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
"Barack Obama is betraying his promise of change and is in danger of becoming just another political hack."
Those are the words of lefty journalist Robert Scheer, who comes out swinging against the candidate of change in a great rant over at The Nation. A sample:
Both candidates supported the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has everything to do with violating the basic freedoms of our citizens and nothing to do with making them safer....
To use the failure of the President to pay attention to his daily-briefing warning of an impending attack as an excuse for shredding the fundamental rights of our citizens is appallingly illogical. Providing legal protection to the government and the telecommunications giants for unfettered spying on the people does not represent the change we desperately need.
And a quick history lesson, too:
Obama has one-upped McCain's bluff to win in Iraq by raising the prospect of an even more deadly quagmire in Afghanistan. If his goal was to remind us that Democrats have been more often the party of irrational wars than the Republicans, he has succeeded all too well.
Whereas Dwight Eisenhower refused to wage war against Vietnam and Cuba, it was John Kennedy, that charmer of change, who launched both of those military disasters. And then there was that crafty "progressive," Lyndon Baines Johnson, who, in order to defeat Barry Goldwater, the right-wing menace of his day, lied about a nonexistent attack in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify escalating a war that killed almost 59,000 Americans and 3.4 million Indochinese.
|7.23.08 @ 2:35PM|#
I am shocked, SHOCKED! to find out that Obama cares more about
winning office through pandering, rather than staying true to the
dewey-eyed young college liberals who propelled him past the
Hilldebeast.
Mein Gott! It's like Howard Dean won the primary!
Elemenope|7.23.08 @ 2:40PM|#
Mein Gott! It's like Howard Dean won the primary!
You know, if he had won the primary, he had a better shot of
beating Bush than Kerry did.
Just throwing that out there.
And, not for nothing, but he was waaaaaaay better on Gun rights,
among other things.
Captain Raynaud|7.23.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Nice quote from Scheer, except for the superfluous words "betraying his promise of change and is in danger of becoming".
stephen the goldberger|7.23.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Then I'll get on my knees and pray /
We don't get fooled again
|7.23.08 @ 2:53PM|#
In short, the Democratic President baldly lied to us when he justified support for the Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan who were battling the secular government in Kabul as a necessary Cold War response to a Soviet invasion. That Gates's account is accurate was affirmed in a blurb for the book by none other than Brzezinski, hailing it as "a most impressive achievement ... especially pertaining to the U.S. policy on Afghanistan."
It is hardly reassuring that Brzezinski has resurfaced in presidential politics, this time as an occasional adviser to Barack Obama, or that there is talk that Obama, in a burst of bipartisan enthusiasm, might ask Gates to stay on as defense secretary.
Leftists are soooo cute when they get angry at the
Dems.
|7.23.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Barack Obama never ran as the Robert Scheer candidate.
Dennis lost, Bob. Get over it.
Other Matt|7.23.08 @ 3:29PM|#
In danger of becoming a political hack? When was he anything
else?
I think it was when he wasn't saying anything at all, so people got
to decide what "change" meant for themselves. He can't hide so
easily now, so he's reduced to denying he said something or
redefining what he said to make it fit whatever is politically
expedient. As far as the lefty bloggers calling him names, you
bought it, you name it.
And, not for nothing, but he was waaaaaaay better on Gun
rights, among other things.
Actually, he had a history of at least toleration vs Obama's
history of complete and aggresive intolerance, but his stated
position was party line "local common sense regulation because we
get our asses kicked hard when we try to do it nationally".
I don't know what his personal feelings are. While Obama's record
and weasel words have been pretty clearly hostile to firearm
owners, but Dean hasn't done anything as the DNC chair to reduce
the general negativity on behalf of the Dems to firearm
ownership.
|7.23.08 @ 3:29PM|#
Whereas Dwight Eisenhower refused to wage war against
Vietnam and Cuba, it was John Kennedy, that charmer of change, who
launched both of those military disasters.
A leftie who sees past the aura of JFK? I can die now.
Marcvs|7.23.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Barack Obama never ran as the Robert Scheer candidate.
Dennis lost, Bob. Get over it.
That's one way of just ignoring the point he was making.
|7.23.08 @ 3:37PM|#
...while over on the Libertarian side, we have LP Presidential
nominee Bob Barr apparently saying nothing -- nada, goose egg,
bupkiss -- about the War on Drugs at his campaign website, making
that topic conspicuous by its seeming absence, and leading some
libertarians to wonder whether, in the event Barr wins the White
House, it will ironically be a Libertarian President who is
responsible for the next wave of Drug War escalation.
Mr. Barr's primary campaign materials are not giving much hope to
those who see the War on Drugs as the original "dress rehearsal"
staging platform for the War on Terror and all of the human rights
abuses conducted in the name of that War since. I hope he addresses
that glaring omission soon.
|7.23.08 @ 3:48PM|#
# stephen the goldberger | July 23, 2008, 2:52pm | #
# Then I'll get on my knees and pray /
# We don't get fooled again
Somehow, that doesn't have quite the emotional punch, without the
extended guitar-drums-keyboard jam, concluding with Daltry's primal
scream.
I'll see your "get on my knees and pray" and raise you a "Meet the
New Boss, Same as the Old Boss."
It's not enough that we're too stupid to learn from history. But
now we're even apparently too stupid to learn from pop music.
Mark A Tarnowski|7.23.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Here's what I think sucks. Initially, Obama railed against
Hillary's positions. He also said that what she called experience
was just old-school politics and we need a change.
Now that he is the presumptive nominee, he has assumed most of
Hillary's positions. So in effect, Barack Obama is now Hillary
Clinton without the experience. Boy! Did he ever pull a fast one on
the Democrats!
One would be hard-pressed to find a more accomplished, duplicitous
con artist than Chicago's own, Barack Obama.
KyleG|7.23.08 @ 3:55PM|#
"In danger of becoming a political hack? When was he anything
else?"
You beat me to it, brandon.
|7.23.08 @ 3:55PM|#
"...in the event Barr wins the White House..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHHAHHHAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCC
(gasp)
AHAHAHHHHHAAAAAAAAAA!
Other Matt|7.23.08 @ 4:00PM|#
One would be hard-pressed to find a more accomplished,
duplicitous con artist than Chicago's own, Barack Obama.
Aw, now, don't be that way. Just keep saying "Change" and it'll all
be ok. joe will explain it all to you.
Gilbert Martin|7.23.08 @ 4:02PM|#
"Barack Obama is betraying his promise of change and is in
danger of becoming just another political hack."
That's pretty funny since Obama never WAS anything other than just
another political hack to begin with.
|7.23.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Both candidates supported the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, which has everything to do with violating the
basic freedoms of our citizens and nothing to do with making them
safer....
I'm sorry, you can argue all you want about FISA being in violation
of civil rights, but to argue that it didn't make us safer is
ludicrous. There is no question that it made us safer, the question
is whether that extra safety was worth the potential loss of
liberty.
Episiarch|7.23.08 @ 4:08PM|#
I look forward to the gnashing of teeth, rending of clothes, and
wailing that will erupt from more and more of the left as Obama
defines more of his positions (he has to, as the election comes
closer).
The blank slate thing worked great for him for a while, but you
eventually have to define yourself and can't be all things to all
people any more.
But when you sold yourself in the way he did, disappointing your
fans at all makes them very, very angry. When they think you're
that great and you're not, they feel like you screwed them.
The People|7.23.08 @ 4:17PM|#
But, but - Reason, you told me Obama would be the first civil
libertarian president!
;_;
|7.23.08 @ 4:18PM|#
It was the common wisdom that democrats got americans into wars
while republicans did not.
At least until this asswipe got into the presidency, but he's more
democratic than Kennedy.
Blue|7.23.08 @ 4:21PM|#
"The blank slate thing worked great for him for a while, but you
eventually have to define yourself and can't be all things to all
people any more."
Obama is Chance in "Being There"
Other Matt|7.23.08 @ 4:25PM|#
But, but - Reason, you told me Obama would be the first
civil libertarian president!
He is, this just comes under the category of "reasonable
restrictions." Unless he decides to ::ahem:: "Change" again of
course.
svf|7.23.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Barack
sez...
Beyond Pakistan, there is a core of terrorists -- probably in the tens of thousands -- who have made their choice to attack America.
These are some shitty-ass terrorists if tens of thousands of 'em
can't at least blow up a bus or something over here in the seven
years since 9/11...
Oh wait, FISA and the PATRIOT ACT keep us safe from these tens of
thousands of terrorsts, right... sorry.
Paul|7.23.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Both candidates supported the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has everything to do with violating the basic freedoms of our citizens and nothing to do with making them safer....
I heard on Reason's H&R that Obama withheld his cheery "Hello"
and objected strongly to the bathroom attendant about the immunity
clause in the bill during procedural discussions, but when it was
obvious it was going to pass, voted for it.
That's hardly 'supporting' it.
Just something I heard.
Paul|7.23.08 @ 4:40PM|#
about the War on Drugs at his campaign website, making that
topic conspicuous by its seeming absence, and leading some
libertarians to wonder whether, in the event Barr wins the White
House, it will ironically be a Libertarian President who is
responsible for the next wave of Drug War escalation.
Mmmyeah, I wonder if its possible that Bob Barr is approaching the
drug war the way the Dems approach gun rights: whistling past the
graveyard.
The drug was is a big bi-partisan winner. Both major parties are
for some form of a drug war. Personally, I don't care one whit if
Barr doesn't talk about the drug war, as long as he preserves or
works to reinstate what we've lost on amendments 1-10 over the last
fifteen years.
As far as I'm concerned, we can start workin' on the War on Drugs
as soon as we get our free speech, second amendment rights,
property and legal rights back.
The Dems are offering none of these things.
|7.23.08 @ 4:45PM|#
leading some libertarians to wonder whether, in the event
Barr wins the White House, it will ironically be a Libertarian
President who is responsible for the next wave of Drug War
escalation.
Who are these "some libertarians" who are wondering such an inane
thing? "Some libertarians" need to remove their heads from their
respective fourth points of contact.
|7.23.08 @ 4:47PM|#
The Bay of Pigs invasion came out of the Eisenhower administration. The plan was well along when Kennedy came into office.
Other Matt|7.23.08 @ 4:49PM|#
As far as I'm concerned, we can start workin' on the War on
Drugs as soon as we get our free speech, second amendment rights,
property and legal rights back.
Good idea.
The Dems are offering none of these things.
Are the 'Pubs? Other than 2nd Amendment, I'm not seeing much there,
personally.
No Name Guy|7.23.08 @ 4:51PM|#
Obama has always been a mushy centrist that uses weasel words that make him sound liberal to Democrats, but not too scary for timid swing voters.
Paul|7.23.08 @ 4:51PM|#
The plan was well along when Kennedy came into
office.
Yep, that's true. Kennedy, the supreme commander-in-chief of the
free world saw this plan on the legal pad on his desk when he
walked in on his first day and said "well, there's obviously
nothing I can do to stop this juggernaut, where do I sign?"
No Name Guy|7.23.08 @ 4:56PM|#
If Kennedy hadn't been shot, we would be thinking of him much the same way we think of Lyndon Johnson instead of some deified hero.
Paul|7.23.08 @ 4:58PM|#
Are the 'Pubs? Other than 2nd Amendment, I'm not seeing much
there, personally.
Other Matt,
I didn't mention the 'pubs because, well, I figured that most of us
here are hip to the fact that it need not be said. Please, don't
take my lack of explicit mention of them to be an implicit
endorsement.
The reason I singled out the Dems is that there's this presumption
of virtue with regard to their position on the Bill of Rights.
There's definitely a presumption of virtue when Obama's name
appears in or near the same sentence.
No Name Guy|7.23.08 @ 5:00PM|#
I only make a presumption of virtue (excepting the 2nd) when we're talking about Barney Frank or Chris Dodd.
|7.23.08 @ 5:10PM|#
"The drug was is a big bi-partisan winner. Both major parties
are for some form of a drug war."
And both major parties appear to be for some form of middle-east
war, too as long as their guy is leading the charge. But Barr
claims to be the anti-war candidate (or at least anti-the CURRENT
war).
"Personally, I don't care one whit if Barr doesn't talk about the
drug war, as long as he preserves or works to reinstate what we've
lost on amendments 1-10 over the last fifteen years."
What you fail to acknowledge is that the Drug War has been the
vehicle by which most of the losses you cite have been achieved. It
was, in a very real way, a rehearsal for the War on Terror, which
then escalated the process of trashing our rights. When you fail to
talk about the Drug War, you almost certainly guarantee that your
larger goal will not be achieved. That's the problem. It has
nothing at all to do with whether you think drugs are a menace or
not. And if we are able to get out of the foreign "shooting wars,"
there will still be the Drug War to keep the engines of tyranny
turning. In a way, the Drug War is Cheney and the shooting wars in
the Middle East are Bush. It does no good to, for instance, impeach
Bush first, because Cheney takes over, and the same old stuff
continues or perhaps even escalates. If you impeach Cheney first,
however, then impeach Bush, you have a better chance of getting the
reduction in death, waste, and creeping (galloping!) tyranny that
you want.
Marcvs|7.23.08 @ 5:15PM|#
The plan was well along when Kennedy came into office.
Yep, that's true. Kennedy, the supreme commander-in-chief of the free world saw this plan on the legal pad on his desk when he walked in on his first day and said "well, there's obviously nothing I can do to stop this juggernaut, where do I sign?"
True, Ike was no saint, but at least he understood the dangers of
the military-industrial complex and loudly voiced those concerns in
his farewell address. He also began working to end the Korean War
while he as just president-elect and "ended" it shortly after
taking office. It's hard to find a stauncher (sane-minded) opponent
of war than a military commander.
|7.23.08 @ 5:17PM|#
"'...leading some libertarians to wonder whether, in the event
Barr wins the White House, it will ironically be a Libertarian
President who is responsible for the next wave of Drug War
escalation.'
"Who are these 'some libertarians' who are wondering such an inane
thing? 'Some libertarians' need to remove their heads from their
respective fourth points of contact."
Mr. Barr could reduce or eliminate doubt by saying what Ayn_Randian
said explicitly, instead of relying on pseudonymous blog posters to
spin the situation favorably. That's all I'm sayin'. If he wants to
impress us with his straight talk and transparency, let's have
some. He doesn't need to make the WOD his centerpiece issue. I
understand that he, Ayn_Randian, Paul, and others may believe that
there are bigger fish to fry in this election. Fair enough. But
people are still dying, property is still being seized, and rights
are still being trampled in the WOD, and to not mention it AT ALL
just invites all kind of speculation about what the candidate's
real intentions are. Such speculation is easy enough to quell, but
only by Mr. Barr, not by masked spinmeisters in blog threads.
|7.23.08 @ 5:23PM|#
The Bay of Pigs invasion came out of the Eisenhower
administration. The plan was well along when Kennedy came into
office.
I like this game!
Regime change in Iraq was official policy of the Clinton
administration, and most of the truly heinous parts of the Patriot
Act came from Reno's DOJ. So don't go blaming Bush for what Clinton
made him do.
Marcvs|7.23.08 @ 5:24PM|#
http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/06/10/barr-the-war-on-drugs-has-been-a-failure/
|7.23.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Maybe it isn't that Obama, McCain or Kennedy that suck donkeys;
maybe it's the American electorate that suck big green
donkeys.
Just a thought....
|7.23.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Mr. Merritt: Far be it for me to speak for Barr, but if you read
Marcvs' link, you'll see the Barr advocates private agencies
handling drug addiction.
That's libertarian...I know that others (Warren being
one...he told me in person!) think that libertarians need to say
"we're OK with drugs", but given that libertarianism is a strictly
political viewpoint, I think it's OK for some of our older, more
conservative members to say "Drugs are bad. The War is worse. Go
corporate testing."
Other Matt|7.23.08 @ 5:45PM|#
The reason I singled out the Dems is that there's this
presumption of virtue with regard to their position on the Bill of
Rights. There's definitely a presumption of virtue when Obama's
name appears in or near the same sentence.
Ok, I would concur with that. It just raised my eyebrows a bit. The
'Pubs at least do have the 2nd to their favor, somewhat, at least.
It's not so much a "for" as a lack of a hostile "against". Other
than that, the parties both suck, and lack the entertainment value
of a batshit crazy Green candidate.
|7.23.08 @ 5:49PM|#
The Bay of Pigs invasion came out of the Eisenhower
administration. The plan was well along when Kennedy came into
office.
Kennedy had the honesty to admit he was resposible for the Bay of
Pigs fiasco.
You should emulate that honesty, joe.
Paul|7.23.08 @ 5:56PM|#
J.A. Merritt,
How's that single-issue mentality workin' out for ya?
What you fail to acknowledge is that the Drug War has been the
vehicle by which most of the losses you cite have been
achieved.
I don't acknowledge it because I don't find that to be the case.
Substance prohibition is nothing new in society. Has the WOD done
great damage to our country? Yeah. Has it been a popular vehicle
for law enforcement to breach our basic constitutional rights?
Absolutely. But can we enjoy freedom of speech, 2nd amendment
rights, property rights and the like while still carrying a certain
intolerance for certain intoxicants? I think so.
One of the biggest impediments to stopping the WOD is the approach
that we anti-drug-warriors have taken. Allow me to link to
one of my previous posts on this very subject.
I suppose that what you're doing by raising this point about Barr
is really an "awareness" exercise, because I'm going to presume
that you're intelligent enough to realize that your alternative is
to swing in behind McCain or Obama.
Our entire approach to even criticizing the War on Drugs needs to
be rethought. Not that our point is wrong, but I believe our
approach is flawed. For instance, we keep harping on Medical
Marijuana and we'll get exactly that. A synthesized THC, ground up,
put in a pill that you can get over the counter, with a
prescription, after providing finger prints, a drivers licence, and
your name goes into a database. Woohoo! We won! Take that
War on Drugs!
The whole thing is beginning to remind me of that episode of
Cheers where Sam runs off with the property owners doormat
after getting his ass kicked in a legal dispute, screaming "I
win!!!"
Paul|7.23.08 @ 5:58PM|#
Other than that, the parties both suck, and lack the
entertainment value of a batshit crazy Green candidate.
Is there any other kind?
Yeah, I know, I'm going to hell for that comment.
|7.23.08 @ 6:07PM|#
Thank you Marcvs for the link. I was aware of what Barr had
written in the Huffington Post, and have heard him say similar
things in talking head interviews on TV. And it is nice to see that
there actually is something on the topic posted on his website. But
it is easy to lose track of blog postings. Barr's position on key
issues (and the WOD is a key issue, because of its importance to
libertarians and its centrality to the prior loss of liberty for
all Americans, as a lead-in to the War on Terror) needs to have a
somewhat more visible, easier to find location.
On the LP website, the party calls for an unequivocal End to
Prohibition in its issues section on "Crime and Violence." Barr
could do the same. He could also refer to the inefficacy of the FDA
and the WOD, and the efficacy of medical marijuana, for instance,
in his section on healthcare. In neither case would he be leading
with the WOD as a banner issue, yet someone unfamiliar with Barr,
who cared about the topic, would learn where he stood without too
much digging being necessary. That's a key point: We voters
shouldn't have to dig.
By the way, in terms of where Barr stands, the Huffington Post
material still sends the message "drugs are bad," and "something
must be done." The good news is that Barr advocates private sector
action (albeit action that would be considered a horrendous
violation of privacy if mandated by the government). The material
quoted in the blog posting acknowledges neither 1) that many people
with Schedule I drug "habits" are functional, productive members of
society; nor that 2) cannabis, in particular, has valid medical
uses and is of demonstrated help to many sick and dying people.
Nor, for that matter, that there is a lot of harmful abuse of even
properly, legally prescribed drugs. Not that Mr. Barr needed to be
comprehensive in either his original article or the material
excerpted in his blog, but I think he would do better to give a
sense of balance to his take on it: touching on these other points,
for example, would help do that.
Much of the "bi-partisan" support for the Drug War, to which Paul
alluded above, has been ginned up by making the problems associated
with drugs seem much more intractable than they are, and then
blaming problems caused by prohibition and its enthusiastic
enforcement on the drugs and drug users themselves. Barr's position
seems to assume that we have a "big problem" with drugs that is
inherent in drugs and drug use; his objection to the present Drug
War seems to be that it simply is a failed approach. That's like
saying you think we need to be in Iraq pursuing regime change, but
the Surge -- or even the whole military strategy -- isn't working.
If the War on Drugs -- entailing injuries, loss of life, and
curtailmment of American liberty as it has -- were actually
working, would Mr. Barr be against it? Or are drugs such an
overarching scourge that Freedom from Drugs is a more important
goal than the securing the other liberties guaranteed by our
Constitution? These are questions that reasonable and concerned
libertarians ask, and which even the material that Marcvs pointed
us to does little to help answer. Again, Mr. Barr could make his
position clear in the permanent "Issues" area of his website, and I
certainly hope he does so before too much longer. November is
coming.
|7.23.08 @ 6:14PM|#
J sub D | July 23, 2008, 5:49pm | #
Kennedy had the honesty to admit he was resposible for the Bay of
Pigs fiasco.
He was responsible in the "buck stops here" sense but Joe is
correct, the planning was far along when he came into office. The
blame should be placed on the geniuses at the CIA in the late
'50's. The same folks who believed they could control people with
LSD, or some such.
|7.23.08 @ 6:23PM|#
Paul-
My single issue is freedom, with the WOD being one the best case
studies of how a regime quashes freedom.
"But can we enjoy freedom of speech, 2nd amendment rights, property
rights and the like while still carrying a certain intolerance for
certain intoxicants? I think so."
I'll agree with you if you amend your statement to "But can we
enjoy A CERTAIN LEVEL of freedom of speech, ..." etc. Clearly, we
do not yet live in a locked-down prison, but we just as clearly no
longer have the pleasure of enjoying all the things you mentioned
and many other liberties, to the extent that we once did, even in
memory of those still alive, not to mention historically.
The War on Drugs (and before it, alcohol prohibition) has long been
-- and continues to be -- a key justification and tool for the
reduction of EVERYONE's liberties. You may think that we still have
a lot of liberty left, but this "single issue" is like a small fire
in your living room. I want to put it out and clean up the ashes
right away. You sound like you are advising me to ignore it --
there's still plenty of living room left. Maybe you're saying that
because you perceive that a home-invasion burglar is point a gun at
us, or that the landlord is beating down our door for the rent
payment, or for any one of a number of reasons. Fair enough, but
when do we even acknowledge the fire? When do we act to put it
out?
I am a native of California, by the way, where we were just
recently reminded of the importance of putting even little fires
out quickly. But by now, metaphorically speaking, the fire is
moving on to the dining room.
Paul|7.23.08 @ 6:36PM|#
By the way, in terms of where Barr stands, the Huffington
Post material still sends the message "drugs are bad," and
"something must be done."
Some drugs are bad, and as such there are a lot of people in the
mainstream who believe that "something must be done".
The question becomes: What must/should/can be done, and what drugs
are bad? And once we determine which drugs are bad, what's the
proper approach to society's tolerance toward them? When I see a
woman staggering down the street with a 1000 yard stare, herion
tracks up and down her arm who just literally wet her own pants,
it's hard to argue that drugs aren't doing her a whole lot of
good.
We can agree on many things, not necessarily in this order:
o Heroin addiction sucks.
o Prohibition clearly hasn't stopped her from using.
o Prohibition clearly didn't stop the drug from entering the
country.
o A frank discussion and review of prohibited drugs, and
reclassification thereof probably needs to take place.
o If we do keep some drugs prohibited, what's the proper approach
to maintaining the prohibition. For instance, it's illegal for me
to carry an 8" switch blade- but yet our entire national priority
isn't kicking in peoples doors to eliminate the scourge of 8"
switch blades. Compare and contrast.
o Several more I haven't thought or don't list for brevity.
Much of the "bi-partisan" support for the Drug War, to which
Paul alluded above
There isn't "bi-partisan" support for the Drug war, there is
bi-partisan support. It doesn't require scare quotes. Both major
parties have embraced a prohibitionist stance that extends...waaait
for it...way beyond even what good, card-carrying libertarians
would describe as 'drugs'. Prohibition is popular among the
electorate. What's your poison? Marijuana? LSD? Cigarettes?
Trans-fats?
Bottled water? Someone, somewhere wants to ban it.
You may think that we still have a lot of liberty left, but
this "single issue" is like a small fire in your living
room.
1. I don't think we have a lot of liberty left. I think its waning
quickly, and the most rapid percentage decline in said freedoms has
come couched in "The War on Terror".
2. Sure, the single issue is like a small fire in my living room. A
small fire while a dangerous stranger, called "War on Terror"
rampages through my house, loaded with guns, secret listening
devices, and a cabaal of corrupt spies and public officials
threaten me, my family and my way of life. Meanwhile, libertarians
are running around the house looking for a shot-glass of water with
which they can put out the small fire.
|7.23.08 @ 7:03PM|#
He was responsible in the "buck stops here" sense but Joe is
correct, the planning was far along when he came into office. The
blame should be placed on the geniuses at the CIA in the late
'50's. The same folks who believed they could control people with
LSD, or some such.
Jesus F, Christ, right now, this instant, the government has plans
for invading Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and Syria at the
very least. These existed dfuring the Clinton administration as
well. You can expect they've been modified in the last 7+ years,
but the plans are and were there. The CIA did not order the
invasion. Saint Kennedy did. Get it thru your thick, Camelot
woorshipping skulls people, Kennedy ordered the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
He passed on an existing plan to do a full scale amphibious assault
which undoubtably also existed at the time.
This worship of the guy amazes me. He inherited peace and
prosperity from Eisenhower and his first important foreign policy
move was the Bay of Pigs.
Thank Odin that we finally got the name changed back to Cape
Canaveral.
Paul|7.23.08 @ 7:16PM|#
The CIA did not order the invasion. Saint Kennedy
did.
Thank you J sub. You saved me the typing.
|7.23.08 @ 7:19PM|#
Whereas Dwight Eisenhower refused to wage war against
Vietnam and Cuba
I guess it depends on what is considered an act of war. I'd be
willing to bet that the people of Iran, Guatemala, Lebanon, Panama,
Haiti, and the Congo don't view Ike as a peace and love
hippie.
Based on some of his recent statements, Obama shows no sign of
breaking with the traditions of the Oval Office.
|7.23.08 @ 7:23PM|#
"""One would be hard-pressed to find a more accomplished,
duplicitous con artist than Chicago's own, Barack Obama.""""
How hard is it to look in the U.S. Capitol building? They still
smell the leather on Barack, he's a nubie.
|7.23.08 @ 7:31PM|#
J sub D
Get a grip. I didn't say JFK wasn't responsible, I just pointed out
that it wasn't his original plan.
Also, I'm not a "fan" and don't "worship" him.
Take a pill.
Elemenope|7.23.08 @ 8:01PM|#
Matthew is basically right on the merits and yet still can't
resist being a douchebag.
Astounding.
|7.23.08 @ 8:06PM|#
JAM,
If the War on Drugs -- entailing injuries, loss of life, and curtailmment of American liberty as it has -- were actually working, would Mr. Barr be against it?
People come to libertarian beliefs for many different reasons.
There's no need to disparage those who come to these positions
because they work (or the alternatives don't).
|7.23.08 @ 8:09PM|#
So, Matthew, should we lay the blame for the Iraq War at the feet of the Clinton administration that initially set the regime change policy, reducing the current administration's responsibility to "the buck stops here sense"?
jtuf|7.23.08 @ 8:39PM|#
Republicans think it is too soon to declare victory, so they favor a slow troop withdrawal. Democrats are vested in a military failure, so they want to move troops from Iraq to somewhere else. Looks like the best way to bring the troops home is to start throwing victory parades for the few brigades that are coming home this summer. This would cut short both the right wing and the left wing arguments against bringing them home.
Les|7.24.08 @ 2:51AM|#
This worship of the guy amazes me. He inherited peace and
prosperity from Eisenhower and his first important foreign policy
move was the Bay of Pigs.
I, too, am befuddled by the fact that people hold this syphilitic
charlatan in such high-esteem. But, I have to admit, when I
consider how Nixon (knowing Nixon as we do) would have handled the
Cuban missile crisis, I'm rather happy the mob helped Kennedy steal
the election.
Other Matt|7.24.08 @ 4:42AM|#
You should emulate that honesty, joe.
Not that there's any real chance of that actually happening, you
understand, but he "should".
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