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
Obama Chooses Talky Joe
Send Joe Biden!
The blabbermouth Delaware senator is now one hope spasm + bullet away from the White House. What does it all mean? Who knows! My five-cent opinion is that Obama has two principal shortcomings from the tactical side of this campaign: His glaring lack of foreign policy experience at a time of war, and (to a much lesser degree, I guess) his Otherness. Biden directly addresses both points. He's also kind of a clown, with foot-in-mouth disease, so we'll see where that all ends up.
A personal anecdote: One of the few advantages in working for one of those anachronistic newspaper editorial-board thingies is that a parade of top political candidates and office-holders comes trudging through, offering a crucial opportunity for snap character assessments. During my time at the L.A. Times I saw John Edwards (insufferably insincere nancy boy), Bill Richardson (a huge disappointment: backpedaling on trade, pie-in-the-skying on Iraq, and just not particularly smart)...and then there was Joe Biden. To my great surprise, I found him pretty dang sharp, with layer upon layer of knowledge about the history, present, and future of Iraq, and also about wonky parliamentary maneuvering in the United States Senate. Afterward, the then-publisher of the paper, a Reagan Republican named David Hiller, was all hey he was pretty impressive, wasn't he? And just when you were about to say "yes" you'd remember all the horse-puckey Biden talked about economics, trade, regulation, and so on.
Some reason golden oldies on Talky Joe: Delaware Dave Weigel blogged about Biden-veepmania earlier this week, flagged an anti-gun crack back in July 2007, interviewed the target of said crack, and explained a year earlier "Why Biden, and only Biden, is mediocre enough to lead the Democrats in '08." Jacob Sullum slammed Biden's Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act back in July 2003, then noticed Biden going soft on drugs four years later. Steve Chapman argued in September 2007 that then-candidate Biden was talking more about Iraq than anyone else, and one month later Jonathan Rauch called him "the grown-up in the race."
Let's hear some analysis, commenters!
|8.23.08 @ 12:30PM|#
Faced with his first major decision, Obama chooses mediocrity.
"Change"? Yeah, right.
-jcr
|8.23.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Apparently, McCainland already has a commercial in the can which
features Biden disparaging Obama and his day-one-ready-to-rock-ness
in the debates.
I submit, for your approval, the moniker: "Gibberin' Joe"
|8.23.08 @ 12:33PM|#
Nothing says, "Administration of Change" like a Vice President
who has spent half his fucking life in the
Senate.
That's a guy who can relate to the common man, I reckon.
|8.23.08 @ 12:36PM|#
I think NotEvanBayh is a great choice. NotEvanBayh, as you say,
brings foreign policy cred, likeability, and regular-guyishness to
the ticket.
Obama also gets along well with NotEvanBayh, and he's shown himself
to be a great surrogate to go after, and rebut, John McCain.
NotEvanBayh isn't my dream candidate, but he's a very choice from a
political perspective.
I can totally live with NotEvanBayh.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 12:40PM|#
He was the safe choice.
Sebelius or Richardson would have been the "good" choice.
But there were plenty of *worse* choices, for sure.
|8.23.08 @ 12:40PM|#
One "bullet away from the White House"? Did you write that about about John Edwards in 2004, or Dick Cheney in 2000, or Jack Kemp in 1996, or Al Gore in 1992? I thought not.
|8.23.08 @ 12:43PM|#
I think NotEvanBayh is a great choice.
So the fact that Sen. Biden voted for the war too isn't a problem
for you, joe?
This New Republic profile of Biden has a few useful
things too.
People sometimes forget that immediately after 9/11, Sen. Biden was
not only for the Patriot Act but claimed that everything in the
Patriot Act was in a bill that he had proposed back after the OKC
bombing that was watered down by civil libertarians in both
parties.
In the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Biden did, in fact, champion an anti-terrorism bill similar to the one now before Congress (though it was, as he complains, badly watered down by anti-government conservatives and leftist civil libertarians). And Biden doesn't let you forget it. "I introduced the terrorism bill in '94 that had a lot of these things in it," he bragged to NBC's Tim Russert on September 30. When I spent the day with him later that week, Biden mentioned the legislation to me, and to several other reporters he encountered, no fewer than seven times. "When I was chairman in '94 I introduced a major antiterrorism bill--back then," he says in the morning, flashing a knowing grin and pausing for effect. (Never mind that he's gotten the year wrong.) Back in his office later that afternoon, he brings it up yet again. "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill."
Let's see if that quote, "The [Patriot Act] John Ashcroft sent up
was my bill," gets used.
|8.23.08 @ 12:44PM|#
Continuing my thoughts from the topic just beneath, I can't help
thinking Jim Jones would have had most of Biden's positives and
fewer of his negatives.
Oh well...
Matt Welch|8.23.08 @ 12:47PM|#
One "bullet away from the White House"? Did you write that
about about John Edwards in 2004, or Dick Cheney in 2000
An internet search proves inconclusive (I'm missing archives from
my blog in 2004, and from newsforchange.com in 2000), though in
2000 I was covering Ralph Nader's run, so probably not.
or Jack Kemp in 1996, or Al Gore in 1992?
Definitely not in both cases, as I did not publish a single word
about either election.
Ironic|8.23.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Obamma chose someone who alienated alot of Indian Americans with his 7/11 comment. McCain should now choose Bobby Jindal as his VP. That would just rub it in Obama's face.
Casey Jones|8.23.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Maybe he will build some Federal trains to get this economy moving again.
|8.23.08 @ 12:50PM|#
First thing that comes to mind is that it's a mistake to have two Senators on the ticket. In general, Governors tend to be more centrist and more willing to compromise than Senators, which is why I think the new trend of Presidential/Vice-Presidential candidates coming more from the Senate instead of Governor's mansions is regrettable.
|8.23.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Ironic-
Bobby Jindal has made perfectly clear he has no desire to hitch his
cart to McCain, which is smart of him.
Mike M.|8.23.08 @ 12:54PM|#
I'm not a huge Biden fan, but Joey Hairplugs is a pretty solid
choice for Obama. He had to pick someone like this.
Should he somehow or another actually manage to get elected,
mantras about "hope" and "change" aren't going to cut the mustard.
He'll need someone there who actually has a clue and has been
around for more than a few months.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 1:03PM|#
He seems like a decent guy personally, but hes a big drug warrior which is a turn off. Of course that won't matter to 95% of America.
|8.23.08 @ 1:10PM|#
So the fact that Sen. Biden voted for the war too isn't a
problem for you, joe?
It's suboptimal, but he changed his mind earlier than most, and put
forward perhaps the most insightful critique of the war and
alternate direction forward of any of the candidates.
I'm not one of those people who looks at politics as an opportunity
to proclaim my purity, but to get things done. I'm not going to
turn my nose up at a ticket that contains two candidates who oppose
the Iraq War, instead of two candidates who have supported it all
along, because one of them was late in coming to the truth.
|8.23.08 @ 1:11PM|#
A colossal disaster for Obama. Biden can only be used against
him, like his quotes referenced above or some of the controversies
he has engendered in his lifetime in the Senate. He tilts no state
other than maybe PA (which I think will go Dem anyway with
Rendell's influence). He doesn't fit the brand. And he's proven his
inability to create enthusiastic support for any office outside of
Delaware, which has about the same electoral votes as DC.
The Democrats are showing such an amazing arrogance in this race
its inexplicable. This party has had TWO candidates win the White
House in FORTY YEARS. Choosing Obama was bad enough, Biden makes up
none of that ground lost.
This "foriegn policy experience" meme, I'm not buying it. The big
issue in that realm is Iraq where Obama has a natural advantage.
Besides, a lifetime in the Senate holding committee hearings on
foriegn issues hardly impresses the average "joe" I should think. A
general or war hero might, but not that. Ask the average mofo out
of Indiana who Dick Lugar is.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 1:11PM|#
He's kind of creepily hawkish, which after a brief re-reading of the highlights comes through pretty clearly. But, yah, him smacking around the Robomormon would be fun to watch.
Orange Line Special|8.23.08 @ 1:11PM|#
I'm still strongly opposed to BHO, it just doesn't look like I can't use his choice's radicalness against him, prefering to let the nutroots do that and also pointing out that his choice's policies are those of GlobalistScum.
|8.23.08 @ 1:21PM|#
It's suboptimal, but he changed his mind earlier than most,
and put forward perhaps the most insightful critique of the war and
alternate direction forward of any of the candidates.
joe, do you mean when he proposed
partitioning Iraq, or when he said in 2005 to the Brookings
Institute that "We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I
think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline
for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to
wait us out - equally a mistake."
So the man with the "most insightful critique" apparently called
Sen. Obama's plan "a gigantic mistake," though he later re-used
that phrase for describing the surge.
Interestingly, while he said on Meet the Press in 2005 that "I've
been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John
McCain and others subsequent to my saying that," he did end up
voting against the surge when it was about to happen and opposing
it rhetorically afterwards and saying it was a failure. Of course,
perhaps he simply thought it was too late.
It's nice to see that he doesn't go along with the "Bush lied" meme
too much, since he said on "Meet the Press" in 2007 that "Well, the
point is, it turned out they didn't, but everyone in the world
thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He
cataloged - they cataloged them. This was not some, some Cheney,
you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, cataloged."
|8.23.08 @ 1:21PM|#
He doesn't fit the brand.
Well, I guess this is the big test. If Barack Obama's support comes
from wide-eyed dreamy types who are attracted to the "change"
rhetoric because they see the campaign of some kind of
transcendent, messianic movement (as some people assert they do),
this will hurt Obama among his supporters.
If, on the other hand, they are attracted to the campaign because
the "change" they wish to see is the replacement of the
incompetence, neoconservatism, hyperpartisanship, dogmatism, and
my-way-or-the-highway-ism that's characterized national politics
for the past seven years, then this pick will help Obama among his
supporters.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see which way the polls go.
|8.23.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Safe choice... presents some problems with Sen. Biden's "foot in
mouth" syndrome, but he can counter that with his genuine knowledge
of foreign affairs (not necessarily intelligence, but knowledge,
nonetheless). I'll be interested to see what it does to Sen.
Obama's "change" theme. He could have bolstered that theme with the
pick of a governor, but that would have left him open to the
foreign policy critique. I think the pick of Sen. Biden limits some
of Sen. Obama's "revolution of change" momentum. But, over all, I
think it was the safe, and probably correct choice. It won't gain
many votes, but it could slow/stop Sen. Obama's recent downturn by
adding a safety valve in terms of experience.
It makes me think Sen. McCain should go "out on a limb" and not go
the safe route (i.e. Gov. Romney). A Gov. Palin --
limited-government, pro-life conservative -- could fill the hole
the Republicans are looking for with Romney. But, it could also add
some gender competitition/excitement. I can just picture Sen.
Biden's academic-like oratory coming across as condescending to a
"backwoods" Gov. Palin. It could stir up the sexism charges we saw
in the Democratic primaries and generate sympathy for a
McCain-Palin ticket, particularly among the small sliver of Clinton
supporters McCain needs to win to turn the election his way.
Either way, of course, we're stuck with a pretty unexciting set of
choices. But, from a purely politico perspective, this is where it
starts to get interesting.
[Also, did anyone else sign up for the text message announcement?
It came shortly after 3 am. If it was not intentional, might it not
have been better to send it at 4 am? Some fervent gender voters
will undoubtedly read into sending the message during the 3:00
hour.]
|8.23.08 @ 1:23PM|#
BDB
The first couple of posts on this very thread brand it a bad
pick.
I have no doubt though that pundits will find good in this pick. In
their mind Joe Biden is has "foriegn policy" creds. He has this
with the general public though only to the extent that they are
convinced by the pundits themselves because to most people chairing
Senate subcommittees on foriegn relations does not make one a
heavyweight on this topic. Thus my Dick Lugar quote. Hell, he
couldn't wrest the "foriegn policy guy to trust" from a former
first lady when he ran against her in the primary. For that matter
he generated virtually no enthusiasm at all. What a choice!
Biden will generate no enthusiasm in states that were red last
election, and seeing as how the Dems cannot win the election unless
they turn some states from red to blue, I don't see how he was a
good pick.
|8.23.08 @ 1:24PM|#
The fun thing about Sen. Biden is that, like a lot of Senators,
not only has he had a chance to be on both sides of most issues (of
course depending on what it looks like today), but he likes to
claim that he wrote the bill or invented the idea, or called for it
first.
Hence the claims that the Patriot Act as introduced by Ashcroft was
exactly his bill from 6 years ago, or the claim that he was for
additional before Sen. McCain and others came later when it looked
like Bush wasn't going to send more troops-- all claims
conveniently forgotten once he'd changed his mind on both
topics.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 1:25PM|#
If Barack Obama's support comes from wide-eyed dreamy types
who are attracted to the "change" rhetoric because they see the
campaign of some kind of transcendent, messianic movement (as some
people assert they do), this will hurt Obama among his
supporters.
If, on the other hand...
Well, when you put it that way...he's fucked.
|8.23.08 @ 1:25PM|#
If McCain chose a woman running mate without any big skeleton in her closet then he can start measuring the drapes on Penn Ave.
Abhishek Saha|8.23.08 @ 1:26PM|#
My thoughts on Biden's selection here:
http://musefree.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/obama-selects-biden-a-libertarian-perspective/
|8.23.08 @ 1:26PM|#
John Thacker,
Obviously, I'm talking about after he turned against the war, when
he was proposing a soft partition and a withdrawal.
It's odd that you think those are two different items, as the
partition proposal was part of the negotiated political settlement
withdrawal strategy he was proposing in place of "just
withdrawing."
So the man with the "most insightful critique" apparently
called Sen. Obama's plan "a gigantic mistake," though he later
re-used that phrase for describing the surge. See, the fact
that Joe Biden is unlike you, and considers the situation in Iraq
in 2005 to be sufficiently different from the situation in Iraq in
2007 to 2008 to warrant modifying his policy, is a feature, not a
bug. I'm supposed to count it against him that he became
increasingly opposed to an American troop presence as time wore
on?
Pass, thanks.
|8.23.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Vice Presidential picks aren't supposed to "bring excitement."
They're supposed to provide a solid backstop.
Gimmick picks intended to swing specific constituencies don't work.
They don't swing individual states, they don't swing demographic
groups.
Dick Cheney vs. the historic candidacy of Geraldine Ferarro. Bill
Clinton winning big nationally with another Southerner on the
ticket.
|8.23.08 @ 1:33PM|#
That's a pretty good point about Biden's propensity for ass-kicking backfiring against a female debate opponent. Ask Rick Lazio.
K.T.|8.23.08 @ 1:34PM|#
Sarah Palin? Most county executives govern more people than
she does!
Precisely, it's harder to have skeletons in your closet when you
don't have a very big closet to begin with. And, she has a vagina,
which, along with melanin, apparently seems to matter to many
people in this election.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Precisely, it's harder to have skeletons in your closet when
you don't have a very big closet to begin with.
Hah! Alaska is like corruption central these days.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Bill Clinton winning big nationally with another Southerner
on the ticket.
That one's muddied a bit by Perot with the assist, dontcha
think?
*|8.23.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Precisely, it's harder to have skeletons in your closet when
you don't have a very big closet to begin with. And, she has a
vagina,
Yeah, that's probably where the skeletons are hidden. ;-)
Libertarians For Obama|8.23.08 @ 1:38PM|#
How could this guy lose?
Biden favors an American deployment of troops to Sudan in order to
end the genocide in Darfur. He believes that the mission can be
accomplished with 2,500 troops.
Biden was given a 42% approval rating from the Cato Institute,
revealing a mixed record on free trade.
As chairman of the International Narcotics Control Caucus, Biden
wrote the laws that created the nation's "Drug Czar," who oversees
and coordinates national drug control policy.
Biden was given an "F" by the National Rifle Association (NRA)
showing a pro-gun control voting record. He supports reinstating
the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and voted against prohibition of
lawsuits against gun manufacturers. He has voted to ban assault
rifles and to end the "gun show loophole", stating that no one
should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a gun more easily
than they could at a normal store.
He voted to provide Social Security to illegal immigrants and
supports a path to citizenship.
Biden supported the PATRIOT Act:
He was given a 60% approval rating from the American Civil
Liberties Union reflecting a mixed voting record on civil rights
issues.
Biden voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act
Biden received a 91% voting record from the National Education
Association (NEA) showing a pro-teacher union voting record. He
supports abstinence education, is against student vouchers and
voluntary prayer in schools.
|8.23.08 @ 1:39PM|#
I wouldn't want a gimmick pick but someone with a proven record and ability of picking up votes Obama was not already going to get would have been the standard I should think...Also, sometimes a pick can undermine the opposition, as I think McCain's pick of a woman would do. No feminist was going to vote for Reagan in 1984 come hell or high water, but I could see them voting a McCain-Some Woman ticket especially after being dissapointed with the HRC loss...
|8.23.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Hah! Alaska is like corruption central these
days.
Among Washingtonian-based Alaskans... everyone's gets a bigger
closet once you arrive in the corruption capital of the world
BDB|8.23.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Elemenope beat me to it.
Plus how the hell can you claim to be for "small government" when
the state you govern is a whore pimped out by the federal
government?
|8.23.08 @ 1:40PM|#
By the logic of "Joe Biden undermines the change message," - setting aside the merits of that argument - this pick would open the door for McCain to pick someone exciting and new, without worrying too much about it undermining his "3AM phone call" brand.
|8.23.08 @ 1:40PM|#
See, the fact that Joe Biden is unlike you, and considers
the situation in Iraq in 2005 to be sufficiently different from the
situation in Iraq in 2007 to 2008 to warrant modifying his policy,
is a feature, not a bug. I'm supposed to count it against him that
he became increasingly opposed to an American troop presence as
time wore on?
Nope, not just 2005, joe. Here's Sen. Biden assessing Obama's Iraq
plan on September 13, 2007 and opposing immediate
withdrawal:
"My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany" of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. "I've seen zero evidence of that."
And he certainly hasn't changed to thinking that his original vote
was a mistake,given what we knew then. Meet the Press, April 29,
2007:
"The threat [Saddam Hussein] presented was that, if Saddam was left unfettered, which I said during that period, for the next five years with sanctions lifted and billions of dollars into his coffers, then I believed he had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon - not by building it, by purchasing it. I also believed he was a threat in that he was - every single solitary U.N. resolution which he agreed to abide by, which was the equivalent of a peace agreement at the United Nations, after he got out of - after we kicked him out of Kuwait, he was violating. Now, the rules of the road either mean something or they don't. The international community says "We're going to enforce the sanctions we placed" or not. And what was the international community doing? The international community was weakening. They were pulling away."
K.T.|8.23.08 @ 1:45PM|#
Plus how the hell can you claim to be for "small government"
when the state you govern is a whore pimped out by the federal
government?
Ron Paul does it pretty well (i.e. he loves to load up pork for his
home district.)
But, Palin has been a vocal advocate of Alaska getting off the
gravy train.
|8.23.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Elemenope,
That one's muddied a bit by Perot with the assist, dontcha
think? Most analyses show that Perot voters split their second
choice right down the middle.
MNG,
Nobody who has not already run for President has a "proven record"
of picking up any votes in a national race. However, Biden has
shown an ability to pick up white, working-class Catholic
votes.
Geradline Ferraro couldn't even deliver her home state. The
gimmickyness of her choice almost certainly drove away more people
than it picked up.
I can see what you're saying about a slice of the electorate that
might pick McCain/Gyno-Ameircan over Obama/Biden, but it's probably
pretty small (how many first-wave feminists would EVER vote for
someone as anti-choice as McCain), and Obama picking a woman just
to pick one would almost certainly would have hurt him more than it
would help.
Except for Hillary, who wouldn't have been seen as a gimmick pick
at all, but who comes with her own baggage.
robc|8.23.08 @ 1:51PM|#
joe
If, on the other hand, they are attracted to the campaign
because the "change" they wish to see is the replacement of the
incompetence, neoconservatism, hyperpartisanship, dogmatism, and
my-way-or-the-highway-ism that's characterized national politics
for the past seven years, then this pick will help Obama among his
supporters.
Barring the surprise pick of Dick Cheney, nearly everyone would
have fit this.
|8.23.08 @ 1:53PM|#
It's odd that you think those are two different items, as
the partition proposal was part of the negotiated political
settlement withdrawal strategy he was proposing in place of "just
withdrawing."
Yes, but he also explicitly opposed timelines and wanted a
conditions-based withdrawal, and has continued to do so. That
places his closer rhetorically to Bush and McCain, though obviously
there's enormous room to disagree about exactly what conditions are
sufficient and whether one would find conditions satisfied too
easily or never.
Speaking of the "neoconservatism" that you're upset about, isn't
coming up with a plan whereby the US would unilaterally partition
Iraq against the
wishes of Iraqis because we believe it would lead to better
things in a long run similar to neoconservatism? Sure, the fact
that the Iraqis oppose it killed the plan, but you might as well
note that the Bush Administration is signing agreements
(condition-based) to pull out of Iraq because it's what the Iraqis
want.
|8.23.08 @ 1:53PM|#
John Thacker,
You can keep repeating that statement all you want. The fact that
Joe Biden supported a negotiated withdrawal instead of a swift one
doesn't bother me (I supported such a policy, too, over the
Paul-Kucinich type of withdrawal, if you recall). Nor does the fact
that he characterized Obama's proposal as being swifter than it
actually was while running against him in a primary election.
The fact that you need to crop the quote so closely in order to
make it look like a statement in opposition to withdrawing, instead
of a statement about how to withdraw, just draws attention to what
you're doing. Please, I don't deliberately mislead people in the
comments, and I'd appreciate a similar level of honesty from you,
if you're going to keep addressing me.
robc|8.23.08 @ 1:53PM|#
joe,
They don't swing individual states
Are you saying Bush would have won Wyoming without Cheney?
BDB|8.23.08 @ 1:57PM|#
Joe, I believe you're an anti-drug war liberal. Doesn't having a fanatical drug warrior on the ticket give you pause?
|8.23.08 @ 2:01PM|#
"I can see what you're saying about a slice of the electorate
that might pick McCain/Gyno-Ameircan over Obama/Biden, but it's
probably pretty small"
I think there are a lot of woman who would love to see A woman
elected at the national level. And given the increasing closeness
of this election you would not need too many of these.
Dagny T.|8.23.08 @ 2:01PM|#
...this pick would open the door for McCain to pick someone
exciting and new, without worrying too much about it undermining
his "3AM phone call" brand.
That was my first thought, too. Combine that with almost any
soundbite of Biden, might be a pretty good one-two punch for
McCain.
|8.23.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Whew!
This is not a self destructive pick. Since I actually prefer Obama
to McCain, anything that avoids/delays the Democtatis proven
uncanny propensity to fuck up a wet dream is appreciated.
|8.23.08 @ 2:02PM|#
That places (him) closer rhetorically to Bush and
McCain
Rhetorically, yes. Substantively, no - unless you wish to argue
that the "conditions-based timeline" the Bush administration just
agreed to represents their position all along.
Obama himself never proposed a rigid timeline, wholly removed from
conditions. When candidates running for the same office against
each other have similar positions, they try to draw
distinctions.
isn't coming up with a plan whereby the US would unilaterally
partition Iraq against the wishes of Iraqis because we believe it
would lead to better things in a long run similar to
neoconservatism?
No. Neonconservatism is a term with an actual meaning, and dealing
with the situation in Iraq as it existed a couple years after the
invasion by separating the warring parties is not part of that
definition. For one thing, a partitioned Iraq without an American
troops presence can neither allow us to project power from there,
nor allow our "democratic ally" to counter Iran - both of which
actually are integral elements to a neoconservative foreign
policy.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 2:04PM|#
Since I actually prefer Obama to McCain, anything that
avoids/delays the Democrats' proven uncanny propensity to fuck up a
wet dream is appreciated.
From your typing fingers to God's broadband sky connection.
(He uses a Mac. The pansy.)
|8.23.08 @ 2:04PM|#
joe, but even the Bush Administration has been claiming that
they wanted a negotiated withdraw based on conditions. And of
course
there's the draft agreement to back that up.
Here's the NYT article.
That's why I said that, rhetorically, Sen. Biden's position has
been closer to that of the Bush Administration and Sen. McCain--
negotiated withdrawal, based on conditions, withdrawing too fast or
without concern for conditions would be a mistake that could lead
to chaos. (By contrast, Sen. Obama has claimed at times that he
would withdraw quickly even if commanding officers said it would
lead to chaos.)
The key difference between the proposals, of course, is that you
and others can certainly say that Biden's judgment about conditions
or skill at negotiations will be better than Bush's. (And Bush
Administration types can say the reverse, naturally.) That's a
hugely important meaningful distinction, I certainly grant. You can
absolutely consistently think that Biden's judgment will be much
better on when to withdraw, and that Bush would never find
conditions sufficient, etc.
But as a matter of politics, Sen. Biden's statements are easy to
use rhetorically to claim that his position on withdrawal is closer
to that of Sen. McCain-- and as to the judgment question McCain's
campaign has lots of
quotes of Biden praising McCain's judgment, saying he'd be
honored to run with him, and can compare that to Biden quotes
saying that Sen. Obama is not ready.
I certainly think that it's going to be a political issue.
|8.23.08 @ 2:06PM|#
BDB,
Now THAT is a legitimate point about Biden - that he's a big ol'
drug warrior - and I've raised that objection myself. It's good
that he's backed off a bit, but he's still way too enthusiastic for
my tastes.
That, and Biden's Hillary-esque view of executive power. He's
certainly not in Bush/Cheney territory, but he's further down that
path that I'd like, particularly at this moment in our history
(that is, in the immediate post-Bush years), are my biggest
complaints. Fortunately, those are both areas where Obama actually
is considerably better than average, as presidential nominees
go.
Hoosier Daddy|8.23.08 @ 2:09PM|#
Ask the average mofo out of Indiana who Dick Lugar
is.
One is for shootin', one is for fun?
|8.23.08 @ 2:10PM|#
And it need not be gimmicky. If you choose Evan Bayh or Tim
Kaine or that guy from Iowa then you actually increase the
excitement and votes from the state they are from, which in this
case would constitute pick ups for the Dems. As long as that pick
doesn't cost you anything then you won some votes.
With Perot in the race Clinton was going to beat Bush in 92 unless
he chose someone who subtracted votes. Mondale could have picked
Gandhi and still lost.
|8.23.08 @ 2:14PM|#
I guess choosing any of those guys would have left Obama open to the "no foriegn policy experience" charge from McCain, but I'm not sure that Biden shuts that up for anyone willing to buy it and if I were Obama I would just cough and mumble "Iraq" everytime it was brought up...
|8.23.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Substantively, no - unless you wish to argue that the
"conditions-based timeline" the Bush administration just agreed to
represents their position all along.
That is what they've claimed repeatedly, joe. You don't have to
believe them, but they've found the "we're for withdrawal, but only
when the conditions warrant" to be a useful rhetorical claim,
because it bogs the entire thing down in technical discussions of
whether conditions are right and allows them to bring on generals
et al. to testify about it.
That's why you had quotes like this:
The truth is if al Qaeda establishes a base in Iraq, all these people who talk about going into Pakistan are going to have to send your kids back to Iraq. And so the fact of the matter is it matters how we get out of Iraq.
Of course, that quote is by Sen. Biden. Still, sounds a whole bunch
like the Administration's claim
here on page 2:
The Administration strongly opposes any provision that sets an arbitrary date for beginning the withdrawal of American troops without regard to conditions on the ground or the recommendations of commanders. Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would not bring peace to the region or make our people safer here at home. Withdrawal could embolden our enemies and confirm their belief that America will not stand behind its commitments. Setting a date for withdrawal is equivalent to setting a date for failure and could lead to a safe haven in Iraq for terrorism that could be used to attack America and freedom-loving people around the world. It is likely to unleash chaos in Iraq that could spread across the region.
Look, like Matt Welch you
can find the Bush and McCain claims earlier that they were for
negotiated conditions-based withdrawal to be essentially lies
because the conditions would never be satisfied. But that is the
rhetorical ground that both have staked out, and they staked it out
partially because Sen. Obama ceded that ground, and partially
precisely because it is so easy to obfuscate, and partially because
most people believe that it is the right position-- but only if
paired with the right judgment.
Once it turns into a question of judgment and nuance within the
position, it might be tricky to have a running mate who has praised
your opponent's judgment but said that you needed more training
because the Presidency was not the sort of job that you could do
with "on-the-job training."
|8.23.08 @ 2:16PM|#
I do think two Senators is a huge mistake. Especially Biden, who
is just enough of a loudmouth liberal to really piss off the
moderate electorate.
I'm with MNG; the Dems are proving they really want to lose this
election...and if they do, they should disband and start all
over.
|8.23.08 @ 2:22PM|#
joe, but even the Bush Administration has been claiming that
they wanted a negotiated withdraw based on conditions.
They are now, that the Iraqis are imposing it on them. Is that what
they were saying in 2007? Heck, it's not even what they were saying
this spring. And that's just rhetorical.
(By contrast, Sen. Obama has claimed at times that he would
withdraw quickly even if commanding officers said it would lead to
chaos.) Tactics vs. strategy - we've been over this ground for
a couple of years now. Obama never said he would ignore commanders
who said his withdrawal would lead to chaos - he said the opposite,
that he'd modify his timelines in response to threats as necessary
- just that his policy would remain one of withdrawing, and using
the political effect of a withdrawal to influence conditions on the
ground. Nor did Biden ever say that he was opposed to withdrawing,
just that he would carry out a withdrawal carefully. Making
withdrawal part of your strategy for influencing conditions on the
ground, while retaining the option of making tactical shifts to
account for unforeseen events, is not the same thing as making
continued occupation your strategy. It's not even the same thing as
making the achievement of certain conditions a prerequisite for
your withdrawal.
Now, that's reality. On politics, you might have a point here:
But as a matter of politics, Sen. Biden's statements are easy
to use rhetorically to claim that his position on withdrawal is
closer to that of Sen. McCain The thing is, right now, John
McCain is doing everything he can to blur the distinction between
himself and Obama on withdrawal, especially now that the Bush
administration has conceded on the matter.
|8.23.08 @ 2:23PM|#
I think an additional issue that as devoid of substance as Obama is perceived to be by many (I think the charge that he's basically a Rorshach test candidate...you look at him and you see what you want) is that Biden is actually going to define him.
|8.23.08 @ 2:24PM|#
"I'm with MNG; the Dems are proving they really want to lose
this election...and if they do, they should disband and start all
over."
A weak economy, an unpopular 8 year incumbent from the other party
and an unpopular war. This usually means cake with ice cream for a
Democratic opposition run.
But the Dems think that 2006 was such an overwhelming affirmation
of their principles/denunciation of the GOP in general that they
can have their cake and ice cream and eat it too. Incredible. They
are screwing it up for sure.
|8.23.08 @ 2:25PM|#
how many first-wave feminists would EVER vote for someone as
anti-choice as McCain
Well, being that all the "first-wave" feminists have been dead for
decades, I'd say nobody outside of Chicago or possibly the deep
South has any hope of swaying them one way or the other. You're
thinking of second-wave feminists.
|8.23.08 @ 2:26PM|#
MNG,
If you choose Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine or that guy from Iowa then
you actually increase the excitement and votes from the state they
are from Like Gore? Like Ferarro? Like Benson?
I don't think it works like that anymore, if it ever did. People
vote based on the top of the ticket. A good VP pick makes the
presidential candidate look better. If people are voting on the VP
pick, it's because they're voting against it.
|8.23.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Obama chose Biden because Biden is an asshole. Obama needs an asshole to do the dirty job of taking the fight to McCain so that the Dems can stop playing defense. To that end, Biden was probably only second to Hillary in his ability to get the attacking done.
|8.23.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Three years ago the Democrats would have been ecstatic with
simply a Democratic President. Ecstatic. I mean, they would have
felt lucky to have Ben Nelson in there. But then they got greedy
and said, well what would we ideally have? A Democrat that is also
a black person. In the United States. For President. For a party
that has had exactly two winning candidates in four decades.
Then they had a chance to make up for that and they picked...
Joe Biden from Delaware...
|8.23.08 @ 2:30PM|#
John Thacker,
That is what they've claimed repeatedly, joe. Right,
right. I thought you were talking about reality, not political
spin. I thought you were arguing that there really were substantive
differences on their proposals about how to go forward that should
influence my opinion, not just test-driving the Republicans' spin
for them. I'm flattered that you picked me to be the test course,
though.
Politically, I don't think it's going to be any more trouble for
Biden to back up Obama than any other
primary-opponent-turned-running-mate, like Old Bush or Johnson.
|8.23.08 @ 2:30PM|#
I mean, why didn't they just pick a black athiest who was also gay from Vermont and be done with it.
|8.23.08 @ 2:33PM|#
Here is how in the past four decades the Democrats win
Presidential elections:
1. Pick non-gay white guy from South
2. Hope for bad economy
And still you barely win.
Liberals just got greedy in a McGovern-Dukakis sort of way.
|8.23.08 @ 2:34PM|#
Oh, the non-gay white guy from the South should be to the right of the national party. He can always shift to the left when governing ;)
BDB|8.23.08 @ 2:35PM|#
MNG, Pennsylvania is now out of play for McCain. Biden is worth
at least 3% in the Philly area, where hes been broadcasting
political ads in the Philly media market for the past 30
years.
His "home state" is as much the Delaware Valley as Delaware
itself.
|8.23.08 @ 2:35PM|#
MNG,
A weak economy, an unpopular 8 year incumbent from the other
party and an unpopular war. This usually means cake with ice cream
for a Democratic opposition run.
Usually? Um, there has never been a single election held under
those circumstances. There has never been an 8 year Republican
incumbent while there was an unpopular war and a bad economy.
Besides, you are misstating the incumbency advantage/disadvantage
dynamic. It only applies to sitting presidents running for
re-election. Swing voters in the middle - the ones who determine
elections - are by definition people who "vote for the man, not the
party," so their satisfaction or displeasure with a president whose
term is up doesn't translate to other candidates based on party.
Ask Al Gore, or the guy who was losing to Mike Dukakis by over ten
points, or Richard Nixon.
|8.23.08 @ 2:39PM|#
MNG,
How well did the Republicans' decades-long strategy for how to win
elections work in 1932? Times change. Believe it or not, it isn't
1988. Can you imagine how a Barack Obama candidacy would have
worked in the 80s?
BDB,
Pennsylvania was never in play for McCain, barring a national
collapse for Obama that would have also lost him places like Iowa,
New Hampshire, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and
Virginia - meaning, Pennsylvania wouldn't have mattered.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Joe he had an outside shot there, much like Obama has in North
Carolina, but now its completely unreachable. His only hope is
Michigan and New Hampshire as far as making blue states red.
Mittens has to be liking his chances right now.
|8.23.08 @ 2:42PM|#
Where else than Bizzaro America can people who's job performance
rating is less than 10% be considered qualified for
president.
Obama, Biden, McCain, are from that club. So
|8.23.08 @ 2:45PM|#
OK, I just* noticed this on the left side of the page.
Get Reason E-mail Updates!
Email address:
(optional) Your name:
Do I dare? Will they inundate me with e-crap? Will they sell my
address to Donderooooooooooooo?
* Hey, I'm slow.
|8.23.08 @ 2:48PM|#
His only hope is Michigan and New Hampshire as far as making
blue states red.
If Obama keeps his disatance from Detroit's mayor, Michigan will
remain blue come November.
Vermont Gun Owner|8.23.08 @ 2:51PM|#
I mean, why didn't they just pick a black
athiest who was also gay from Vermont and be done
with it.
You aren't very familiar with the demographics of Vermont, are
you?
|8.23.08 @ 2:56PM|#
joe
Each factor (economic woes or an unpopular incumbent) are factors
which should give the Dems a solid advantage. Poli sci models have
always recognized other factors though, such as scandal or "picking
a black guy whose middle name is Hussein" that can screw up your
natural advantage granted by these factors. The Democrats went and
CHOSE their disadvantage. Thus they are barely leading at a time
when most poli sci models would have a similarly situated Dem
candidate winning.
Having seen George Bush beat Kerry in 2004,, the last election, I
don't think things have changed so much from 1988. The thing that
broke the GOP in 1932 stranglehold was 25% unemployment! No, things
have not changed that much since 1988...
|8.23.08 @ 2:58PM|#
BDB,
I don't think Obama has any more a chance in North Carolina than
McCain has in Pennsylvania. If Obama wins North Carolina, he'll win
all the swing states and stuff like Montana to boot, in a national
blowout. Maybe Virgnia is a swing state, but now PA and NC.
We'll see.
|8.23.08 @ 2:59PM|#
You're right, it would put PA beyond any reach, even in a McCain blowout, though.
|8.23.08 @ 3:00PM|#
His only hope is Michigan and New Hampshire as far as making
blue states red.
From what I'm seeing, it's hinging on Virginia at this point. But
the lovely* state of Ohio has a history of swinging wildly in the
polls.
*Disclaimer - not actually lovely.
|8.23.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Speaking of that, was Mark Warner vetted for Obama's spot?
young, dynamic, wealthy, entrepreneurial and in a swing state this
year?
Why was he not the ideal choice?
Terry Michael|8.23.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Some lessons here: Never put your faith in a politician. Ideas
matter. "Hope" and "change" are not ideas.
I feel betrayed, once again. But should I have expected more from a
young man with no discernible informing political philosophy?
Choosing Joe Biden, the essence-- the embodiment--of the Washington
foreign policy establishment, which gave us the criminal enterprise
in Iraq, is cynical politics beyond belief for those of us who take
ideas seriously. libertarian Democrat is depressed.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 3:11PM|#
TAO, Warner is waiting for 2012 or 2016. He declined to be
vetted, he wabts that Senate seat, which he will win in a 70
percent plus blowout.
He was a very good governor and would be a good president,
though.
Regis Carnifex|8.23.08 @ 3:20PM|#
At least Biden's potential new boss will be a clean, articulate, bright and good-looking Afro-American!
Yahoo Aswerer|8.23.08 @ 3:20PM|#
"The blabbermouth Delaware senator"
Isn't this redundant? Arn't ALL senator's by definition
blabbermouths? Has there ever been a mute U.S. Senator?
Luke Johnson|8.23.08 @ 3:21PM|#
One "bullet away from the White House"? Did you write that
about about John Edwards in 2004, or Dick Cheney in 2000, or Jack
Kemp in 1996, or Al Gore in 1992? I thought not.
I think it was said about Teddy Roosevelt.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 3:26PM|#
Has there ever been a mute U.S. Senator?
The closest you come is "Silent" Cal Coolidge, who was President of
the Senate ex officio when he was vice-president.
pfjo|8.23.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Biden is Obama's magic trick... he will keep you distracted with
his buffoonishness while making you more comfortable with Obama's
inexperience which prevents you from looking too closely at his
actual policies and personality.
The further away you are from Obama, the better he looks and Joe
Biden will keep us all at arms length.
|8.23.08 @ 3:29PM|#
TAO, Warner is waiting for 2012 or 2016. He declined to be
vetted, he wabts that Senate seat, which he will win in a 70
percent plus blowout.
What an odd calculus. If Obama wins and Warner is a Senator (which
is going to happen), that really means that Warner has to wait
until 2016...unless he wants to be the freshman Senator making a
primary challenge to a sitting President.
hm...I guess I see the logic. Obama isn't a shoo-in no matter what
fantasies reside in young college freshmen's bong-resin addled
skulls.
|8.23.08 @ 3:36PM|#
I should clarify that Warner is obviously going to be a Senator
(unless there's a "dead girl or live boy" moment) but Obama is
anything but a shoo-in for the Presidency.
So what are everyone's predictions? I've been saying that
(unexpectedly enough) that once Obama was nominated, McCain was
going to win. I still maintain that McCain is going to be the next
President (ed. note: I am not pleased about either choice).
What's everyone else's take?
Yahoo Answerer|8.23.08 @ 3:42PM|#
"So what are everyone's predictions? I've been saying that
(unexpectedly enough) that once Obama was nominated, McCain was
going to win. I still maintain that McCain is going to be the next
President (ed. note: I am not pleased about either choice)."
I agree, Obama is the John Kerry of 2008. He apears elite in the
eyes of too many people. All we need for him to do now is say "Like
I always said . . . "
|8.23.08 @ 3:46PM|#
I think we should all applaud Barack Obama for reaching out to
the mediocre-American community by choosing Senator Biden for his
running mate.
Obama's sending a clear message with this decision, and the message
is that a vote for Obama is a vote for business as usual in
Washington.
-jcr
|8.23.08 @ 3:48PM|#
If everything happens as This Map says, and if Virginia
goes for McCain,you end up with an electoral tie.
That'd be a fascinating result.
|8.23.08 @ 3:48PM|#
One last thought on Biden.
Isn't it ironic that the urge to plagiarize is akin to the urge to
choose Biden for your VP.
Isn't it? The end result is expected to be similar.
Work with me here.
|8.23.08 @ 3:49PM|#
Obama is anything but a shoo-in for the
Presidency.
Yeah, he may have already blown it. I thought that the only way he
could possibly lose would be by tossing Hilary the consolation
prize, but he really surprised me.
I thought he was smart enough to keep doing what he had been doing,
just spouting feel-good blather, but it looks like he got cocky and
pulled a Mondale with that "national service" scheme of his.
-jcr
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 3:57PM|#
TAO --
Yah. If by "fascinating" you mean "riot inducing". You've got to be
nuts if you think that either side of this conflict will put up
with the House of fucking Representatives picking it.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 4:00PM|#
An EC tie will make Florida 2000 look like a walk in the
park.
They really need to add one more EV to make ties impossible.
|8.23.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Actually, MNG, political science models of a non-incumbent race
under these conditions would predict a small Democratic victory -
which is where the race has been for four months now.
If Bush was finishing his first term under these conditions, they
would predict a Democratic blowout.
Non-incumbent races are almost always tight: 2000, 1988, 1968,
1960, 1952. One big win the bunch.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 4:34PM|#
1952 was a pretty big blowout along with 1988.
Yeah, but Adlai Stevenson was *teh worst campaigner evar*!
That might have had an effect.
|8.23.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Many make the mistake in thinking that Biden was chosen for his
policy positions,,, No - he was chosen as a Hit Man. But unlike a
goon in the NHL, he actually needs to have stature.
Biden can simultaneously stick a boot up McCain and Willard's ass -
leaving the dirty work far away from Obama - who is the good cop
now.
|8.23.08 @ 5:14PM|#
My take on Biden (and as a native Delawarean I've met him once
or twice)is that he started out as a well-meaning guy who got
corrupted by too many years in the system. (I witnessed a speech in
1977 where he urged citizens to actually take the initiative in
caring for the elderly in their own families and stop relying on
the government so much. Yeah, he actually said that...in
1977).
On the other hand, I once worked with a certain WIlmington
businessman with ties to Biden and that guy was as crooked
as the proverbial day is long.
Not that it blows up my skirt one way or another; the only thing
that could conceivably drive me to even consider voting would be if
McCain were to pick someone utterly revolting (like say, Tancredo)
as his number two...
The Unibomber|8.23.08 @ 5:15PM|#
But the Dems think that 2006 was such an overwhelming
affirmation of their principles/denunciation of the GOP in general
that they can have their cake and ice cream and eat it
too.
Yup. But they can't eat their cake and ice cream and have it
too.
|8.23.08 @ 5:16PM|#
I think McCain wins. And yes, the big winner is Mark Warner,
whom the Democratic Party will come limping too as it did Bill
Clinton in 1992 saying "uh, yeah, we don't know how to win the
Presidency from the hole in our ass, will you help us?"
joe
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/07/thinking-about-next-regime.html
"In recent days, Kevin Drum and Dan Drezner have pointed to this
essay by Clive Crook about macro-factors that tend to decide most
presidential elections. They could also have cited to Ray Fair's
simple model of presidential elections. These models, and others
like them, suggest that we need to pay attention to the big
picture, which has only a few important elements. In particular,
because (1) Bush is very very unpopular, (2) the economy is not
doing so well, and (3) the Republicans have held the White House
for eight years, the Democrats will almost certainly win the
Presidency. As Dan puts it, "if, given the current structural
conditions, the Democratic Party fails to win in November, the
party should simply disband."
|8.23.08 @ 5:16PM|#
OK, some stats on incumbent vs. non-incumbent elections, via
joe, whose math is never, ever worng.
There have been 12 elections since 1940 that involved an incumbent.
Please note that I could have gone back to 1932 and it only would
have helped by argument, so no cherry-picking.
In 6 of those elections - 50% - the margin of victory was 8 or
greater. In just one - 8% - was the margin 3 or less. The average
margin of victory was 10.8%. The highest margin was 23 points, with
another 22.5% race and an 18% race as well. The lowest margin was
2%, in 1976*, followed by 3.5% in 2004.
There have been five non-incumbent elections since then. In two -
40% - the margin was eight or greater. In the other three - 60% -
the margins were a tie, a tie, and. 0.5%. The average margin of
victory was 3.8%. The highest margin was 10.5%.
*A case can be made that 1976 was more like a non-incumbent
election. Not only had Ford succeeded to the Presidency, but he'd
never even run on a ticket with Nixon, as opposed to Johnson in 64
and Truman in 48.
|8.23.08 @ 5:18PM|#
From the essay by Mr. Cook:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3bf5c59a-5666-11dd-8686-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
"Alan Abramowitz, a politics scholar at Emory University, has shown
that summer head-to-head polls convey almost no information about
the forthcoming election. (Subsequent head-to-head polls are not
much better.) Instead, he has a simple "electoral barometer" that
weighs together the approval rating of the incumbent president, the
economy's economic growth rate and whether the president's party
has controlled the White House for two terms (the "time for a
change" factor). This laughably simple metric has correctly
forecast the winner of the popular vote in 14 out of 15 postwar
presidential elections.
The only exception is 1968, when the barometer (calibrated to range
between +100 and -100) gave Hubert Humphrey a wafer-thin advantage
of +2; he lost, with a popular vote deficit of less than 1
percentage point. The barometer not only picks winners but pretty
accurately points to winning margins, too. In 1980, Jimmy Carter
had the biggest postwar negative reading (-66); Ronald Reagan beat
him by nearly 10 percentage points.
President George W. Bush's net approval rating (favourable minus
unfavourable) is currently -40; the economy grew at a 1 per cent
annual rate in the first quarter; and Republicans have had two
terms in the White House. Plugging the numbers into Mr Abramowitz's
formula gives the Republican candidate a score of -60, about as bad
as it gets: second only to Mr Carter's in the annals of doomed
postwar candidacies. The barometer says Mr Obama is going to waltz
to victory."
|8.23.08 @ 5:19PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy, political models that treat an incumbent president the same as a nominee from the outgoing president's party are missing a great deal.
|8.23.08 @ 5:20PM|#
One wonders if the Warner/Gilmore race will have a spill-over effect into the Presidential race in Virginia, instead of the other way around.
|8.23.08 @ 5:21PM|#
shrike
Who is Willard?
At first I thought you were referring to McCain as "Captian
Willard" from Apocalypse Now, which I thought was kinda
hilarious.
|8.23.08 @ 5:29PM|#
joe
I think we'd both like to see Obama win, for different reasons
perhaps. I wish I could be as confident of this as you are. Like
I've said, we've all seen the Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws
of victory too many times in the last 40 years. And his lead
continues to slip slide away...
I thought the choice of Kerry was one of the most childishly naive
ones in decades (hey, we are in a war and he was in a war, so the
sheeple will love him and no one will notice his liberal voting
record) until this nomination. I of course deplore the fact that
Obama's race will hurt him, and that his name and "Muslim
background" will hurt him. That's all very stupid and I've said so
here. But to ingore that such stupid things (and nonstupid things,
like his inexperience) work with enough of the electorate to matter
is simply realism and if liberals want to stop what the GOP has
been doing for the past eight years they have to grow up and think
rather than feel when they pick a nominee.
|8.23.08 @ 5:32PM|#
NMG,
"If the Democrats don't win..."
The Democrats are winning. The Democrats have been winning all
along. Obama led McCain the day he won the nomination and has never
fallen even to a tie, nevermind behind. All the evidence suggests
Obama is going to win.
The fact that Obama's lead has been modest throughout is not
historically anomalous; it's right in line with the historical
precedents.
The Democrats should win - by somewhere in the neighborhood of
3.8%. You can talk about the fact that he's black and named Barack
the Islamic Shock Superallah Hussein Obama as being negatives, and
you're probably right. All candidates have negatives. Right now,
his bundle of negatives and positives vs. McCain's has him with the
narrow lead that one should expect in a race like this, and holding
it much more consistently than usual.
|8.23.08 @ 5:33PM|#
And his lead continues to slip slide away...
No, not really. One oddball Zogby poll notwithstanding.
Mad Max|8.23.08 @ 5:34PM|#
"A case can be made that 1976 was more like a non-incumbent
election. Not only had Ford succeeded to the Presidency, but he'd
never even run on a ticket with Nixon, as opposed to Johnson in 64
and Truman in 48."
I'm guessing you mean "never run on a ticket with the man he
replaced."
BDB|8.23.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Joe, you gotta admit the Democrats don't have a stellar record at winning presidential elections since 1968.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 5:37PM|#
On Warner/Gilmore, Obama should make Warner his surrogate in Southwest (they love him there) since he doesn't really have to worry about Jim Gilmore.
|8.23.08 @ 5:38PM|#
After reading about his horrifying senate record in The Agitator, I'm thinking maybe this is a great thing, to get him into a do-nothing irrelevant position where maybe he can't do any more damage.
|8.23.08 @ 5:39PM|#
Nice to know that the editor of Reason thinks withdrawing from
Iraq within a year is "pie-in-the-sky" fantasy. Of course, this is
the same oh-so-serious clown who claims he didn't even have a
position on the war at the time, yet we're supposed to be impressed
that he's not one of those silly anti-war hippie types.
Immediately moving to end a brutal military occupation that was a
result of an illegal, immoral act of aggression just isn't that big
a deal to Reason's hipster wannabe-pundit. And if you bother to
click through to the Richardson interview, you will see the the
only response from the LAT's editorial board to Richardson's
sensible out-in-a-year plan for Iraq was a rehashing of the tired
"but things were bad after we left Vietnam" tripe.
Of course, with writers like Welch, Moynihan, and Michael Young,
Reason really is little more than a tabloid for closeted neocons
who just aren't into the whole gay-bashing, pro-life thing: witness
their shilling for corporatist policies like "privatizing" prisons,
so that jailing non-violent drug offenders becomes a for-profit
privilege granted by the state to a select few corporations
(http://www.reason.org/corrections/).
And libertarianism's biggest image problem is Ron Paul?
|8.23.08 @ 5:50PM|#
Mad Max,
Right, of course.
BDB,
The Democrats didn't have a stellar record at winning presidential
elections since the year there was a national realignment that made
the Republicans the majority party? You don't say. In 1968, one
could just as well have said, you have to admit, the Republicans
don't have a very good record winning presidential elections since
1932.
All: do we get to drink after charlie's comment?
Kolohe|8.23.08 @ 5:51PM|#
Many make the mistake in thinking that Biden was chosen for
his policy positions,,, No - he was chosen as a Hit Man. But unlike
a goon in the NHL, he actually needs to have stature.
Biden can simultaneously stick a boot up McCain and Willard's ass -
leaving the dirty work far away from Obama - who is the good cop
now.
I agree with this assessment; furthermore it's why I disagree with
TAO's negative assessment. The above dynamic was the same one that
Bush/Cheney '00 successfully use (albeit by the narrowest of
margins)
shrike|8.23.08 @ 5:51PM|#
Willard is the actual given name of Mitt Romney.
I think the creep association with the rat movie drove him to adopt
"Mitt" at some later date. I am not sure about the date change
though.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 5:52PM|#
Joe-
If we go back to 1952 the record doesn't get much better. BUT maybe
they will turn around, after all the Red Sox had a horrible record
of winning the World Series, until they did.
I think Biden fixes the blue collar white voter problem, or at
least puts a band aid on it. I'm beginning to realize that was as
much a factor as his foreign policy experience.
Also, he can attack McCain and Obama won't look like the angry
black guy. Good cop/bad cop.
|8.23.08 @ 5:53PM|#
charlie - thanks for that bit of verbal diarrhea and completely
irrelevant "commentary".
Scamper along now, the adults are talking.
and yes, joe, we get to drink.
|8.23.08 @ 5:56PM|#
"Willard is a social misfit with a strange affinity for
rats."
and
"Romney sheep, a type of sheep which is bred for meat" --- (both
Wiki)
Sorry, folks, I am absolutely fascinated with names.
Anti-Globalism|8.23.08 @ 5:59PM|#
For Obama, "change" means that lobbyists now have to call in
advance to schedule appointments.
And "The People" are buying it. My money goes into Chinese stocks
tonight, LOL
|8.23.08 @ 6:04PM|#
and yes, joe, we get to drink.?
Whoa. You really are an optimist. 'kay.
I just hope picking the only middle class person in the Senate, who
has a knack for hitting it off with...let's call them Hillary
voters...doesn't convince McCain to pick someone less of a
plutocrat then Willard.
Come back, Mittens! Your country needs you!
|8.23.08 @ 6:05PM|#
A-G, you're not even making any sense. Try forming a coherent thought before you post next time.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 6:07PM|#
I can't tell if this makes a Romney pick MORE or LESS
likely.
On one hand, PA is safely blue now. So he needs to go for Michigan
and New Hampshire. Romney has roots in Michigan (father was a
governor) and is a New Englander (Gov. of Mass).
OTOH, Biden is his perfect foil. Completely perfect.
|8.23.08 @ 6:09PM|#
Biden's elder son...is a captain in the Delaware Army
National Guard, where he serves in the Judge Advocate General's
(JAG) Corps. He is set to be deployed to Iraq in October,
2008
How bizarre that Delaware would deploy its AG. Does anybody else
find this really strange?
You could actually wind up with a powerful person's child in the
war!
|8.23.08 @ 6:13PM|#
On one hand, PA is safely blue now.
I'm not understanding this sentiment. I know that Biden is close
enough to Philly that East-Coast Philadelphians are enamored with
him, but I am sure there isn't a lot of love lost in the western
part of the state, given that Pittsburgh and area are way more
Midwestern, "HRC-type supporters" than East Coasters.
Warmongering Lunatic|8.23.08 @ 6:13PM|#
McCain doesn't have to flip a single "blue state". If Obama wins
every state that was blue in either 2000 or 2004 . . . he loses the
election 264-274.
As far as historical numbers, on August 23rd in 2004, by the
Electoral-vote.com numbers, Kerry had 286 EVs. Today, Obama has
269.
In a 269-269 EV tie, the House of Representatives votes by state,
not by raw numbers, with 26 states to win. Hard to say how they'll
work out exactly, but let's assume each state's delegation votes
for the guy who won the state. In that case, McCain wins 28-22.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 6:14PM|#
A-G, you're not even making any sense. Try forming a
coherent thought before you post next time.
Give it up, dude. This is a guy who accused me of fallacious logic
for attacking his vaguely warmed-over social darwinist presumption
that laws protect only "the weak" (whatever the hell that
means).
And he calls himself anti-Globalist and is going to "buy China
stocks LOL". A few straws short of a swamp, I guess.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 6:14PM|#
TAO--
Hes a blue collar Catholic from Scranton. That and the fact hes
been well known in the Philly media market for 30 some odd years
means you get 2 or 3% out of that, enough to move PA out of play.
All the pundits pretty much agree, I expect McCain will pull his
ads and visits from that state soon unless he picks Ridge.
Eddy|8.23.08 @ 6:15PM|#
I hereby predict Biden pushes New Hampshire squarely to McCain. Maybe 10 points, maybe more.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 6:17PM|#
WML-
Obama already has Iowa and New Mexico in the bag. He needs just one
more state after that. It could be Colorado, it could be Virginia,
it could be Ohio. But he just needs ONE. Could he lose narrowly in
ALL three states? Sure, but thats not as likely as him winning at
least one.
So McCain needs to make it harder for him to get to 270 by taking
away one of his states.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 6:18PM|#
He has a comfortable lock on Iowa because of ethanol, and on New Meixco because the hispanic support of the Republican ticket has literally plummeted through the floor since 2004.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 6:21PM|#
Does anybody else think it would be extremely good for the country if Obama and McCain would agree to concede the election to whoever won the popular vote in the case of an electoral vote tie? I'm not looking forward to the riots.
|8.23.08 @ 6:21PM|#
Bush's approval ratings are very low, and the GOP got the
electoral backhand two years ago. Bush was able to beat back an
opponent in a stinging campaign four years ago and his subsequent
fuck ups led to people hating him and turning his party out. Yet
here we are and the Dem candidate is barely leading the GOP one.
And did I mention the economy, which is usually a big issue for any
Dem, is hurting?
This election could have been about whether you wanted the GOP to
continue to lead or not. But with the Obama pick it is about "are
you ready to pick a black man with a funny name" (don't get me
wrong, HRC would have been the same problem different form, i.e.,
are you ready to elect a woman). Instead of a referendum on GOP
executive leadership we get a referendum on Barak Obama. This was a
stupid move on the Dems part because I think had the question of
the election been "do you want four more years of GOP control of
the executive" I think we know the Dems lead would be larger right
now...
|8.23.08 @ 6:23PM|#
joe
The 1932 realignment was the result of 25% unemployment. That tends
to shake people up a bit. The 1968 realignment was the result of
Dem support for Civil Rights which meant a huge reliable bloc for
the Dems, the South, was lost (until this day actually).
What in the world makes you think we've had a similar realignment
back to the Dems or to liberalism? The 2006 elections?
Puh-leeze!
Eddy|8.23.08 @ 6:28PM|#
McCain could try to swing more hispanic vote with a VP pick like Mel Martinez. Well, the natural born citizen equivalent of Mel Martinez.
|8.23.08 @ 6:30PM|#
I'm not looking forward to the riots.
That won't happen now that the American people are used to the
force of government. Not to mention that Bush rescinded the Posse
Comitatus Act as part of Homeland Security.
I vaguely recall some spat on this - off to der google.
|8.23.08 @ 6:33PM|#
shrike - what are you talking about? Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Acts are still the laws of the land.
Pancho Villa|8.23.08 @ 6:34PM|#
McCain could try to swing more hispanic vote with a VP pick
.....
McCain should have his share of the hispanic vote. He speaks
Spanish, represents a heavily hispanic state, favors an immigration
policy skewed to hispanics, and they don't like Black people.
|8.23.08 @ 6:35PM|#
MNG,
But with the Obama pick it is about "are you ready to pick a
black man with a funny name" (don't get me wrong, HRC would have
been the same problem different form, i.e., are you ready to elect
a woman).
Haven't you picked up on the fact that there's a pattern here? The
Republicans turned 1988 into a referendum on Dukakis, 1992 into a
referendum on Clinton, 2000 into a referendum on Gore, and 2004
into a referendum on Kerry. I don't recall their normal names and
pasty skin tones changing that fact.
I suppose one could argue that this is a consequence of the
Democrats selecting such uniquely awful candidates, including the
one who was the two term president, that the Republicans were able
to frame the race that way, but maybe there's another answer
here.
And you still keep confusing incumbency effects with party. They
don't work that way.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 6:35PM|#
But his party brand has a terrible, terrible image problem with Hispanics right now, even if McCain himself doesn't.
McKKKain4AmeriKKKa|8.23.08 @ 6:41PM|#
I'm not looking forward to the riots.
I am. I fully expect a bunch of liberals to mouth off about "taking
it to the streets" if Rove/Diebold/McKKKain "steal the election"
from Obama. If they are good on their threat expect the GOP to come
roaring back in the 2010 midterms. Hell, about the only good thing
to come from a Mccain victory will be watching the left tear itself
apart.The Canadians might have to close the border.
|8.23.08 @ 6:42PM|#
TAO
Wiki says..
Homeland security
In early 2006, the 109th Congress passed a bill containing
controversial provisions that granted the President additional
rights to use federal or state National Guard Troops and inside the
United States in emergency situations. These changes were included
in the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(H.R. 5122.ENR).
These changes were repealed in their entirety in 2008.
[edit] Natural disasters
On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider
revising federal laws so that the U.S. military could seize control
immediately in the aftermath of a natural disaster, in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina.
These changes were repealed in their entirety in 2008.
Apparently, Leahy and Feingold turned the clock back for us freedom
fighters.
|8.23.08 @ 6:42PM|#
I don't think this pick helps McCain much, but it definitely gives Barr two points right off the top!
BDB|8.23.08 @ 6:43PM|#
"I am."
Thanks for letting us know you're a jackass who would like to see
cities get burned.
Warmongering Lunatic|8.23.08 @ 6:45PM|#
Er, got my numbers mixed up. If Obama wins everything that went to Gore or Kerry, he loses 257-281. Toss in Iowa, and /then/ it's 264-274.
|8.23.08 @ 6:48PM|#
How depressing. The CSPAN cameras don't lie; Biden isn't likable
or smart.
Oh well, let's look at the bright side. Biden's big mouth is comedy
gold.
|8.23.08 @ 6:52PM|#
joe
You're partially right. The GOP certainly works to make the
elections a referendum on the candidates. Knowing this one would
think that choosing candidates from (sorry) a state like
Massachussets (which is simply to the left of the nation by good
bit), or ones that protested US military action by throwing his war
medals away (Kerry), or ACLU joining death penalty opponents (the
Duk) or in the present case who have the middle name Hussein and
are the product of the union of a non-citizen African American and
a white lady (need I note the images this is likely to invoke in
many a less enlightned voter's head?) would be a stupid thing to
do. You don't see that?
One of Bill Clinton's genuises was to take things the GOP had beat
the Dems over the head with for years, like the death penalty, off
the table. Nominating a candidate that would not provide such a
target for the GOP's efforts to make the election into a referendum
on them would, one would think, be important to a party that keeps
getting its ass handed to it in national elections...
|8.23.08 @ 6:54PM|#
Biden isn't likable or smart
That would make him a Republican. So you're wrong.
I can't name a smart Republican - most of them are
Creationists.
ok - William Weld. He is one smart GOP Man.
|8.23.08 @ 6:54PM|#
Apparently, Leahy and Feingold turned the clock back for us
freedom fighters.
The bill (now law) that repealed those portions passed the House
369-46 and the Senate 91-3, so I don't know what you're talking
about with this "Leahy and Feingold AMAZING TEAM OF FREEDOM".
Let's not let Republican-hate get in the way of the truth,
here.
|8.23.08 @ 6:55PM|#
WL,
Gore won Iowa.
MNG,
They didn't have any trouble coming up with things to say about
Clinton, the far-left draft dodger and criminal master-mind. No,
MNG, I don't see how picking your candidate based on hoping that
maybe the Republicans won't figure out how to smear them, instead
of picking them based on their strengths and qualifications, is a
good idea.
Issues, that's one thing, but you're talking about race and middle
names. That's nonsense.
|8.23.08 @ 6:57PM|#
The bill (now law) that repealed those portions passed the
House 369-46 and the Senate 91-3
Amazing what a change in leadership can do, inn't it?
Kolohe|8.23.08 @ 7:00PM|#
Biden's elder son...is a captain in the Delaware Army
National Guard, where he serves in the Judge Advocate General's
(JAG) Corps. He is set to be deployed to Iraq in October,
2008
How bizarre that Delaware would deploy its AG. Does anybody else
find this really strange?
You could actually wind up with a powerful person's child in the
war!
I'm probably missing the joke here, but I think McCain's youngest
son is an USMC PFC and has done a deployment to either afganistan
or iraq.
SD Dem Senator Tim Johnson has a son who was a staff sgt in the 101
airborne and partiicpated directly in OIF.
And one of Jim Webb's sons is also in the Marines and was in Iraq
sometime in the past two years.
Interestingly, one of Biden's other kids is a
registered lobbyist. (and was nominated for a government job by
the current president!)
This son also has a
hedge fund lawsuit in progress, but doesn't appear to amount to
much.
|8.23.08 @ 7:00PM|#
I can't name a smart Republican - most of them are
Creationists.
Puh-leeze shrike. If you're going to pimp yourself as a
libertarian, it'd be best if you didn't have your lips permanently
welded to "Team Blue", please.
Chuck Hagel is a smart Republican, for one.
George Voinovich certainly is another.
Mitch McConnell is no dummy, either (I've met him). Although
getting through med school certainly isn't indicative of an
intellectual base, you certainly cannot be "not smart" to get
through it, a la Bill Frist.
Scott66|8.23.08 @ 7:00PM|#
Of course Biden was picked for many reasons, but one of them is surely to placate the angry feminist voters threatening not to vote democratic since Hillary lost. Joe Biden is extremely anti-male.
|8.23.08 @ 7:03PM|#
I'm probably missing the joke here
I guess I shoulda said "White House Kid" in the war. I don't think
we've had a Pres. or Veep's child in a conflict for a long
time.
I knew I get stung not digging around enough, though!
Amazing what a change in leadership can do, inn't
it?
I know you're kidding with this.
|8.23.08 @ 7:04PM|#
Clinton had faced that kind of thing in Arkansas and still
proved himself a consistent winner. Obama has one exactly one state
wide campaign and his opponent imploded. Clinton also had the
things that seem to do the trick for the Dems when running for the
President: from the South and running to the right of his party.
Obama has neither of these and he's a black man. We've never
elected a black man as President or Vice President. We've never
even come close. Race, far from being "nonsense" is a huge force in
this nation, to ignore that is foolish. So this is taking a risk.
Perhaps if we had 20 years of Dem dominance such a risk would be
justified, but after 40 years of spankings it just seems, well,
nuts.
Did I mention that his fucking middle name is Hussein? As in the
guy that got demonized to the point that in South Park he is shown
fucking Satan? That's some pretty powerful cutural iconography.
It's like nominating someone named "Stalin" in 1952. It's not that
poor fucker's fault, but would you vote for that guy to be your
party's nominee?
|8.23.08 @ 7:07PM|#
shrike
Obviously I lean left and I can think of tons of smart and
principled Republicans.
Hagel for one. Both Senators from Maine. John Warner. Orrin Hatch,
whom I disagree with on a lot, is a smart guy. And, well, John
McCain is a very smart and brave guy.
In fact, I can't think of many Dem statewide elected officials I
would grant the same too. Jim Webb comes to mind.
|8.23.08 @ 7:09PM|#
Give McCain some due: he stood up to the GOP and Bush several
times. He could have just pandered like that spineless Romney, in
fact it would have made his days easier running for Prez.
Mitch McConnell? Jesus that guy is a fucking tool TAO.
|8.23.08 @ 7:12PM|#
Hagel, Chaffee, Weld, -- all admirable men - all ostracized by
the conservative movement. I can name others.
Let's face it - its the "culture wars" that conservatives only
THINK they are winning.....its dividing this country up.
I am pro Democracy, Markets, Science, Secularism, Civil Liberties -
those are my priorities....
Those FIVE items incite hatred in conservatives as a GROUP.
|8.23.08 @ 7:17PM|#
Mitch McConnell? Jesus that guy is a fucking tool
TAO.
What's that based on? Just 'cause there's stuff you disagree with
him about doesn't make him a tool. Also, suing the FEC makes him
enough of a hero in my book. You'll note it was the so-called
"left" contingent of SCotUS that upheld limits on free
speech.
I am pro Democracy, Markets, Science, Secularism, Civil
Liberties - those are my priorities....
Those FIVE items incite hatred in conservatives as a
GROUP.
Ha. And how is that any better than the lip service paid to those
principles by the left? The Left doesn't even like markets (as a
rule)...
Also, pure democracy isn't freedom; it's the tyranny of the mob.
People dedicated to freedom support lots of complicated mechanisms
and hamstrings and checks and balances and federalism...anything to
diffuse power and make it harder to get.
Amazing what a change in leadership can do, inn't
it?
I'll note too that votes against HR 4986 were almost entirely from
the left-wing of the D Party (like Sanders, Feingold, Kucinich) and
that neither Obama nor McCain bothered to show up.
Jerry|8.23.08 @ 7:20PM|#
Biden's academic record is even worse than McCain's. Well, at least Biden didn't dump any fighter planes into the ocean; how did he manage to dodge the draft?
|8.23.08 @ 7:20PM|#
I feel ya shrike. Conservatism is about religion. W.F. Buckley
once said as much, he said (I'm paraphrasing) that conservatism at
the least gives deference to religion. Recently at NRO conservative
athiest Heather MacDonald questioned this idea and she was taken to
the woodshed and spanked for her trangressions (I exagerrate, but
look it up). The founder of conservatism argued for an established
church (Burke). So yes, secularism conservatives hate, and as
religion is the antithesis of science they view that with suspicion
too (go to any conservative scholars conference and you will be
amazed at the intelligent design panels)...
Both liberals and conservatives can have bad track records on
democracy and markets and civil liberties (though I grant that the
conservative hard on for "order" and it's authoritarianism lends
itself for a greater disdain for many civil liberties, especially
the rights of the accused).
Having said that there are many in the GOP, some who are even
conservative, who are intelligent and principled.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 7:21PM|#
oh for the love of...Chafee is with one 'f'! ONE!!!
Otherwise, shrike. I agree that the GOP has worked overtime to
shove out anyone with even a twinkling of moderation or
heterodoxy.
Scott66|8.23.08 @ 7:23PM|#
"I am pro Democracy, Markets, Science, Secularism, Civil
Liberties - those are my priorities....
Those FIVE items incite hatred in conservatives as a GROUP."
Four of those five are just as hated by liberals as
conservaties.
|8.23.08 @ 7:27PM|#
"What's that based on?"
Uhh, that the guy is a tool? As minority leader that guys job is to
argue with a straight face whatever the party line is. That is hard
for me to square with being smart as intellectual honesty and
independence mean a lil' something doncha think?
"Also, suing the FEC makes him enough of a hero in my book."
He had an interest in that one, it wasn't like it was some
principle of his. Have you found him to be for free speech in other
contexts, like the Bong Hits for Jesus case or the NYT spilling the
beans on wiretapping recently? Don't set such a low bar for your
heros bro.
"Also, pure democracy isn't freedom; it's the tyranny of the mob."
Granted "pure" democracy without any protection of minority rights
is a bad thing (btw-old Mitch, he stood up for a lot of minority
rights when his folks were in the majority, right?). But democracy
is better than any other way of picking our rules.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 7:29PM|#
Um, scott? Liberals love science and secularism, and they're
lukewarm about civil liberties.
In any event, I doubt shrike was trying to advance an apologia for
being liberal, so much as pointing out where modern conservatives
are fucking stupid.; so what liberals are bad on is relatively
irrelevant to his point.
|8.23.08 @ 7:29PM|#
"Four of those five are just as hated by liberals as
conservaties."
Bullshit. See supra. Both are bad, but there is a reason why
liberals and libertarians both start with "liber" and conservaties
doesn't.
|8.23.08 @ 7:30PM|#
Look at the Governator -(Arnold) - I think he is spot on for
California. I would vote for him in a second. The $3 billion stem
cell state bill was just what his state needed - among the budget
cuts and other stuff... Great guy.
How would he do nationally in a GOP primary? I think Huckabee would
skunk him.
That's sad.
|8.23.08 @ 7:33PM|#
Dick Lugar's a smart Repblican.
Newt Gingrich has impressed me. Jeb Bush was both smart and, I'm
pretty sure, a Creationist.
|8.23.08 @ 7:35PM|#
I think I would be a conservative if not for the recent embrace of the religious right and "common mannism" (GOPer's like to wear plaid shirts, drive trucks, clear brush and such these days as if wearing suits and reading books is a bad thing). Opposition to affirmative action, gun control and immigration are three of my biggest issues. But just standing near a conservative movement function makes me want to take a shower...
|8.23.08 @ 7:38PM|#
"Jeb Bush was both smart and, I'm pretty sure, a
Creationist."
I'm not going that far.
By the way joe, an answer to my question about realignment
above?
|8.23.08 @ 7:38PM|#
Huckabee's a smart guy. Maybe not book larnin' smart, but you can see it in his tactics and arguments in the debates.
|8.23.08 @ 7:39PM|#
The $3 billion stem cell state bill was just what his state
needed
Guess everybody's got a place in their heart for their statist
program of choice.
Scott66|8.23.08 @ 7:39PM|#
Elemenope,
Secularism is the one of five they like. They like Darwinism but
there is a lot of science liberals ignore because it does not fit
their views. Liberals record on civil liberties is no better than
conservities. Biden himself is a champion of the selective
application of civil liberties.
As for the rest of your post. Fair enough. I certainly am not going
to defend conservities.
Patrick Henry|8.23.08 @ 7:41PM|#
I question the patriotism of most commenters in this
thread.Fucking liberals day on H&R.
Obama/Biden are going to lose. MS Nice Guy is right about that.
Don't worry crybabies, you can say McCain didn't play fair
afterwards. That always makes you pussies feel better.
|8.23.08 @ 7:43PM|#
I think Huckabee is a smart guy (maybe not educated). And he's
certainly a professed Creationist, so I retract.
shrike
I think you are confusing your approval of the Governator's
policies with smartness (I approve of his stem cell bill btw). A
horse can run fast without knowing how.
|8.23.08 @ 7:44PM|#
Opposition to affirmative action, gun control and
immigration are three of my biggest issues.
Those don't register for me. So we're speaking a different
language.
That's cool - no problem there.
btw - I am pro 2nd - but so is Howard Dean.
I like Tester, Conrad, Dorgan, other deficit hawks- I am very
PRO-environment -- big deal for ME...
See, Its not so bad, discussing stuff.
I bring Democracy up because I read "The Jungle" and voting on food
safety laws, child labor laws. etc --- may not be LIBertarian but
they are certainly the reason democracy exists.
Try to tell some mom that her child should be subject to the whim
of the market on food and drugs.
The market will correct itself --- AFTER she wins an award for her
child's death...
You do that - and then run for office.
|8.23.08 @ 7:45PM|#
MNG - shrike is making it apparent that you cannot
simultaneously be a partisan or a follower that disagrees with him
and "smart".
Patrick Henry - go away. And change your handle, you friggin'
tool.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 7:46PM|#
Anyone who can lift themselves from grinding poverty to being
Governor of his state and the runner up for his party's nomination
(Huckabee) has to be pretty damn smart, even though his policies
suck.
Smart doesn't mean *good* though. The two smartest Presidents since
WWII are Nixon and Clinton, and they were the slimiest.
JB|8.23.08 @ 7:47PM|#
Joe Biden thinks gun owners are mentally ill?!
Well, I think Joe Biden is a piece of shit.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 7:47PM|#
Actually Joe Biden isn't that smart intellectually. He got poor grades in school and barely got through law school. He just has a good political sense.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 7:48PM|#
Guess everybody's got a place in their heart for their
statist program of choice.
Yeah. Me? I'm a sucker for rural electrification.
Liberals record on civil liberties is no better than
conservities. Biden himself is a champion of the selective
application of civil liberties.
The Drug War has been corrosive to both parties' civil liberties
bona fides, and Biden is sure a drug warrior par excellence.
However, on balance I think over the last fifty or so years you can
draw a clear line between liberals and conservatives on civil
liberties, with liberals coming out decidedly on top. They almost
uniformly win on search & seizure, free speech, and due
process.
Unless it deals directly with property. Yah, the conservatives can
eek out a small area there where they are *sometimes* better than
liberals. Sometimes.
|8.23.08 @ 7:48PM|#
Try to tell some mom that her child should be subject to the
whim of the market on food and drugs.
Ahh, the smell of intellectually devoid, emotionally-driven
arguments. "IT'S FOR TEH MOMZ AND TEH CHILDRENZ!"
"The whim of the market" has produced a nation with the most
life-saving drugs, the best R&D process on the planet (DESPITE
the FDA) and a nation with a grocery store on every corner with
cheap, affordable, delicious food that comes in a wide
variety.
"The market" isn't a "thing" with "whims"; it's the aggregate of
decisions made by adults, who should be treated as such.
|8.23.08 @ 7:48PM|#
"They like Darwinism but there is a lot of science liberals
ignore because it does not fit their views."
Scott66, if you read conservative scholars, like Strauss or Vogelin
or Kirk, and the like, they identify "scientism" as an evil.
Really. Look it up.
"Obama/Biden are going to lose. MS Nice Guy is right about that.
Don't worry crybabies, you can say McCain didn't play fair
afterwards. That always makes you pussies feel better."
MS Nice Guy? That's not what your Mom said last night, pussy
;).
I don't care if McCain "plays fair" or not. Each side can do what
it wants, my beef is with the stupidity of the Dems in shooting
themselves in the foot.
|8.23.08 @ 7:48PM|#
By the way joe, an answer to my question about realignment
above?
OK. I don't think we're in a realignment year. I don't think big
realignment elections like 1932 happen anymore. Nor did I argue as
much.
You should read "The Emerging Democratic Majority." We don't have
big realignment elections like 1932 anymore. Instead, we have
two-part events; a de-alignment, when the parties go to rough
parity, followed by a realignment. Nixon sqeaked by in 1968, then
Carter won, and it wasn't until 1980 that Reagan won a big victory
and the Senate.
The de-alignment of the Republican majority already happened. 2006
was the realignment year. McCain is just an Ike in the midst of the
New Deal Coalition, outperforming his party on the strength of his
independence and celebrity.
Anyway, I didn't argue that this was a realignment year, just that
the period of Republican dominance is over. Clinton ran for
president four years after Reagan left office, and eight years
after he won 49 states. Those days are gone.
|8.23.08 @ 7:50PM|#
Yeah. Me? I'm a sucker for rural electrification.
Hey, that's your bag, but other types of liberals could make a very
good argument that the subsidization of utilities and roads is what
has led to the current amount of suburban and exurban sprawl.
Developers and home-buyers do not bear the full cost of putting up
the next "Weeping Willows Subdivision", which incentivizes people
away from the cities.
BDB|8.23.08 @ 7:52PM|#
TAO thats very true about suburban sprawl. You can add stupid zoning laws (no medium or higher density allowed, or rarely).
|8.23.08 @ 7:54PM|#
"The market will correct itself --- AFTER she wins an award for
her child's death..."
I agree there. Opposition to things like the FDA are some of the
stupidest parts of libertarianism. These are the parts that exist
because of the sponsors of libertarian thought...
That a third party monitors the purity of food and drugs has made
for a capitalist bonanza in this nation, expanding choice and
prosperity. Noone would choose bad food or drugs unless they did
not know what the FDA did, so very little free choice is lost while
much choice is bolstered and utility is improved a great
deal.
I can only think what Patrick Henry must be thinking. If you're
still reading this, PH, I still think that it is actually you that
are probably the pussy ;)
|8.23.08 @ 7:56PM|#
Don't worry about Patrick Henry.
He spent 2004 talking about what a blowout the election was going
to be.
Leftists have the bad habit of assuming they are the vanguard,
leading the direction society is inexorably moving, but out in
front. Rightists have the the opposite bad habit - they assume that
they speak for "all Americans," modified to "all REAL Americans" as
necessary.
Think of how long they proclaimed that "everyone loves George
Bush." Hell, they still insist that most Americans don't support
withdrawing from Iraq. If you read far right, racist tracts like
the Turner Diaries, there is always the unspoken assumption that of
course the vast majority of white people secretly agree with them.
Think of the last person you heard or read say "Oh, come on, it's
what everyone thinks," and I'll be he was making some retrograde
"anti-PC" comment.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 7:57PM|#
TAO --
I was kidding. Dryness doesn't translate well over the Intertubes.
I agree with you that rural subsidized development (both
electricity and roadways) has led to some unintentional
consequences, like continued sprawl. But, notably, has also
increased the accessibility and exploitability of a great deal of
natural resource and land otherwise inaccessible and unaffordable
to develop.
I'd say the military, so far as it goes, is a not half-bad statist
program so long as it is kept in check. (We've been pretty poor at
that.)
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 8:03PM|#
MNG --
My thing is, as a Constitutionalist, (which I consistently am more
than a Libertarian), I find myself irritated with a government that
is willing to simply arrogate the requisite amount of power to
fulfill whatever policy goal it sets for itself. I agree that
by-and-large the FDA has done well *on the food side of things*
(though I wish they wouldn't interfere when they actually are
interfering in free choice, like the raw milk debacle). I'm far
less sanguine about the drug side, mind you. But either way, I see
little grant for its existence in the Constitution.
I really wish that if people wanted government to do these things,
they'd get off their lazy asses and change *the owner's manual* to
reflect it. Amendments to the Constitution are not, by any stretch,
an impossible feat.
|8.23.08 @ 8:03PM|#
joe
I'd bet that tendency you mention is due to what Robert Altemeyer
calls "Right Wing Authoritarianism." They don't mix outside of
circles that don't agree with them 100% and thus think that way.
Have you read his stuff? Google him if not. Good stuff.
Think about how hard it is to get, for example, SIV or Guy Montag
to say ANYTHING bad about conservatives or to admit ANYTHING good
about liberals...
Patrick Henry|8.23.08 @ 8:04PM|#
Who knew my Mom was a lesbian?
And why are many of you bitching about conservatives in an election
thread?
The only conservative running for President will be lucky to break
%1 of the popular vote.
|8.23.08 @ 8:10PM|#
"The only conservative running for President will be lucky to
break %1 of the popular vote."
I did hear that Nader was running again.
But seriously Pat, in answer to your other question, your Mom
should be able to walk again within several weeks if my experience
with these things serves me right...
Patrick Henry|8.23.08 @ 8:10PM|#
You are paraphrasing Nathan Hale ya commie.
any REAL AMERICAN would know that.
|8.23.08 @ 8:17PM|#
I cut and pasted the below from Justin Webb of the BBC.
..........
There is also - if Biden performs well - the Dukakis Lloyd Bensen
issue, which is, to put it delicately, Why is it this way round:
why isn't the able, experienced, reassuring guy the one at the top
of the ticket?
Patrick Henry|8.23.08 @ 8:18PM|#
She must of tripped over your Sybian MS Nancy Guy.
So what do you Obamatarian ladies think of this?
Biden favors an American deployment of troops to Sudan in order
to end the genocide in Darfur. He believes that the mission can be
accomplished with 2,500 troops.
Nick|8.23.08 @ 8:42PM|#
"Bullshit. See supra. Both are bad, but there is a reason why
liberals and libertarians both start with "liber" and conservaties
doesn't."
Yeah, it's because "liberal" used to mean something completely
different from what it means today. Then in the mid 1900s it got
hijacked by socialists when socialism was no longer a kosher word
to call yourself. In most of the rest of the world, the world
retains it's original meaning. For example, the Japanese equivalent
of the Libertarian Party is called the Liberal League.
Nick|8.23.08 @ 8:46PM|#
"Patrick Henry"
Maybe it's because Reason is more of a left-leaning libertarian
magazine that caters more to drug war opponents and secularists
than gold bugs and Constitution nuts. Obama is preferable on the
former, McCain is preferable on none of the above.
shrike|8.23.08 @ 8:48PM|#
Ahh, the smell of intellectually devoid, emotionally-driven
arguments. "IT'S FOR TEH MOMZ AND TEH CHILDRENZ!"
Ohh, that's a sure winner for the Libertarian Party. (which should
be a default position other than a goal, imo).
Let's dump nuclear fuel in your backyard in Canton, lady. There is
no fucking law against it - Cheney said so.
Yeah - you run with that.
|8.23.08 @ 8:53PM|#
shrike, if you want to make a *principled* argument (like MNG
did) for the FDA (that is, the benefits way outweigh the costs and
facilitate exchange based on a minimum set of safety
standards),then do that. You won't hear me mocking you then.
Where I am going to mock you is when you couch your arguments for
"moms and their little pwecious babies". I'm sick to death of that;
I'm a single guy with no kids and I'm just as entitled to equal
protection as everybody else, so refrain from the emotional
class-warfare.
|8.23.08 @ 8:54PM|#
"In most of the rest of the world, the world retains it's
original meaning. For example, the Japanese equivalent of the
Libertarian Party is called the Liberal League."
In the "rest of the world" if you put forward a conservative idea
they would laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and then move on. On social
matters there is no "conservatism" in the rest of the world.
Reason's position is the position of "the rest of the world" when
it comes to "conservatives." Please enlighten us about
"conservative" parties in say the UK or Scandavia that deny
evolution or call for school prayer or work against gay
rights...
Patrick Henry|8.23.08 @ 8:54PM|#
Nick
Obama is preferable on the Drug War?
So is that why Hopey McChange picked
Biden...to shore up his War on Drugs cred?
|8.23.08 @ 8:56PM|#
Pat
I keed, I keed.
Liberal pols and thinkers have for some reason worked hard to gain
the pussy label. But in reality studies show that conservatives
were more likely to be the kid that got beat up on the
playground...So watch the "pussy" epithet.
|8.23.08 @ 8:58PM|#
Obama's pronouncements on the WOD have been well documented and are favorable to McCains. Reason expert Jacob Sullum concluded that Obama was better than McCain on medical marijuana. And Obama has decried the disparate effect on blacks of the WOD. McCain? Nary a word. Try again.
Nick|8.23.08 @ 9:06PM|#
Um, can you be more specific do you want? A conventional
definition of socialism? An account of the burgeoning Communist
movement in the early-to-mid 1900s that was killed by
McCarthyism?
The conversion of the classical term "liberalism" took a
transformation when economists in the late 1800s and early 1900s
began advocating for more government interference in the economy
while still calling themselves liberals. Probably the turning point
was when FDR ran under a fairly classical liberal platform for his
first election (as Reason pointed out a while back), but when in
office enacted sweeping programs that moved the US towards
socialism. Combined with the growing anti-communist sentiment and
the government crackdown via McCarthyism after WWII, the Left
needed to call themselves something other than socialists because
the term was no longer marketable. The term liberalism had
gradually become perverted over the past half-century and developed
an entirely different context - where it once meant hands off
government and free markets, it soon mean hands on government and
regulation.
The thing is the original classical liberals were also progressives
(notably Adam Smith), which is likely how the jump was able to be
made between those who argued the free market would bring more
equality vs. those who argued redistribution would bring more
equality. Both were opposed to the regressivism of conservatism,
and thus likely found themselves strange bedfellows. (This part is
just a theory of mine, by the way.)
Although they are very similar, libertarianism is distinguishable
from classical liberalism because libertarianism does not see
economic equality as important and tends towards social and
economic Darwinism. Thus the roots of libertarianism are more of
the Right and the roots of classical liberalism are more of the
Left.
shrike|8.23.08 @ 9:06PM|#
ok TAO,
Your last post was sound.
I agree - although the "pragmatic" argument for Safety laws seems
simplistic to me.
But I comprehend.
|8.23.08 @ 9:09PM|#
That a third party monitors the purity of food and drugs has
made for a capitalist bonanza in this nation, expanding choice and
prosperity. Noone would choose bad food or drugs unless they did
not know what the FDA did, so very little free choice is lost while
much choice is bolstered and utility is improved a great
deal.
I do have to say that a strictly utilitarian model of what should
or should not be regulated and/or banned fails on the grounds that
in order for a law or regulation to have "utility", you have to ask
"Toward what goal is this law useful?"
Without a moral undergirding, I could make a utiltarian case for
anything. That is not to say I believe all things should
be judged solely on their moral merits, simply because an action
rooted in the proper morality should yield just and fruitful
results, and just and fruitful results *should* point to an action
grounded in good moral principles.
*Whew* All that said, MNG, what's your moral basis for restricting
the free sale and purchase/experimentation with
pharmaceuticals?
What do you think of the critique that FDA regulations are
overburdensome, to the point where more people die waiting for
drugs than those who are outright killed by unsafe ones?
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 9:09PM|#
Nick,
I have an awfully hard time placing Keynesians and Marxists in the
same category. Their theories are nearly mutually incomprehensible.
Thus, I have a difficulty with it all being called "socialism".
|8.23.08 @ 9:11PM|#
Good stuff, Nick.
I think that modern American liberalism was simply the Scope Creep
of democracy.
Hey, what harm is there in this little Social Security program? Its
a penny on the dollar... then came Medicare, medicaid, HUD, etc.
and now 1/2 - 2/3 your taxes go to "earned" (for real)
entitlements.
Nick|8.23.08 @ 9:11PM|#
Patrick,
Only to a degree. At least he has said he will stop federal raids
of marijuana clinics in states that have legalized them. McCain has
always been a drug warrior, as much so as Biden.
By the way, I think Biden is a terrible pick. He has almost zero
appeal to libertarians. Bad on foreign policy, the drug war, the
Patriot Act, the economy, etc. He's a hawkish and authoritarian
liberal, and any libertarian support for Obama has likely just gone
out the window.
|8.23.08 @ 9:13PM|#
I have an awfully hard time placing Keynesians and Marxists
in the same category.
He didn't use those terms.
|8.23.08 @ 9:13PM|#
"Although they are very similar, libertarianism is
distinguishable from classical liberalism because libertarianism
does not see economic equality as important and tends towards
social and economic Darwinism. Thus the roots of libertarianism are
more of the Right and the roots of classical liberalism are more of
the Left."
I think most libertarians would claim the title of "classical
liberal." Most I read would think the liberal/libertarian split
came from the negative rights (right to be left alone) vs. positive
rights (right to have ones basic needs met) split.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 9:14PM|#
what's your moral basis for restricting the free sale and
purchase/experimentation with pharmaceuticals?
That's basically my beef with the FDA as well, but it's a problem
of extent rather than choice. On one hand, the FDA does well to
regulate the relative purity and consistent quality of
pharmaceuticals, putting to bed the legacy of 19th century snake
oil salesmen and the market anarchy *that didn't benefit
anyone*.
On the other hand, the lengthy "safety" trials to bring new drugs
to market, as well as restricting distribution of chemicals as only
through a doctor's prescription, strike me as control for its own
sake, without much utility.
Vermont Gun Owner|8.23.08 @ 9:16PM|#
What do you think of the critique that FDA regulations are
overburdensome
My internship at a generic drug company really made me dislike the
FDA. Who cares if our labels say "For Prescription Use Only"
instead of the "Only For Prescription Use" that the brand drug
labels were using?
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 9:17PM|#
He didn't use those terms.
You don't have to use one word terms to unambiguously refer to
something in particular.
|8.23.08 @ 9:19PM|#
"*Whew* All that said, MNG, what's your moral basis for
restricting the free sale and purchase/experimentation with
pharmaceuticals?"
Lots of people would die and many, many more would be terrified by
these deaths and would therefore withdraw from the market.
Asking consumers to keep up with every producer which, after the
fact (yikes) was shown to be harmful, is asking far, far too much
in this, or any day and age. Having a third party of experts
monitor this for us leaves us free to have confidence in products
in the market and make purchases based on other qualities. It thus
increases most people's freedom of choice.
Patrick Henry|8.23.08 @ 9:22PM|#
At least he has said he will stop federal raids of marijuana
clinics in states that have legalized them.
I believe he did say that before retracting/clarifying that he
would support the Feds backing off when medical marijuana was
approved by the FDA.That would be "never in hell". If Obama has
clearly indicated he supports "state's rights" on medical
marijuana
you should be able to find some sort of link or citation. Obama has
indicated he supports SCOTUS justices who favor the federal
Government over the States when it comes to medical marijuana
policy.
|8.23.08 @ 9:24PM|#
Lots of people would die and many, many more would be
terrified by these deaths and would therefore withdraw from the
market.
That continues to be a utiltarian argument; you want to limit death
and facilitate markets in pharmaceuticals by taking the guesswork
out of it.
But why is this your desired result? And why do you feel
it is worth the corresponding loss of freedom?
Finally, on utilitarian grounds, what again of the idea that there
is more death waiting for the FDA than there is death by the actual
drugs?
Would you grant a waiver to those with terminal illnesses to try
any drug they please? (Terminal illness being, for lack of a better
way, statutorily defined?)...or even better, would you support an
exemption category for the terminally ill that they do not have to
follow the regulations?
Nick|8.23.08 @ 9:26PM|#
"I have an awfully hard time placing Keynesians and Marxists in
the same category."
And rightfully so - they are different. But Keynesianism was the
modus operandi that began muddying the waters as to the meaning of
the term "liberalism." Keynesianism was also the modus operandi
that allowed most of the Socialist Party platform of the 1930s to
get passed into law.
Classical liberalism WAS the Left of centuries past (in the sense
of progressivism), but the nature of the Left changed completely
and took the term "liberal" with it. Marx arose and out-Lefted
classical liberalism, and Marxists in the 1800s saw liberalism as a
diametrically opposed philosophy and closer to the Right than to
their own. Then Keynesianism emerged as the dominant economic
mindset and bridged the gap, and now even the Marxist Left are
known as "very liberal."
In countries where "socialist" never became a dirty word, like in
Japan or much of Europe, liberalism is generally referred to as the
classical brand.
|8.23.08 @ 9:30PM|#
"In the "rest of the world" if you put forward a
conservative idea they would laugh, and laugh, and laugh, and then
move on. On social matters there is no "conservatism" in the rest
of the world. Reason's position is the position of "the rest of the
world" when it comes to "conservatives."
Heh. And this is why the big-L Libertarian flakes are goign to be
mighty surprised to see the results of their opened borders
policies.
American Conservatism was conservative in the sense that it sought
to preserve the American founding and Constitution, themselves the
apotheoses of classical-liberalism. Which is why the Republican
party today is many things, but hardcore conservative is not one of
them. Now it more-or-less me-toos the socialist Democratic Party,
with dash of religious nannyism and belligerence in foreign affairs
from the Social and Neo-Conservatives.
|8.23.08 @ 9:31PM|#
A huge part of what the FDA does is make producers honest (or
liable) for what they say their products are. That fits nicely
under libertarian principles that fraud is wrong because it negates
free consumer choice.
I just walked to my cabinet and got out a medicine. It was
literally one of about 20 in there (over the counter). It's CVS
Children's Pain Relief. There is all kinds of info on the label
(btw, that is all mandated by the FDA, there are all kinds of
reasons why a nefarious producer may not put such information, or
truthful information, on the label and just risk lawsuits for short
term profits [it even happens now]). But, how am I supposed to know
if this info is correct? I am supposed to sue them AFTER the act
(i.e. after it harms my children?)?
Let's say we let the "market" punish them. People hear that people
who bought this product suffered and thus are less likely to buy
products from the producers. Who knows what parent company owns
"CVS"? I don't. I bet you don't. This stuff changes quite a bit. Or
what companies distribute it, or knowingly retail it...You see what
I mean. What informational costs would be imposed on everyone (I'm
using economics terms because I know libertarians like that stuff).
Without a FDA or the like most people would not buy anything from
anyone they did not know personally. We'd be living in the stone
age...
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 9:31PM|#
Asking consumers to keep up with every producer which, after
the fact (yikes) was shown to be harmful, is asking far, far too
much in this, or any day and age. Having a third party of experts
monitor this for us leaves us free to have confidence in products
in the market and make purchases based on other qualities. It thus
increases most people's freedom of choice.
Except that our practical experience with the FDA shows that they
are gibbering idiots when making determinations of safety.
Digitalis is way scarier than cocaine, much the same way that
acetaminophen is more dangerous than marijuana. On the subject of
Tylenol, it's probably more dangerous and easier to overdose on
than many, if not most, prescription-only drugs.
I think it's great for the FDA to make sure that a 20mg capsule of
whatever actually contains 20mg of whatever, but their subjective
ability to process danger and side-effects leaves something to be
desired. And their plenary ability to place a product outside the
reach of consumers by making them go through a doctor or banning it
entirely seems awfully counter-productive.
|8.23.08 @ 9:34PM|#
Nick makes sense to me.
The labels are ambiguous anyway. Hugo Chavez calls Bush a
"neo-liberal" - and rightfully so.
But to an American that makes no sense at all.
Elemenope|8.23.08 @ 9:34PM|#
Nick @ 9:26 pm.
Interesting points. I still am reticent about your "bridging"
theory, but it's food for thought.
|8.23.08 @ 9:35PM|#
Nick | August 23, 2008, 9:26pm
Ditch the false left-right dichotomy.
Classical liberals opposed the status quo, but that does not make
them 'on the left.' The redistributionists do not have a monopoly
on progress, even if they're self-deluded enough to think so.
|8.23.08 @ 9:39PM|#
MNG -
Part of the reason we have such a robust tort system in these here
States is so that plaintiffs with credible claims for damages can
seek monetary redress.
Think about this: if the FDA approves a drug and you still
get are harmed by it, this actually decreases your recourses for
civil redress. The FDA has become a "shield" for corporations...all
they have to do (usually) is point to the FDA's ruling that their
drug was "safe" and they've won 90% of the case.
However, fraud on the part of that private consumer
watchdog (something akin to a pharmaceutical UL) would be subject
to legal redress, either in civil OR criminal court.
To sum up: you can't sue the FDA; you can't put them in jail for
criminal negligence. This is not the case of a private
products-vetting service.
I think there's a place for the FDA in terms of verification of
ingredients and weights & measures, but not for drug-vetting
purposes.
|8.23.08 @ 9:40PM|#
Sorry Pat, Obama has been shown to be simly "better" on medical
MJ than McCain by Reason's own expert, and no buddy of Dems, Jacob
Sullum Look it up bro.
"you want to limit death and facilitate markets in pharmaceuticals
by taking the guesswork out of it.
But why is this your desired result? "
Yes, I want to limit death AND take the gueswork out of choices
because that limits freedom of choice. I like liberty, why do you
hate it ;)?
"Finally, on utilitarian grounds, what again of the idea that there
is more death waiting for the FDA than there is death by the actual
drugs?"
There is not more death that way. That's easy.
Nick|8.23.08 @ 9:40PM|#
"I think most libertarians would claim the title of "classical
liberal.""
Take a Nolan chart, and divide the libertarian section in half. The
half on the conservative side, I'd call "libertarian." The half on
the liberal side, I'd call "classical liberal." Again, the
distinction I make is whether the worldview is
Darwinist/individualist vs. progressive/communitarian. You can be
progressive and communitarian without being pro-government, instead
arguing that community-based solutions are better than government
programs and that the impact on the poor needs to be a factor in
any taxation, regulation, etc. Classical liberals would also be
more strongly anti-corporate. Adam Smith was a huge advocate for
the poor, and he argued that corporations were inefficient
institutions and perversions of a free market.
|8.23.08 @ 9:44PM|#
I want to limit death AND take the gueswork out of choices
because that limits freedom of choice. I like liberty, why do you
hate it ;)
I don't. What I'm saying is that you're destroying liberty to save
it. Placing products-safety enforcement in the hands of the
government is a good recipe to never have any accountability when
the products-safety people get it wrong.
|8.23.08 @ 9:45PM|#
In economists talk, information is not perfect and so things like the FDA are necessary. Who thinks being burdened with personally looking up the record (and where would there even be a "record" without government) of every product they buy, and then every possible combination and history of corporate cooperation which produces said product would increase freedom of choice? WTF?
|8.23.08 @ 9:49PM|#
Going on medications, MNG, is a big deal. You should know the
full range of side effects and safety reports prior to ingesting
chemicals. This is why god created *doctors* and
*pharmacists*
You're also presuming that without the FDA, there would be no
market for a pharmaceutical safety. That's just not true. Look at
UL. Look at the consumerist.com. Look at Kelly's Blue Book.
|8.23.08 @ 9:51PM|#
Your 9:40 post is the way I see things, (Nick).
Jefferson said the corporations should have a 30-yr license and
they should be required to dissolve its proceeds to shareholders
then. This was the view at the time.
I say that the mitigating factor is democracy - for all its
weaknesses. It has gamed the system.
|8.23.08 @ 10:00PM|#
"Look at UL. Look at the consumerist.com. Look at Kelly's Blue
Book."
Look at the conditions that created the FDA. Why did people clamor
for it? Why didn't they just let "the market" take care of their
concerns? After all, "the market" had been around prior to their
concerns and yet they still had them...
Nick|8.23.08 @ 10:00PM|#
"Ditch the false left-right dichotomy."
I don't really think it's false if you look at history. The easiest
delineation between Left vs. Right is whether creating more
economic equality is an important value and arguably a worthwhile
function of government. Individualists and objectivists do not see
it as important, nor do elitists or regressives. Classical
liberals, Keynesians, socialists and Marxists do think economic
equality is an important value, but classical liberals recognize
that entrepreneurship and opportunity are the best means to get the
poor out of poverty and only free trade can get capital to poor
nations. I would also argue classical liberals (notably Thomas
Paine and Adam Smith) are more open to the idea of public schools
than libertarians, as a means to create a more level playing field
and provide the poor with better skills and basic literacy. But
anyway, the point is that there is a division, but it's primarily
based on Darwinism vs. progressivism and not so much capitalism vs.
socialism.
|8.23.08 @ 10:01PM|#
I think most libertarians would claim the title of
"classical liberal."
I think they would be wrong. There was an aspect of social equality
and community to classical liberal thought that's missing from
libertarianism. I can't imagine libertarians railing against noble
titles if they were the status quo. If you talk like Sam Adams or
Thomas Jefferson about what the good society (society, not
government) looks like, libertarians call you a socialist.
|8.23.08 @ 10:05PM|#
A lot of folks, facing a short term pressure to sell, will
sacrifice what are seen as long term virtues of the market.
Ever heard of a "bad" car salesperson, who will lie to sell the car
at hand? Of course you have. Well, why doesn't "the market" erase
such persons? Because even in libertopia there will always be an
incentive, maybe only short term, to lie to make sales.
Making people take the time to follow every recorded bad faith
seller would place an incredible burden on them. The practical
result is to freeze consumption. That's not good as far as utility
goes, or free choice based on voluntary exchange.
|8.23.08 @ 10:10PM|#
Look at the conditions that created the FDA. Why did people
clamor for it? Why didn't they just let "the market" take care of
their concerns? After all, "the market" had been around prior to
their concerns and yet they still had them
I don't know why people clamored for it and I frankly don't
care, any more than I care why people "clamored for"
mini-DOMAs and anti-gay constitutional amendments in 2004.
One of the more important libertarian critiques of the regulatory
schemata on utilitarian grounds is that big corporations have the
finances to keep up, and small ones do not. The FDA is a perfect
example of the merger of corporation and state: GlaxoSmithKline and
Pfizer don't mind exceptional regulatory
burdens, as they have the cash to keep up.
Simultaneously, however, they reduce the amount of money invested
in highly dangerous, experimental drugs (for serious diseases like
cancer and AIDS) because they know they'll never clear the
regulatory hurdles the FDA will toss their way. People with AIDS
and cancer would love to try them; drug companies would love to
sell them, but just try bringing a drug that isn't
completely and totally safe, and do it without making the drug
cost-prohibitive to post the consumer and the company.
It's impossible. Which is why Big Pharma is always working on drugs
and products for, say, ED or weight-loss. The stakes are lower and
the profit margin (thanks to the FDA on both counts) is higher.
There's a significant loss in R&D, and by extension,
life-saving medications, imposed on drug companies by the FDA's
current form.
|8.23.08 @ 10:13PM|#
I can't imagine libertarians railing against noble titles if
they were the status quo
joe, come on...are you for real with this shit? we mock even the
vaguest of noble titles: we get all riled up when someone's
colloquially called a czar.
I don't know why you feel the need to slime libertarians by
conjecturing in what odious behaviors they would engage in
conditions that don't even exist.
"Libertarians would support the Sith and the Evil Empire"
"Libertarians would support Sauron and Saurumon...this is
self-evident"
|8.23.08 @ 10:15PM|#
And what's to stop jerks from selling bogus drugs to folks desperate for a cure? I mean in libertopia.
|8.23.08 @ 10:21PM|#
"People with AIDS and cancer would love to try them; drug
companies would love to sell them, but just try bringing a drug
that isn't completely and totally safe, and do it without making
the drug cost-prohibitive to post the consumer and the company.
"
Of course this would allow jerks to sell crap that isn't
"completely and totally safe" and that would not help these poor
bastards a bit. They'd make a quick buck, since these people are
despreate, and how would any average s.o.b. be able to track the
facts of every guy who offered such a drug?
|8.23.08 @ 10:21PM|#
And what's to stop jerks from selling bogus drugs to folks
desperate for a cure? I mean in libertopia.
There's nothing stopping me from peddling sugar pills to desperate
people now, MNG. People have been peddling (and other
suckers have been buying) laetrile since at least the '70s.
I'd rather those desperate people have a decent shot with a
reputable company than some crappy mix of herbal supplements,
crystals and homeopathy.
Nick|8.23.08 @ 10:22PM|#
One last thing, I think the Nolan chart is very insightful -
classical liberals and libertarians sit right next to each other
because their means aren't very different. They are left and right,
but the division is one of worldview more than of approach to
governance.
Same with the fascists and state socialists in the conservative and
liberal halves of the authoritarian quadrant. Note Mussolini
(Right) and Hitler (Left). It's kind of two sides of the same
coin.
I think the Right and Left get more polarized as they move towards
the center. Historically, I believe we have travelled on a tangent
based upon the prevailing view of government. Back in the days
where limited government was the status quo, the Founding Fathers
differed, but not exceptionally. Over time, we developed an
increasingly invasive view on the role of government, and the
differences between Left and Right are became pronounced because
each side wants to use government power to accomplish their own
means. That's why we can have a broad yet incomplete spectrum of
"Left" vs. "Right," assuming the views of the Left and the Right on
government power are roughly the equivalent.
Were we to move to a pure totalitarian state, dissent would be
crushed and the left-right distinction would again be a matter of
worldview more than means.
It's just a theory I thought up a year ago, but it seems to reflect
the political reality that society's view on government power would
determine the scope of what we see as "left" vs. "right" and that
the polarity of the two "sides" is purely a reflection on the
prevaling mindset on government's role. Thus the dilemma of
libertarianism is how to change society's mind on the idea that the
government is and should be powerful, which is far more difficult
than advocating for whichever special interests groups you believe
government's money should be spent on.
|8.23.08 @ 10:23PM|#
Of course this would allow jerks to sell crap that isn't
"completely and totally safe" and that would not help these poor
bastards a bit
They're already dying, MNG! Don't you get that? There is a certain
kind of malevolent insanity that says that terminally ill people
have to be restrained...for their own safety.
Would fraudulent and dangerous sales take place? Yes!, just like
they do now. You'd still have the same avenues of redress (the
courts) without the FDA standing in your way to assume control over
your (rapidly ending) life.
|8.23.08 @ 10:25PM|#
I go to the store every Sunday. Tomorrow I will go and find an
amazing number of choices. A number that folks in communist nations
could only dream of.
However, I can assume that everything there is fit for comsumption.
I don't have to look up every the origin of very product there, and
then the consumer product of every corporation of origin. I can
judge each product based on other claims (is it the most meat for
the money? Is it organic or not? etc). I'm FREED up to buy things
that are not fraudelent. Good for me and every consumer and every
honest producer. Thank goodness for the FDA.
|8.23.08 @ 10:27PM|#
Thank goodness for the FDA.
MNG, your vision of your fellow man frightens me. I don't naturally
assume that fraudulent assholes, thieves and hucksters are lurking
around every corner, waiting to sell me poisoned bread, until
"wait! Here comes the glorious White Knight of the FDA, here to
slay this monstrous snake-oil salesman!"
Most people make safe products 'cause they don't want to kill their
customers. It's generally bad for business. And not every random
incident of fraud or "hucksterism" can be regulated against.
|8.23.08 @ 10:28PM|#
TAO,
What I wrote was, "...if they were the status quo."
It's really not a sign of anything that you don't wish to bring
bang symbols of social inequality that haven't existed for hundreds
of years. More impressive would be if you demonstrated the
slightest concern about social inequality and class distinctions
that do exist. Or even, didn't have a McCarhtyite freakout whenever
anyone does.
Nick,
I think you are onto something, but you're too narrow in defining
the historical left-right distinction as being about economic
equality itself. I describe it as being about power relations more
generally. The right wishes to maintain traditional relations of
power, while the left wishes to tear them down. Of course the
economic dimension of power relations is a huge part of this - the
Marxists would say it's the entirety of it - but it's applicable to
the social, cultural, institutional, geographic, and religious
realms as well.
Are not people who want impoverished nuns to be able to become
impoverished priests the left as well?
|8.23.08 @ 10:30PM|#
TAO-You're concentrating on the terminally ill. Are you OK with
the FDA's functions over food? Over the counter drugs?
The idea is that if the FDA allowed every drug for terminal people,
folks without perfect information might choose total crap when
there is better but less "miracle promising" stuff out there. The
idea is that the FDA, composed of experts, is supposed to make up
that information gap, forcibly in the case of knowingly desperate
persons....
|8.23.08 @ 10:34PM|#
"Most people make safe products 'cause they don't want to kill
their customers. It's generally bad for business. And not every
random incident of fraud or "hucksterism" can be regulated
against."
If all people were perfectly rational as libertarianism often
suggests, yes. But they are not. Many people see short term profits
and don't think about the long term consequences. The market often
works on large term consequences. But many people are thinkng
"shit, I just want to make THIS deal."
Adding government sanctions adds incentives to behave (over and
above the "market"). You believe in the power of incentives I
should think, right?
|8.23.08 @ 10:37PM|#
More impressive would be if you demonstrated the slightest
concern about social inequality and class distinctions that do
exist. Or even, didn't have a McCarhtyite freakout whenever anyone
does.
How circular you are! If we express any form of concern regarding
these issues, you'd just call it "crocodile tears" and say that our
motivations aren't what we say they are. There's no satisfying this
requirement for you, joe. If libertarians couch their arguments for
say, educational choice in terms of letting the poor abandon
failing schools, you'd just simper that we really don't mean it
that way.
And of course! my concern for the terminally ill is just a "front"
for my anti-government attitude, right joe? It couldn't possibly be
because I've observed the disparate burdens that regulations place
on the poor and the entrepreneurial...it must be a cover!
Tobacco Gigante|8.23.08 @ 10:38PM|#
Most people make safe products 'cause they don't want to
kill their customers. It's generally bad for business.
Not if you kill them slow enough...
|8.23.08 @ 10:38PM|#
A noble title, in and of itself, doesn't coerce anyone into
anything. In the absence of any ongoing state-granted privileges,
it doesn't involve any coercion or state sponsorship at all.
It would, however, generate enormous social benefits. Other
individuals, particularly other nobility, would likely provide all
sorts of favoritism in business. The invitations to clubs, to
dinners, to join important civic organizations would provide a
significant leg up. It's likely that there would be - again, wholly
uncoerced - patters of social exclusivity. Not to mention the
wealth - most nobles would inherit a great deal of wealth.
So, we've got a class of people with much greater resources, who
live exclusive lives, scratch each others' backs, and thereby
sustain an ongoing system of social and economic inequality, but
without any ongoing government coercion.
I'll tell you the liberal critique of this situation, TAO - a
critique which would be the same coming from the lips of a 1798
liberal as a 2008 liberal, when you tell me a principled,
uniquely-libertarian case for why this set-up is wrong and should
be resisted in the political realm.
|8.23.08 @ 10:41PM|#
The Angry Optimist | August 23, 2008, 10:37pm | #
That was just weak, man. No substance at all.
D+.
|8.23.08 @ 10:55PM|#
I'm not looking forward to the riots.
We didn't have any riots last time, just a hell of a lot of
bitching and moaning.
-jcr
Nick|8.23.08 @ 11:05PM|#
Joe,
I guess you're right in the sense that I should have been more
broad and said "equality" as a value instead of limiting it to
specifically "economic equality." Of course, it's illusory to argue
that people will ever be equal, and certainly I find
redistributionism destructive and often very bad for the poor. I'd
say for classical liberals, the zeitgeist would be for equal
treatment under the law and creating equal opportunity for upwards
mobility through free markets and education. If people choose not
to use the opportunity, we shouldn't be in the business of making
them do what's best for themselves or giving them whatever they
want.
|8.23.08 @ 11:39PM|#
That was just weak, man. No substance at all.
Truth hurts, doesn't it, joe? Anytime a libertarian makes an
argument for less government regulations, or taxes, or educational
choice, you just bitch about "crocodile tears". It's your MO,
man...just grow the hell up and admit it.
|8.23.08 @ 11:41PM|#
A noble title, in and of itself, doesn't coerce anyone into
anything. In the absence of any ongoing state-granted privileges,
it doesn't involve any coercion or state sponsorship at
all.
You're an idiot. The definition of noble titles is that the
nobility = government. If you're just going to make up aribtrary
situations for some kind of imaginary "gotcha!" about libertarians
by positing circumstances that do not now, nor ever have
existed, please don't be stunned when people laugh at you,
as you so richly deserve.
|8.23.08 @ 11:43PM|#
when you tell me a principled, uniquely-libertarian case for
why this set-up is wrong and should be resisted in the political
realm.
Cute...by "resisted in the political realm" you mean stripping
people of money they didn't coerce from anyone else? Maybe taxing
them at a higher rate to facilitate some sort of fuzzy, feel-good
"equality"?
you're a joke, joe. I'm half-tempted to install a filter for you
because you're such a massive, time-wasting tool.
|8.24.08 @ 12:09AM|#
Adding government sanctions adds incentives to behave (over
and above the "market"). You believe in the power of incentives I
should think, right?
Alright, having successfully filtered joe, I'll move on to more
substantial posters.
MNG - the problem is that you're not "adding" incentives;
regulations aren't "incentivizing" anything, they have to be
complied with in order to do business. If you want to ratchet up
the criminal penalties or make a move to eliminate any kind of
limits to the penalty phase in a tort, I could see that.
But regulations aren't "incentives"; incentives are why you do a
behavior. Regulations are pre-reqs for doing that behavior.
Anti-Globalism|8.24.08 @ 1:15AM|#
Give it up, dude. This is a guy who accused me of fallacious
logic for attacking his vaguely warmed-over social darwinist
presumption that laws protect only "the weak" (whatever the hell
that means).
And he calls himself anti-Globalist and is going to "buy China
stocks LOL". A few straws short of a swamp, I guess.
If you can't attack the argument... attack the messenger!
dpsc|8.24.08 @ 4:05AM|#
Nick (a teen his father thought up while shaving) says: "You can
be progressive and communitarian without being
pro-government"
Possibly true in theory (the communitarian part), though it's hard
to avoid being a bit of a tool in the process. When I lived in Park
Slope I went by the local co-op and was told that only co-op
members could shop there, and that you had to do co-op work to be a
member.
Now, I grew up in and around co-ops, and delivering produce to
co-ops, and the usual deal is that as a non-member you can shop,
but you pay more than members. There's a simple reason for that-
non-members wind up subsidizing members. This tends to work out
pretty well for everyone, particularly for people who are so poor
that their co-op work winds up "paying" more in discounts than
working would- you generally have to be pretty poor for this to be
the case.
I was trying to save about $10.00 by buying spices in bulk at the
Park Slope co-op, and maybe get at some marginally better produce
than the local stores had. I made over $100.00/hr at the time, and
was not interested in "communing" with the co-opers, so I was
excluded, and it harmed me not at all. But the people running it,
who mostly made a lot more than me, I guess, did turn down an
opportunity to subsidize food their nannies and housekeepers.
It turns out that you can get a few corporate lawyers to give
$500.00 worth of work to a co-op in order to save $15.00 on the
grocery bill (assuming Park Slope's co-op's prices are cheaper- I
don't know). But I think you're going to find it tricky to get most
people to go along with your ideals without some degree of
coercion, because they fly in the face of rational self-interest,
for most people.
Nick|8.24.08 @ 4:54AM|#
Co-ops are but one of many examples. So are soup kitchens,
homeless shelters, suicide crisis hotlines, all kinds of private
charities, etc. Of course, in this day in age many of these are
highly subsidized, which make people less likely to donate when
they assume tax dollars are already funding it. In Victorian
England, charity was a big deal because there was no government
involvement in solving these social problems.
More importantly, one can recognize that high taxation and
regulation hurts small businesses. Big business has little problem
implementing regulations because they have either the means to
implement them or the lawyers to get them out of them. Thus big
government hurts small business's ability to compete with big
business. This is an issue progressives should be concerned
about.
Also - assuming there needs to be a government to protect from
force and fraud, uphold rights, raise a military, and if you're
feeling really statist, provide basic education for the poor - a
classical liberal would support a progressive tax structure. The
importance of each dollar is more heavily weighted for someone with
less money, which is the reason why the flat tax still hurts the
poor proportionately more than the rich. 10% of the income of
someone making $18,000 a year has an enormous impact on that
person's level of subsistence, where 10% of $180,000 doesn't. Many
libertarians would argue that one's income should not be a factor
when determining tax rates, and that everyone should pay the same
percentage blind to that person's ability to pay.
The Left mostly fails because it doesn't understand economics or
how their policies hurt the poor and small business. Since they
expanded government control of the economy, corporations have grown
larger/more powerful and there is a correlation there. As a
progressive, I'd prefer to have "nation of shopkeepers" economy
like one existed before major government encroachment in every area
of our economy and our lives.
|8.24.08 @ 6:07AM|#
Biden ... will keep you distracted with his buffoonishness
while making you more comfortable with Obama's inexperience which
prevents you from looking too closely at his actual policies and
personality.
Sounds about right. Pretty shrewd, pfjo.
jk|8.24.08 @ 6:14AM|#
Even money that "Plagiarizing Joe" will lift something from someone in his speech at the Democratic Convention.
Elemenope|8.24.08 @ 7:23AM|#
If you can't attack the argument... attack the
messenger!
If there is no coherent message to speak of, sure.
|8.24.08 @ 8:56AM|#
Matt,
small quibble--i know you're throwing a bone to the folks who are
trying to keep John McWhorter solvent, but isn't "obama's
otherness,' to the extent that it exists, pretty much an insoluble
problem? I doubt that people who prioritize this 'Otherness' above
foreign policy experience (or as Terry Michael wrote above,
experience in starting boondoggles like Iraq) are going to care
that an east coast elite (barring multiple visits to dunk donuts)
increases the acceptable whiteness levels of the Obama ticket.
Warmongering Lunatic|8.24.08 @ 9:41AM|#
On social matters there is no "conservatism" in the rest of
the world.
Right. Nowhere but the USA has social conservatism. Outside of the
USA, only Europe exists, and no counterexamples exist in
Europe.
See, there's no such thing as social conservatism in, say, Ireland.
Sure, abortion is illegal, divorce has only been permitted for
thirteen years, and homosexual sex for fifteen. But there's no such
thing as social conservatism in Ireland. Or in, say, Poland, where
abortion is restricted to rape, incest, and life of the mother
restrictions, and divorce is quite hard to get. Nope, no social
conservatism in either Poland or Ireland, and since nowhere outside
of the USA and Poland exist, no social conservativism outside the
USA.
Nemo|8.24.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Rauch is just an idiot who is looking for the right politician's
dick to suck.
Have him and Moynihan hooked up yet?
|8.24.08 @ 9:57AM|#
I'll grant you Poland and Ireland. I was kind of talking about the Western developed world. Poland and Ireland are Europe's Mexico. And there's social conservatism in Mexico too!
|8.24.08 @ 10:09AM|#
TAO
Thanks for the intersting debate last nite. You articulated the
libertarian position well.
In case you check in today I think regulations do provide
incentives for behavior as there are civil and criminal fines for
noncompliance. That is how they work, the "regulation" is the
standard with which the regulated mus comply with or face a civil
or criminal punishment. As you recognized that criminal or tort
penalties act as incentives I think you'll have to agree with
this.
The FDA regs add an incentive to not put out unsafe food and drugs,
and incentive over and above the "killing your consumers is bad
business" incentive that I grant you is somewhat inherent in a
"mere" market. I say somewhat because of the practical difficulty
of consumers having the kind of information that would be necessary
for this incentive to work properly (I elaborated on this above).
Regulations help out here.
On another note, if you are so optimistic, what makes you so angry
;)?
Elemenope|8.24.08 @ 10:19AM|#
On another note, if you are so optimistic, what makes you so
angry ;)?
If you were an optimistic person, who had to live in this
world, wouldn't you be angry?
I'm pissed.
Fluffy|8.24.08 @ 1:15PM|#
The FDA regs add an incentive to not put out unsafe food and
drugs, and incentive over and above the "killing your consumers is
bad business" incentive that I grant you is somewhat inherent in a
"mere" market.
I have to take issue with this, because it's the common way of
expressing what the FDA and what other government regulations do,
and it's utterly false.
The regulations don't make it illegal to sell unsafe drugs. They
make it illegal to sell drugs not approved by the FDA. This
illegality is applied equally to safe and unsafe drugs. I could
have the literal cure for cancer, it could have no side effects,
and it could be the safest drug ever made, and it would be illegal
for me to sell it if I did not first seek FDA approval.
Any law which makes it equally illegal to sell an actual cure for
cancer, and poison, is evil. Pure and simple.
Our laws are replete with injustices of this kind. If your broke
your leg and I set it, I would have committed a crime even if I set
it absolutely correctly. If you were hungry and I sold you a
sandwich, I would have committed a crime even if the sandwich were
100% safe and tasty to boot. If you need a haircut and I give you
one, I have committed a crime even if you like the haircut and I
don't accidentally cut off your head. Etcetera.
Fluffy|8.24.08 @ 1:21PM|#
When you tell me a principled, uniquely-libertarian case for
why this set-up is wrong and should be resisted in the political
realm.
Joe, this is pretty weak.
A title of nobility without any concrete privilege granted by the
state is about as meaningful as those dumbasses who pay to put
themselves in "Who's Who".
If people want to have a giant circle jerk and start calling
themselves Emperor of Brighton and Earl of Jamaica Plain, I
honestly don't give a shit. There's no libertarian case for why
such circle jerkery would be wrong. It's like asking for a
libertarian case for why people shouldn't be allowed to play
Dungeons and Dragons and call themselves warriors and druids and
other nonsense.
BakedPenguin|8.24.08 @ 1:30PM|#
If you talk like Sam Adams or Thomas Jefferson about what the good society (society, not government) looks like, libertarians call you a socialist.
I've mentioned on a few occasions the need for a positive vision of
a libertarian society. Non-libertarians hear that we want to get
rid of a lot of government agencies, and they assume that the only
changes that would happen is that the services provided would then
be missing. They only see what would be lost.
As Nick pointed out, a (more) libertarian society would have a much
greater place for voluntary mutual assistance, with an increasing
role for NGO's and charities. As with businesses, the fact that
there would be many of these organizations would mean that would be
a lot more ideas tried out than the one-size-fits-all government
standard.
I suspect this is at the root of a lot of the "libruhtarianz want
poor peeples not to have ___."
|8.24.08 @ 1:38PM|#
fluffy
The regulations provide a standard which the product must meet and
there is a process wherein products are tested to see if they meet
that standard. That does not strike me as an injustice.
The alternative is buyer beware and as I noted upthread in a world
where the information needed to navigate that kind of thing is
simply not available or processable by folks this would lead to a
much higher level of "injustices", such as someone selling you a
sandwich that kills, cuts your ear ear off along with your hair,
and legs set so that you become a lifelong cripple.
I realize you think that in this world you would somehow
superhumanly know the history of every producer of every product
you consume and thus could safely procure what you needed without
exposing yourself to harm (or just plain fraud). Of course how you
would protect yourself from those who have no established and
traced history of malfeasance is beyond even my imagination, and
how such a "record" people could use to navigate the jungle that
would be libertopia would come into being (some quasi consumers
report agency for everything? Laughable) is an interesting
question.
I realize that's how many libertarians think. It's quite funny but
thankfully not quite as dangerous as it could be seeing as how most
people see how absurd it is.
|8.24.08 @ 1:47PM|#
"I suspect this is at the root of a lot of the "libruhtarianz
want poor peeples not to have ___.""
Actually Baked many libertarians on H&R will, after enough
debate, quite plainly admit that in libertopia many people will be
worse of (they think some will of course be better off). As fluffy
said the other day libertopia would mean some people, i.e. the
"more resourceful" would do better while others, less resourceful
or bright, would do worse.
Of course, these people tend to think they will not be in the
latter group.
Recently we had the case here of a lady who worked for Wal-mart who
was injured. She collected some insurance from Wal-mart and then
when she won a settlement against her injurer Wal-mart invoked a
clause in her contract that made her pay back the amount of the
benefits she recieved, putting her in bad straights. Many here on
H&R defended the situation using one of the more commonly heard
arguments made here: she should have been smarter when she signed
the contract. That may of course be, but she is certainly going to
be bad off now. That would happen over and over in libertopia, with
people shaking their heads and saying "they should have been
smarter when..." But let's not pretend that wouldn't happen quite a
bit...
BakedPenguin|8.24.08 @ 2:29PM|#
MNG - In the long run, most people would be better off. You are
right that some people would suffer. I don't think 1) there would
be as many as typically perceived, or 2) they would generally be as
bad off as sometimes claimed.
The point (made above, somewhere) about the government siphoning
off a lot of incipient charity is one that doesn't get as much
airplay as it should. People assume that big nanny is going to take
care of whatever, and they become apathetic and uninvolved in their
communities.
BDB|8.24.08 @ 2:34PM|#
I actually think theres a place for social welfare for truly catastrophic situations. But it should NOT be on the federal level. It should be handled at the local level.
|8.24.08 @ 3:01PM|#
MNG - you're a decent debater, but you should stop
prognosticating about what a "libertarian society" would
entail.
Removing the restraints on entrepreneurship and business would
permit greater class mobility (both ways, admittedly). As it is,
burdensome regulations and the monopoly of public schools keep the
poor poor and the wealthy, wealthy. There's no change because
government causes stagnation.
Mark|8.24.08 @ 4:34PM|#
"The blabbermouth Delaware senator is now one hope spasm +
bullet away from the White House. What does it all mean?"
It means you're a petty, disgusting, little man.
Fluffy|8.24.08 @ 5:35PM|#
The regulations provide a standard which the product must
meet and there is a process wherein products are tested to see if
they meet that standard. That does not strike me as an
injustice.
That's because you aren't listening.
If I had a miracle drug that was completely ineffective but which
for my own stubborn and ideological reasons I refused to submit to
the FDA, if I sold that drug I could be subjected to civil and
criminal penalties.
That means that at the moment the law is being enforced, I would be
being punished for selling people a drug that helped them. Period.
End of sentence. End of analysis. All of this stuff you want to
talk about - information disparity, market complexity, etc. - is
all very nice, but it is not relevant to the question of whether or
not it's just to punish me for selling a drug that helps
people.
"C'mon, man! You could just comply with the law and then sell your
drug!" is not a counterargument. No. I'm not complying. Just to be
a dick. By so doing I would be exposing the injustice at the root
of your law.
I realize you think that in this world you would somehow
superhumanly know the history of every producer of every product
you consume and thus could safely procure what you needed without
exposing yourself to harm (or just plain fraud).
How about this? Take food safety for example. Why not just make it
a crime to sell food that makes people sick?
The various systems of licensing we have don't actually do that.
They make it a crime to sell healthy food, if you don't have the
right permits. And it's not a crime to sell food that makes people
sick, if you do have the right permits.
That's the justice of your system for you right there. You claim to
want to protect people from food that will make them sick, but your
laws provide greater punishment for someone who sells healthy
and sound food [if he doesn't have the right permits] than it
does for someone who sells food that actually makes someone sick
[if he does have the right permits].
Fluffy|8.24.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Whoops.
That should read "...was completely effective..."
Kind of messes up that paragraph as bit.
|8.24.08 @ 5:58PM|#
TAO-I think you ignore how the government can be a leveling
agent (look at Scandinavian nations that have much less inequality
than we do largely due to progressive taxation and redistribution
policy). And on the other hand you might be ignoring that in a
minimalist government society the rich can protect their wealth
through their advantage in bargaining power just fine, if not
better than they do now.
fluffy
We had the system you speak of, tort law. It did not seem to work
very well and the public clamored for regulation. It did not work
well perhaps because it is reactive (only kicks in after the harm
to be avoided is incurred) and information is imprefect (who or
what made you sick?). Strict liability in tort was developed
because of rather obvious defeciencies in standard negligence
claims regarding product safety, kind of a mid point in the journey
from traditional tort to positive regulation.
|8.24.08 @ 6:42PM|#
TAO-I think you ignore how the government can be a leveling
agent (look at Scandinavian nations that have much less inequality
than we do largely due to progressive taxation and redistribution
policy).
I want that ignored because the "leveling" of which you so
euphemistically speak is taking earned wealth and giving it as
unearned charity. There's virtue in giving if you want to give;
there's no virtue in a society that forces us to do it.
|8.24.08 @ 7:10PM|#
do you really read this bilge all the way down? Like, 145 comments? T thought not
|8.25.08 @ 4:23AM|#
a classical liberal would support a progressive tax
structure.
Nope. A classical liberal would be appalled at the idea of an
income tax.
We overthrew the king over a 2% excise. If the crown had tried to
tax the colonists at anything like the levels we tolerate today,
every officer of the crown would have been drawn and
quartered.
-jcr
|8.25.08 @ 8:24AM|#
"slave state that fought beside the North. That's only because
we couldn't figure out how to get to the South. There were a couple
of states in the way." - Joe Biden
Nice.
Fluffy|8.25.08 @ 9:52AM|#
Strict liability in tort was developed because of rather
obvious defeciencies in standard negligence claims regarding
product safety, kind of a mid point in the journey from traditional
tort to positive regulation.
I don't think they were obvious, and I think this development
twisted and warped our civil courts, and turned them into a lottery
in both the Lotto sense and the Shirley Jackson sense.
And we've actually come full circle here, because down in the
calorie counting thread there are posters asserting that we need
regulation because in the absence of regulation there would be too
many frivolous civil suits.
So we have a broken liability system that has debauched our civil
court system, and regulations that purport to "fix" dissatisfaction
with our court system [from both plaintiffs and defendants] by
brutally and unjustly criminalizing benign behavior.
Great. Just great.
|8.25.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Here is what Biden asked Clarance Thomas during Thomas's
nomination:
"Are you now or have you ever been a libertarian?"
At least that is what Cato tells me.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/24/joe-biden-and-limited-government/
|8.25.08 @ 2:00PM|#
"""Interestingly, one of Biden's other kids is a registered
lobbyist. (and was nominated for a government job by the current
president!)"""
Then the republicans should love him! ;-)
Since when do republicans view a lobbyists as a bad thing.
Nick|8.25.08 @ 9:34PM|#
Me: "a classical liberal would support a progressive tax
structure."
John C. Randolph: "Nope. A classical liberal would be appalled at
the idea of an income tax"
I don't think I ever advocated for an income tax, although if we're
going to have one, it should definitely be progressive. The tax
system the founding fathers implemented (tariffs) wasn't the best
system either. Actually, I'd prefer a (minimal) land value
tax-based system with exemptions for small, low value land over any
other system - 1.) it's progressive (the poor don't usually own
land, and the minimal amount they rent or own would have low
taxes), 2.) it corrects inefficiencies in land speculation by
forcing land owners to either productively develop or return land
to a fallow state, 3.) it taxes something that tends to appreciate
in value through zero labor input, and 4.) most of the valid
functions of government at least have a connection with defense of
land.
I'm not sure that I agree with the idea of land ownership, because
it's almost always a zero sum game. When I own valuable land,
that's less valuable land for everyone else in society. The more
high value land one owns, the higher the ratio of government
defense required in say, a completely theoretical invasion where
every area of the country was attacked equally. The high-value land
under McCain's eight and a half houses require proportionately more
police and fire protection and more legal protection than my duplex
does. Thus, I consider such taxes to be equitable. And unlike sales
taxes, they aren't regressive.
I don't hold rigidly to this system, but I think it's preferable to
an income tax. I know there are a bunch of holes in it. There's no
good and fair tax systems. But MANY classical liberals, from Thomas
Paine to Adam Smith to Henry George to Alexander Hamilton to Milton
Friedman said it was the best system. Go research for yourself.
Nick|8.25.08 @ 9:36PM|#
"I actually think theres a place for social welfare for truly
catastrophic situations. But it should NOT be on the federal level.
It should be handled at the local level."
I agree with you BDB. I'm definitely not a radical libertarian, and
I don't buy the libertarian notion that government is the primary
evil - there are all kinds of actors in society who initiate force
or fraud besides the government. On a local level, there is a lot
of leeway as to what a government can do because they aren't bound
to any sort of Constitutional limits of power. I consider myself
more of a localist, where local governments and their citizens can
decide which services they want or don't want, and then have to pay
for it themselves. If you don't like the taxes, politicians,
programs, regulations, etc. of your local government, moving to a
new city is a viable option. Moving to a new country if you don't
like federal policies, however, is NOT a very viable option. If
local governments were able to compete with each other and
implement the whole spectrum of programs, with some cities choosing
socialism, some extreme deregulation, and many in the middle, they
can compare and contrast what works best based upon experience, and
the better solutions will catch fire in other cities while the bad
ones will fall out of favor. It works exactly like school choice.
Personally I believe libertarian ideas will win out in the end
because of the laws of economics, but I don't believe there's
anything necessarily wrong with a local government establishing a
taxpayer-funded hospital or a public school, as long as they don't
expect people on the other side of the country to pay for it and as
long as people on the other side of the country don't pretend they
can manage it. Communities determining the best solutions to their
own problems is preferable to politicians thousands of miles away
doing so.
Sean W. Malone|8.27.08 @ 5:33AM|#
Nick:
"there are all kinds of actors in society who initiate force or
fraud besides the government."
True - but only government gets to do those things with the
sanction of "the people". Criminals in civil society generally get
punished, jailed and forced to provide recompense to their victims.
Criminals (or more broadly, initiators of force & coercion) in
government generally get airports named after them.
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