put out a plan that was well to the right of that, creating a multi-payer, mixed system of universal coverage."- joe

The majority of Democrats want health care on the communist economic model, and Clinton compromises by suggesting using the fascist economic model. Is it too much to ask Democrats to propose something that is not totalitarian?

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements