The week in brief...
- Blackwater USA went on trial before the House Committee on Oversight and Government reform and came off looking like vaudeville villains. Rep. Darrell Issa looked worse.
- Larry Craig lost an appeal in his cruising sting case but refused to quit the Senate. Newsweek talked to your friend and mine Gov. Butch Otter (R-Idaho).
- Barack Obama told a reporter in Iowa that he started wearing a flag pin after 9/11 but took it off when he thought it was a "substitute for true patriotism," kickstarting the stupidest kerfuffle of this campaign—possibly of any campaign, ever. Melissa Underwood got comment from the rest of the '08 campaigns and discovered that none of the other candidates cared much about pins.
The big issues...
Five by Five. Four years ago George W. Bush released his fundraising numbers for the third FEC quarter: $49.5 million. This week the top four Republicans released their numbers:
Rudy Giuliani - $11 million
Mitt Romney - $10 million
Fred Thompson - $9.3 million
John McCain - $6 million
That's a combined $36.3 million from the party that holds the White House, compared to $59.2 million from the top four Democrats. This was the stage for Ron Paul's shocking $5.1 million fundraising haul, which included a $500,000 online money drive in the last week of September that ended up raising $1.2 million—shades of Howard Dean. Media phenom Mike Huckabee failed to capitalize on his Ames Straw Poll surprise, so like Bob Hoskins in the cab at the end of The Long Good Friday, Republicans are slowly coming to accept their fate: Paul will be their outsider candidate. After Iowa, he'll be the only second-tier candidate with the cash to keep competing and appearing at debates. They won't shake him at least until March, when he has to decide whether to seek another term as a congressman from Texas. Yes, other marginalized candidates have battled on long after the rest of their tiers dropped out (think Keyes), but never in a field as fractured as this one.
Hillary's Surge, and Obama's. Everybody saw the Washington Post poll giving Hillary Clinton a 33-point primary lead. Drudge led with it for about 12 hours. The voice-of-God spin came from Clinton backer Rep. Tom Petri (D-Wisc.): "It's all over but the voting." That's a nice way of putting it as voting is a sort of integral part of the primary process. And on that score, Obama's actually... in a pretty good position. Look at Pollster.com's summary of the polls in Iowa. Since the start of the year he's risen from the low teens to the low twenties. Hillary's risen in tandem—a little less growth, but with a higher starting point. Both candidates are taking from the pathetic John Edwards (whose biggest headlines this week came when his wife picked a fight with Rush Limbaugh). Now, if it's caucus night and Edwards' campaign is tracking the numbers and figures it's not going to win, who does it tell its supporters in the smaller caucuses to go over to? It's not like Edwards has never thought about this: In 2004, he entered a pact with Dennis Kucinich to share caucus support if one of them faltered.
If Obama passes Hillary in Iowa and wins the caucus, as seems completely possible, the national polling leads won't mean as much. But they won't mean nothing. The most important factoids from the Post poll are her strengthening numbers among Democrats who want an "electable" candidate and the declining number of Americans who'd "never" vote for her. (I should probably add that I share Ana Marie Cox's bias: These "Hillary the unstoppable Godzilla-like frontrunner" stories are dull.)
Below the fold...
- Townhall.com's Matt Lewis talks with the Paul campaign and finds it raised 70 percent of its cash online.
- Jay Roberts takes a scenic ramble about the digital quarters of Ron Paul nation.
- Deanna Darr checks in with Larry Craig's long-time allies. Many of them are sticking with him.
- This isn't news, but unless you're especially tidy you probably have stuff in your freezer that's acquired higher sentience than John Gibson.
- Matt Continetti catches John McCain recycling a seven-year old joke about Alan Greenspan.
- Steve Moore laments the fading salience of tax cuts with voters.
- David Brooks bemoans the GOP's retreat from Burkean conservatism. I like this Brooks better than the one who wrote "The Collapse of the Dream Palaces."
The Friday Political Thread: The Week Everything Changed Edition
Comments to "The Friday Political Thread: The Week Everything Changed Edition":
Adam W. | October 5, 2007, 9:59pm | #
Issa's a fucking moron.Pedantic Copy-Editor | October 5, 2007, 10:23pm | #
Y'know, if you write "Below the fold" you're supposed to put the rest in the permalinked post, not tack it onto the front page.SIV | October 5, 2007, 10:30pm | #
Obama has worked hard to stake out a centrist position, but his polarizing comments make him sound like a hardened leftistHe is toast.
Anecdote:I know a few people(co-workers) who are centrist/independents(ie voted for Clinton AND Bush).They kind of like Giuliani,don't like Hillary,but were intrigued enough with Obama to actually attend a campaign event/rally.They came away impressed.Inside of two weeks,he pulls this gaffe, totally and completely losing them. We live in an open primary State where you can pick your Party at the poll,regardless of your registration.
Fluffy | October 5, 2007, 11:09pm | #
Obama's "gaffe" was that he resisted the dictatorship of kitsch.Truly, the loathsome nature of the material culture of so-called patriotic Americans is heinous enough that a biblical-scale flood to wash the detritus away would actually be welcome at this point. Please, put the flag pins and the Franklin Mint crap and the ceramic figurines and the magnetic yellow ribbons and the frilly roadside memorials and all the rest of it and put it all somewhere where the kitsch-sensitive among us don't have to see it. Please, I'm asking nicely.
sixstring | October 5, 2007, 11:14pm | #
Critical Paul article here:http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul%27s+isolationism%3a+Unrealistic+and+dangerous&articleId=337db256-d684-4098-a896-7bc5fe6123b2
What was that? First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you? Looks like phase 3 has commenced. Dr. Paul rebutts on Monday.
Franklin Harris | October 5, 2007, 11:21pm | #
Why the hell did I click on that John Gibson link? Now I feel dumber for just having read it. Seriously, Gibson may be the dumbest person at Fox News, and lord knows he has competition.Clicked the Gibson link. Can I get a show of hands? How many of you are 9/11 "truthers?"
Look, it's just us here. We can all admit that Ron Paul is a Truther and our denials are just until he gets into office. It's OK, we're the only ones who'll read this.
Edward | October 6, 2007, 1:14am | #
"Townhall.com's Matt Lewis talks with the Paul campaign and finds it raised 70 percent of its cash online."This is easy to explain. Wingnuts from 9/11 truthers to David Duke supporters are inveterate internet masturbaters who fork over money in small donations to hopeless campaigns as a kind of ritual canine-like marking of territory. It is truly a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Jackson | October 6, 2007, 1:23am | #
Wingnuts from 9/11 truthers to David Duke supporters are inveterate internet masturbaters who fork over money in small donations to hopeless campaigns as a kind of ritual canine-like marking of territory.Ah, but you add so much substance to discussion, Edward.
BakedPenguin | October 6, 2007, 1:30am | #
sixstring, the Manchester Union Leader is a Pat Buchanan-esque paleo-con paper. Its editorial positions are given the same cred as the average Roswell conspiracy newsletter. Or Lonewacko. Hey, Lonewacko, look behind ya! It's a Mexi! Go git 'im!
Speaking of which, HTF does an oxygen theif like John Gibson get a gig like that? I thought the comments about his stupidity were being somewhat hyperbolic, but damn, it's like Edward with an editor.
Edward | October 6, 2007, 1:32am | #
Thanks, Jackson. I try to get to the heart of matters. Outside libertarian circles, Ron Paul will be a soon-forgotten footnote to this election. That's very good because wignuts come to power only in times of severe crisis.Franklin Harris | October 6, 2007, 1:33am | #
It is truly a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.I notice you left off the part of the quote about it being a tale told by an idiot. But then, you are the one telling it.
stephen the goldberger | October 6, 2007, 1:52am | #
obama is not in a good position the only people who think he is are political commentators who want things to look more interesting than it really is.stephen the goldberger | October 6, 2007, 2:04am | #
i dont know why i posted that given that you admit that that's the case in your own post. probably because im drunk.Paul | October 6, 2007, 3:08am | #
What was that? First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you? Looks like phase 3 has commenced.And I love Ron Paul, really, I do. But I still stand by my assertion that once the mainstream media gets ahold of him, he's toast. It looks like it's coming.
Inveterate Internet Masturbater | October 6, 2007, 6:33am | #
I've contributed to the Paul campaign and will vote for him if he is still in the running by the time of my state's primary. I don't think he'll win the nomination and if by some fluke he does, he won't win the election.But the only way to shake up our ossified political system is to put real muscle of votes and money behind outsiders like him. Then the major parties, who are always desperate for those precious swing votes, will make some effort to win pro-constitution/limited government types.
tarran | October 6, 2007, 9:19am | #
Guys, remember that Ron-Paul-obsessed occasional poster named Edward - the guy who kept claiming that Ron Paul is irrelevant yet seemed terrified of him?I know that he doesn't post here anymore, and that the only posts with "Edward" in the name were typed by imposters trying to amuse us.
I'll bet he's real mad now, kind of like a cult member who wakes up the day after he told all his acquaintances that the world was going to end or Eric Dondero after his latest predictions of American victory in Iraq turn to ashes for the nth time.
I'm sure that if he were to post here, it would be comic gold.
Grand Chalupa | October 6, 2007, 9:22am | #
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/gems/culturalagency1/SamuelHuntingtonTheHispanicC.pdfWon't someone think of the guy in China who owns the American flag lapel pin factory? What's he going to do if we all stop wearing them?
Lost_In_Translation | October 6, 2007, 10:03am | #
Update:Eric Dondero still missing, presumed alive yet depressed.
J sub D | October 6, 2007, 10:20am | #
Please, put the flag pins and the Franklin Mint crap and the ceramic figurines and the magnetic yellow ribbons and the frilly roadside memorials and all the rest of it and put it all somewhere where the kitsch-sensitive among us don't have to see it. Please, I'm asking nicely.Fluffy's asking nicely, (with a handle like Fluffy, you'd expect that). I'm warning y'all. This sanctimonious crap cluttering up my field of vision has got to go. One way or another...
Max | October 6, 2007, 10:23am | #
But I still stand by my assertion that once the mainstream media gets ahold of him, he's toast.On the contrary, I think we can expect much more respectful media coverage (except perhaps from the Murdoch press).
What could the media possibly say that would make him "toast", anyway? His most controversial positions are front and center in the compaign. He's not trying to hide anything.
I deal with such a massive amount of stupidity in daily life, you'd think I would try to avoid it on the weekends. But NOOOO!, I foolishly visit a web site provided by our resident cultural chicken little, Grand Chalupa. A piece of advice to those with IQs above room temperature, don't repeat my mistake. You've been warned!
Bob Z | October 6, 2007, 10:40am | #
Off topic - I just flipped to the Opinion page of today's WSJ and what do I see - CSI: Mississippi by none other than Radley Balko, a shortened version of his article about the truly contemptible Steven Hayne from this month's Reason.The Reason article made my blood boil, but it also saddened me, because, like it or not, publishing an article like that in Reason is the very definition of preaching to the choir. Publishing it in the WSJ is an entirely different story. Hopefully this will get Gov. Barbour to pay a little less attention to his beach house and a little more attenton to the gross injustice that is being perpetrated in his state's courtrooms.
Radley, you are truly a great American. Keep putting the word out there and people are bound to start listening.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 10:43am | #
Funny, Sam Huntington completely changed his mind about Mexico within the space of a decade. In the "Clash of Civilizations" he said the gap in culture between the USA and Mexico really wasn't that big, and that Mexico was actually becoming more "North American".Looks like he wants to appeal to the Lonewacko/Pat Buchannan set
I'd be really impressed if Chalupa managed to post about something that didn't relate to racial politics or how "Islamofascists" will eat our babies.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 6, 2007, 11:05am | #
I liked the Hunnington post. I guess I'm one of those folks who is a "cultural chicken little." I think of it as one of those folks for whom culture matters. You know, like sociologists, anthroplogists, and increasingly economists, .i.e., like Nobel Prize winnder Douglas North,http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1993/north-autobio.html
Cesar, when I read Clash of Civilizations I seem to remember the opening chapter using Mexican-American cheering for the Mexican team at a US soccer match as one of his opening examples. So I think he had concerns from the start.
Of course they'd cheer for the Mexican team. The US sucks at soccer, IIRC they're near the bottom of the world.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 6, 2007, 11:09am | #
It would at least behoove folks who disagreed with Hunnington's article to address it's aarguments rather than assert his arguments are stupid and equating him with Pat Buchanan.iih | October 6, 2007, 11:09am | #
Funny, Sam Huntington completely changed his mind about Mexico within the space of a decade. In the "Clash of Civilizations" he said the gap in culture between the USA and Mexico really wasn't that big, and that Mexico was actually becoming more "North American".With the fight against Islam/Islamic culture already in the basket, he's moving on to the next thing. After that, he'll fight Canadian influence on American "heritage" (which I thought had to do with some sort of a melting pot). After the Canadians, he will start to look inside and try to figure out how to "cleanse" the American heritage from the Democratic Party influence and their constituents, and then... you could start seeing where this is going.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 11:11am | #
I could respect Huntington more if he said we were a western nation. Or even though I wouldn't agree with it, a Christian one.But hes actually one of those few guys left that actually thinks we are a Protestant Anglo-Saxon nation. I've got news for him but WASPs haven't been in the majority since 1787.
J sub D | October 6, 2007, 11:12am | #
Grand Chalupa,If you would like to commune with those who have similar views as yourself, I strongly recommend you visit:
http://www.kkk.com/
or
http://www.americannaziparty.com/
And stay there!
With no regards,
A non-english, atheistic descendent of undesired popish immigrants,
J sub D
Mr. Nice Guy | October 6, 2007, 11:13am | #
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/clashofcivilizations.htmCesar-paragraph four addresses Mexican immigration, the soccer story is later in the book
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 11:16am | #
MNG, I'm curious do you agree with him that we are in his words a White-Protestant Anglo-Saxon country?I think its a load of bull, and the fact that he repeats the stupid post-civil war meme that America was "really" started by Puritan New Englanders. Which isn't true at all, but I digress.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 6, 2007, 11:16am | #
J sub D-I've disagreed with Chalupa for what I thought were racist comments about Arabs, but are you claiming that those who agree with Hunnington are Nazi's and Klansmen? If so I think that is nuts, like saying since you are a libtertarian you must be a anarchist suvivalist gun nut who prints his own money...Cesar-I read Hunnington as claiming that are unique institutions are derived from Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture. I think he's right about that, isn't he?
Mr. Nice Guy | October 6, 2007, 11:19am | #
Cesar-Look at our legal system. Do you know of any common law nation that was NOT a former English colony? And certainly the majority of the Founders were Protestant Englishmen.Also, that Protestantism was associated with market economies is no radically unheard of idea, it goes back to Max Weber and the Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 11:19am | #
Cesar-I read Hunnington as claiming that are unique institutions are derived from Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture. I think he's right about that, isn't he?The corollary to that is all those Catholics and Jews aren't really Americans and haven't contributed anything to our institutions.
Well, except for those enlightenment philosophers who were from Papist France.
Seriously, this guy is a paleo-paleo conservative. Most paleocons want to go back to the 1950s, this guy wants to go back to the 1840s.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 11:21am | #
Cesar-Look at our legal system. Do you know of any common law nation that was NOT a former English colony? And certainly the majority of the Founders were Protestant Englishmen.The most "American" colonies were actually the Middle Colonies, which were not prodominatley English. Have you read The Island at the Center of the World?
Our government has a lot of French ideas in it, too. As in, Catholic French. Who aren't even Anglo-Saxon.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 6, 2007, 11:25am | #
"The most "American" colonies were actually the Middle Colonies, which were not prodominatley English."What? I'm gonna have to see some proof of that.
Of the signers of the Declaration, how many were Protestant Englishmen versus Catholic Frenchmen or Jews? The members of the Constitutional Convention?
Again, which colonies, and then states, other than LA did not have common law legal systems inheriting the very unique system of law and legal reasoning and rights that came from England?
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 11:31am | #
Uh, MNG, New York was founded by the Dutch. I have you a book to read about it.Pennsylvania was founded by Englishmen, but settled almost entirely by Germans, among others.There were enough Germans for Benjamin Franklin to right a pamphlet stating that we would be "Germanized" by them.
There were writings from the time that said if you walked down a street in Philadelphia in the 1700s you could here people speaking in dozens of languages.
And guess where the first bi-lingual school in America was? It was Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 11:33am | #
Of the signers of the Declaration, how many were Protestant Englishmen versus Catholic Frenchmen or Jews? The members of the Constitutional Convention?
So what? The founders explicitly rejected the idea the Enlightenment ideas which they based our system on derived from English liberties. Their language was explicit about the rights of all man-kind.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 6, 2007, 11:34am | #
The first Catholic appointed to the Supreme Court was in 1836, the second in 1894. The first Jewish justice was Brandeis in 1916. The first Catholic President was not until 1960, and no Jew has served as President.I won't argue that many Jews and Catholics have contributed their time, intelligence, and ideas to our nations history. But our institutions are simply not Catholic, Jewish, French or German, etc.. They are, like Australia, Canada, and other former English colonies, English and Protestant...
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 11:36am | #
I won't argue that many Jews and Catholics have contributed their time, intelligence, and ideas to our nations history. But our institutions are simply not Catholic, Jewish, French or German, etc.. They are, like Australia, Canada, and other former English colonies, English and Protestant...No, our system is based on the universal ideals of the Enlightenment. If we're so English why don't we have a King and Parliament? Why? Because Madison got his ideas for the structure of our government (separation of powers, etc) from a Catholic Frenchman.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 6, 2007, 11:37am | #
Of course NY was a dutch colony (Florida was a SPanish one, and LA a French one). But they soon became English ones, with English law, and the populations of English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh growing greater than the Germans/Dutch populations (the very fact you mention, that Franklin feared "Germanization" implies English was the norm for him, a norm threatened yes, but the norm).iih | October 6, 2007, 11:37am | #
You know what, I think that if I had lived in 1790, or 1840 USA, I would have had a more enjoyable life being left alone and not having to hear all the racist talk and racism related tensions that the public discourse is so filled with these days.It is interesting to note that Arab immigration to the US came in the late 19th century. Vermont/New Hampshire seems to have been one of the earliest destinations, followed by South Estern Michigan.
Can any one guess where the first US was? I was surprised.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 11:39am | #
the very fact you mention, that Franklin feared "Germanization" implies English was the norm for him, a norm threatened yes, but the norm).To his credit that pamphlet was from early in his career, and he changed his mind about the Germans later on, even helped to fund the school I mentioned which bears his name.
iih | October 6, 2007, 11:39am | #
J sub D:Popish - Roman Catholic.
Oh, sorry, didn't know that. I know there is also a sizable Polish American community in South East Michigan.
The Dutch and Germans didn't become English. The Germans, Dutch, English and everyone else became American.
Edward | October 6, 2007, 11:41am | #
Re David brook's piece on Burkian conservatism, here's an interesting take on libertarianism --marixism of the right: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.htmlMr. Nice Guy | October 6, 2007, 11:41am | #
Indeed the Founders read Montesquie and the Enlightenment thinkers, as well as "enlightened" Englishmen such as Blackstone, Locke, Hume, Coke, etc.. But the institutions they drew on were English ones. The French Enlightenment ideas had not been translated into governmental institutions in Catholic France, not until they emulated our Revolution with theirs.Most of the Bill of Rights can be found in the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and the Common Law at the time. American courts adopted English common law nearly entirely.
iih | October 6, 2007, 11:43am | #
Weren't many Michigan cities and towns German speaking until the 1940s? I remember reading a statistic somewhere saying that 70-80% of Michiganders were German, followed by Dutch (on the West Michigan coast) and French (South East).MNG if our institutions were English I'd expect we would have a King, Parliament, a hereditary nobility, a Prime Minister, a unitary government and an un-written constitution.
J sub D | October 6, 2007, 11:47am | #
MNG,Mr Chalupa's posts are often screeds about the immigrant and/or muslim threat. The sites I referred him to have similar concerns about the brown skinned and non protestant religions. My ancestors went through this same ignorant tribal bullshit, deliverd in the same smug, condescending tones, about non assimilation, loyaty to foreign potentates, culteral values etc. Yet somehow, the waves of German, Irish, Italian, Eastern Europeans and Oriental immigration has improved American culture. We are a much stronger nation, morally, intellectually, and culturally as a result. Yes chicken little is a mocking term. It also fits. Lastly, if it looks like a duck ...
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 11:52am | #
There was plenty of anti-immigrant sentiment in the 1800s.That cartoon cracks me up because apparently American culture is threatened by Lager Beer.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 6, 2007, 11:52am | #
Well, of course we are not England, just a former English colony. From the beginning we had to adapt to different circumstances and then had an actual rebellion, so we adapted different institutions. But nearly all of the Founders were English speaking, Protestant church going, common law following, Locke/Blackstone reading Anglo-Saxons. Our system of limited government (incorporating rights long seen as the "rights of Englishmen"), representative government and common law precedent and reasoning were certainly not practiced in Catholic, French or Jewish nations at the time.The Founders read Montesquie, yes, but also Greek and Roman writers a lot, but our institutions are more English than Greek for goodness sakes!
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 11:57am | #
Church-going? Is that why Jefferson was accused of being an atheist all the time? Is that why Washington left Church before communion?They had range of religious beliefs. Fundamentalist evangelicals (Benjamin Rush, Unitarians (Adams) fallen-away Episcopalians (Washington) to Deists (Jefferson).
Oh, and why isn't the Episcopal Church our national religion? Its pretty damn small, even though its the most "English" religion.
We are very different form Canada or Australia. Demographically, religiously, politically, culturally.
iih | October 6, 2007, 12:02pm | #
Duh...Can any one guess where the first US mosque was? I was surprised.
Forgive me, but it was a long, tough week.
Mr. Nice Guy | October 6, 2007, 12:04pm | #
I immediately thought I should change Church going to Church affiliated. I'm not arguing they were orthodox or homogenous Protestants by no means (I love the Deist traditions we had), but they were Protestants (even the nominal ones were nominal Protestants, not nominal Catholics). Certainly you admit that?If you compare Canada to Russia, Brazil, China and the US, who are they more like? Of course they are different, but they are more like each other than like nations with Orthodox or Spanish or Asian cultures. That's why people can talk not just of Western Culture but Anglo-Saxon cultures such as former British colonies.
Perhaps you can tell us what institutions we adopted in our Founding that were institutions being practiced in France or other for that matter predominately Catholic nations like Spain or Portugal?
Mr. Nice Guy | October 6, 2007, 12:11pm | #
J sub DYes, many people opposed to immigration, both in 1880 and now, are racists. But of course many "libertarians" in the past, and now, were social darwinists and racist, but it would be crazy to conflate the two whenever one came across a principled libertarian position. So maybe it's not right to dismiss all immigration opponents as racists.
SIV | October 6, 2007, 12:12pm | #
Cesar,Benjamin Rush a fundamentalist Evangelical?
wiki disclaimer
He is generally deemed Presbyterian and was a founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society.[6] He was an advocate for Christianity in public life and in particular in education. In line with that, he advocated Scriptures as a textbook in the public schools.[7]
That stated, he may have had Universalist leanings, as the following quote on education seems to imply.[8] It states, "Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mahomed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place, is that of the New Testament.
J sub D | October 6, 2007, 12:14pm | #
Oh, sorry, didn't know that. I know there is also a sizable Polish American community in South East MichiganNo apology necessary. And hell yes we have a large Polish flavor in SE Michigan. Hantranck is gloriously Polish. Where would America be without kiebasa, paczki, and this guy! Guess what MNG, he wasn't English or protestant. Imagine that!
Grand Chalupa | October 6, 2007, 12:14pm | #
With no regards,A non-english, atheistic descendent of undesired popish immigrants,
J sub D
My friend, you are arguing with a second generation, Arab, raised Catholic, atheist.
I usually don't feel the need to mention that since I thought making your argument stronger by designating yourself as a member of a victim group only worked when arguing with far leftists.
iih | October 6, 2007, 12:19pm | #
I think that immigration (in large numbers) is a modern phenomenon, brought about by globalization (especially the "globality" of media), ease of travel, and demand by Western nations to have an edge, by attracting promising minds. Also, socia-economic pressures in poorer countries tends to force their populations to immigrate to the "West". As far as I can tell, anti-immigration folks are not very pragmatic in their approach.This is one of the reasons I think it would be great for Western corporations to invest in the poorer countries. May be this is one of the good consequences of "outsourcing" --it may help relieve the immigration (especially illegal) pressures.
J sub D | October 6, 2007, 12:19pm | #
Is that why Jefferson was accused of being an atheist all the time?Jefferson was accused of being an atheist because he was one. Read his letters to Adams sometime.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 12:28pm | #
Jefferson was accused of being an atheist because he was one. Read his letters to Adams sometime.
Rhetorical question. Though I always thought he was more of a cold Deist. But again, it was hard to admit you didn't believe in any God openly back then.
SIV-
Perhaps I chose the wrong wording, but Rush was certainly a devout Christian, much more than most of the founders.
MNG-
Nobody in the world in the 1780s was practicing Enlightenment ideas in their governments. Not Spain, not Portugal, Not France, and not even England. Theres a reason why they rejected the English system--they saw it as broken, corrupt, and immoral. I think our models are much closer to say, the Roman Republic than England.
J sub D | October 6, 2007, 12:29pm | #
My friend, you are arguing with a second generation, Arab, raised Catholic, atheisThen you should know better. ;-)
Peace,
J sun D
P.S. I'm not a victim, never have been, but I sympathize with those who are.
Is it my ISP or have the server squirrels snuck back into the reason complex? Anyone?
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 12:37pm | #
Heres a funny question for iih and Chalupa since you're both Arabs.Are you often mistaken for being Latino?
iih | October 6, 2007, 12:38pm | #
Well, Cesar, Chalupa is not quite that "Arab". He managed to escape their low IQ performance.J sub D: I, too, thought it was my ISP. But I think it is the reason complex.
Daniel McAdams | October 6, 2007, 12:39pm | #
To: BakedPenguin"the Manchester Union Leader is a Pat Buchanan-esque paleo-con paper."
You are so 1996!
The Union Leader's editorial page is fully neo-conized these days.
iih | October 6, 2007, 12:42pm | #
Are you often mistaken for being Latino?No, I am slim and tall ;-) But, seriously, I have never been confused as such. In Puerto Rico, I was surprised to see how strikingly "Arab-looking" some of the people (especially their men) were. A Puerto Rican friend of mine told me that there is a lot of North African influence through the Spanish link and/or early immigration by Middle Easterners to Central and South America (Argentina's Moneim was Lebanese).
Grand Chalupa | October 6, 2007, 12:43pm | #
On average, compared to whites, yes.Although grouping Arabs as a race or sub-race is problematic. Lebanese look nothing like Saudia Arabians.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 12:45pm | #
Although grouping Arabs as a race or sub-race is problematic. Lebanese look nothing like Saudia Arabians.
Good, so you'll realize that having a "hispanic" race has similar flaws?
Don't tell a Mexican they look Guatemalan unless you want to be punched in the face.
Grand Chalupa | October 6, 2007, 12:45pm | #
Heres a funny question for iih and Chalupa since you're both Arabs.Are you often mistaken for being Latino?
Nope, I've got green eyes and very light skin. Usually mistaken for Greek or Italian.
Grand Chalupa | October 6, 2007, 12:48pm | #
Good, so you'll realize that having a "hispanic" race has similar flaws?Yes, if you read the Hunington article there is no mention of genetics. He's more concerned about the immigrants being low skill, their retention of Spanish, clustering in certain areas of the US, their low achievment in education and rejection of American culture.
iih | October 6, 2007, 12:49pm | #
Technically, Lebanese and Egyptians, for example, are not "Arab". They are "Arab-speaking". Arabs (of Arabia), Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians, are all technically Semitic. Funny thing is that in college applications, Arabs are often listed as "white". I disliked such characterizations would always prefer not responding to that question or say "other" instead.Well Chalupa in you're last two posts you have just admitted that race is partially a social construct. How does it feel to have "warm fuzzy PC fantasies?"
And what am I - chopped mastedon liver? | October 6, 2007, 12:51pm | #
immigration (in large numbers) is a modern phenomenonTramp! tramp! tramp!
The boys are marching
iih | October 6, 2007, 12:54pm | #
Chalupa: So I take it that you are of Lebanese descent?By the way, the Lebanes, Syrians, and West Bank, and Israeli Palestinians (Israeli "Arabs") have mixed racial descent. Some with strong European influence from the days of the Greeks, crusaders, then later Balkans (the Mamluks), and, in more recent times, French.
iih | October 6, 2007, 12:56pm | #
Cesar: Good job! ;-)J sub D | October 6, 2007, 1:11pm | #
Heres a funny question for iih and Chalupa since you're both Arabs.Are you often mistaken for being Latino?
True story - I once observed a shipmate of mine accused of denying being Filipino and in Olangapo City, PI. He was 100% Navajo. He was not amused. He was good naturedly ribbed about it thereafter.
J sub D | October 6, 2007, 1:14pm | #
Yes, if you read the Hunington article there is no mention of genetics. He's more concerned about the immigrants being low skill, their retention of Spanish, clustering in certain areas of the US, their low achievment in education and rejection of American culture.The argument is hardly new. Only the targets have changed.
The Wine Commonsewer | October 6, 2007, 1:20pm | #
When my buddy El Jeronimo de Crow was traveling in Europe (20 years ago) he was constantly mistaken for an Arab. He's actually Latino and distantly related to Cesar Romero.The Wine Commonsewer | October 6, 2007, 1:28pm | #
Don't tell a Mexican they look Guatemalan unless you want to be punched in the face.One of my boy's friends is Guatemalan and although I knew the family were immigrants I was pretty sure they weren't from Mexico. The dad didn't take siestas and no trace of a sombrero anywhere in the house.
Had a client become quite indignant one day at lunch a few years back. In heavily accented English he said to me....
Michael! You thought I was Mexican? I ain't no god dam Mexican, I'm Puerto Rican.
Then he shook his head a couple times like I was the biggest idiot he'd ever met.
He didn't hold a grudge though. :-)
M | October 6, 2007, 1:39pm | #
He didn't hold a grudge though.Then he wasn't Puerto Rican either.
*ducks
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 2:01pm | #
Grande C,You haven't been doing your reading.
Here is a nice piece that will explain some of the underlying problems with you view on race/genetics/IQ.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html
I seem to remember you saying you were a math major (minor), so you shouldn't be afraid of the simple formulas involved.
Grand Chalupa | October 6, 2007, 2:03pm | #
The Hunington paper acknowledges that there's been large immigration in the past but presents his argument as to why this is different. I'm not going to rehash all the arguments here, but I wish you all would read the paper before bringing up points that have been answered.The sheer numbers of Mexicans, their historical claim to the South West and their proximity to their home country make this unlike any immigration we've ever experienced. Hunington also contrasts them with Asian immigrants to show what successful asimilation looks like.
Maybe Hispanics will melt right in. However, if you thought there was only a 10% chance that this Mexinization will change the country forever why would we risk it? You all need to internalize Burke.
Cesar,
Yes, race, like say sexual orientation, is partially socially constructed but also very biologically real. Only a fool would deny that. I've had college textbooks though (in classes that have nothing to do with genetics) that say there is no biological component to race and that kind of thinking being mainstream is what I'm against.
iih,
I'm from Palestinian and Joranian descent.
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 2:04pm | #
MNG,I still find your arguments on this issue surprising.
Study the history of New Mexico a bit.
Spanish/Catholic institutions are a very important part of the development of a very large geographic chunk of our country...And pre-date the arrival of the English.
Grand Chalupa | October 6, 2007, 2:05pm | #
Neu Mejican,Got stuff to do now, will check it out later.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 2:09pm | #
Chalupa, of course its party genetic. But theres a big social component to it. People think I'm all white when they look at me or see my last name, but I'm not.Barak Obama has the same issue. Is he "Black" enough. Of course he is in his genetics, but the fact that question is even raised because he doesn't speak like Al Sharpton shows how big a role social construction.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 2:11pm | #
Neu Mejican-The whole "America is nation of New England puritans" crap was started by Henry Adams and others after the civil war in an attempt to take the South more "un-American".
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 2:18pm | #
Grande C,If you are interested in a more detailed peer-reviewed look at the issue of the biology/genetics of race...
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1893020
More technical, but very informative.
Cesar,
You might also find the above article interesting. It does a good job of trying to tease apart the reality of genetic races...
A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further.
The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 2:27pm | #
Thanks for the article Neu Mejican.Have you (or Chalupa for that matter) ever read Guns,Germs, and Steel?
iih | October 6, 2007, 2:47pm | #
Talking about racism, read what underzog had to say here. Not that underzog is relevant, anyways, but he does represent the kind of danger people that sometimes scares the hell out of me.Underzog: If you are reading this now, please feel free to chime in.
iih | October 6, 2007, 2:48pm | #
correction: but he does represent the kind of dangerNeu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 3:07pm | #
Cesar,I haven't read GG&S, but I did see a few of the PBS shows based on it.
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 3:14pm | #
However, if you thought there was only a 10% chance that this Mexinization will change the country forever why would we risk it?There is a 100% chance that our country will continue to change and that part of that change will result from the influx of Hispanics.
Dynamism is one of the GOOD things about our country. There is nothing to be afraid of in change.
VM | October 6, 2007, 3:18pm | #
iih | October 6, 2007, 11:43am | #in Wisconsin, too. My mom's first language was German, and you still hear an odd mixture of English/German around there.
Weren't many Michigan cities and towns German speaking until the 1940s?
you still hear a little in the Chicago Lincoln Square neighborhood, too.
Maybe I'm just weird, but I think that the historical/cultural ties latinos have to the southwest would be an advantage, not a disadvantage. The fact theres always been some measure of Latin American influence there should make an integration into American society easier.
Fluffy | October 6, 2007, 3:23pm | #
About the whole "English and Protestant" thing -There's Protestant, and then there's PROTESTANT. The Anglican "Protestants" who settled all the Colonies outside of New England were Catholic in all but name. The Anglican Church was essentially a Catholic church headed by the monarch instead of the Pope. Henry VIII was essentially a Catholic theologian until he needed a divorce. REAL Protestantism, of the Luther / Zwingli variety, isn't connected with English liberty and common law tradition as much as it is connected to utopian totalitarianism and German authoritarianism.
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 3:23pm | #
Grande C,You all need to internalize Burke.
You need to internalize Paine.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/
iih | October 6, 2007, 3:23pm | #
VM:I sometimes wonder what would the US (and Canada for that matter) be like if all the people from all sorts origins retained their distinct languages and cultures, beside a common American language (presumably English). Of course, the Canadians prefer the "Cultural Salad" instead of the American "Cultural Pot".
In MI, the city of Frankenmuth still celebrates Oktoberfest among, other German festivals.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 3:24pm | #
I forgot to add that also many latinos are moving places that haven't had much cultural or historical significance for them. For example the influx of Central Americans into Virginia in recent decades.I am, however, waiting for TLB to tell me that the GuatemalanGovernment is secretly planning to take over Virginia.
crimethink | October 6, 2007, 3:26pm | #
For those saying that Parliament and common law were essentially Protestant institutions, there are two serious problems with that theory: no such institutions existed in Protestant Germany or Sweden, and both Parliament and common law developed were already firmly ensconced when England was still a Catholic country. The Church of England was created by order of Parliament, remember.J sub D | October 6, 2007, 3:40pm | #
The Church of England was created by order of Parliament, remember.Angicans, AKA Left Handed Catholics.
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 3:44pm | #
A brief look at crime statistics and it seems that the "Mexicalization" of the US would result in a lower crime rate overall. Notice in particular aggravated assault and rape.Crime Rates in Mexico per 100,000 inhabitants
Mexico 2002 /USA in 2002
Total Crimes 1503.71 /4118.76
Murder 13.04 /5.62
Murder with firearm 2.58 /3.25
Aggravated assault 186.68 /310.14
Rape 14.26 /32.99
Theft 112.47 /2445.80
Automobile theft 139.86 /432.12
Robbery 146.57 /145.87
Source: 7th[1] and 8th[2] Survey, United Nations
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 3:47pm | #
El Paso along with several other cities with large Hispanic populations (San Jose and San Antonio) ranked as some of the safest in the United States.Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 3:48pm | #
OF course the murder rate is of concern.But much of that is driven by the drug blackmarket supplying the US with our contraband.
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 3:54pm | #
Cesar,And you didn't highlight San Diego which, along with El Paso, is ground zero for illegal immigration.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 3:56pm | #
And you didn't highlight San Diego which, along with El Paso, is ground zero for illegal immigration.Duncan Hunter always likes to claim its the wall he built or something.
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 3:59pm | #
Of course Albuquerque Metro Area is 15th most dangerous.This is hard to interpret since Albuquerque has a lower per-capita Hispanic population than the rest of the State, but a higher per-capita population than the nation.
Is it more dangerous because of or in spite of the number of Hispanics?
Or, gasp, could it be something else entirely...
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 4:00pm | #
re: Duncan HunterOh yeah, I forgot.
They don't have illegal immigration in San Diego anymore.
=/;^)
prolefeed | October 6, 2007, 4:05pm | #
Ummm, can we stipulte for the record that no one here arguing about race is gonna change their minds, have y'all get a room already, and someone change the topic to, oh I don't know, ANY of the suggested topics of conversation in Dave Weigel's post?The following was amusing at first:
"Non-whites (Catholics, etc.) are dirty and stupid and should be kept out of our country."
"Nuh-uh!"
Repeat ad nauseam.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 4:08pm | #
Ok,- Steve Moore laments the fading salience of tax cuts with voters.
So, is there any time any of you all would support a tax hike at the state or federal level? Or should it be no new taxes, ever?
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 4:08pm | #
New Topic,Conservatives (SIV, Prolefeed) are dirty and stupid and should be kept off of H&R threads
=/;^)
I es Keeeedeeen, I es Keeedeeen.
Grand Chalupa | October 6, 2007, 4:13pm | #
Ok, since libertarians are way too smart and sophisticated for the cultural argument, how bout the argument of what large immigration means for the future chances of libertarian electoral success?As to why I think libertarians are nuts to favor mass uncontrolled immigration from the third world: I think they are nuts because their enthusiasm on this matter is suicidal to their cause. Their ideological passion is blinding them to a rather obvious fact: that libertarianism is a peculiarly American doctrine, with very little appeal to the huddled masses of the third world. If libertarianism implies mass third-world immigration, then it is self-destroying. Libertarianism is simply not attractive either to illiterate peasants from mercantilist Latin American states, or to East Asians with traditions of imperial-bureaucratic paternalism, or to the products of Middle Eastern Muslim theocracies.
There are a number of responses a libertarian might make to that. Not included in those responses, I think, given the current state of our national affairs, is the argument that Providence has inscribed a yearning for liberty on every human heart.
A libertarian might, though, say that while libertarianism could indeed be a hard sell to immigrants from very illiberal political traditions, it will appeal to their Americanized children, to the second generation. Possibly so. Even setting aside the great strengthening of the welfare state caused by the preferences of that first generation, though, to sell libertarianism to the second generation would need a tremendous missionary effort. According to Brink Lindsey, only 13 percent of Americans currently lean libertarian. If decades of libertarian proselytizing have only achieved that much success with a population rooted in the traditions of Pericles and Magna Carta, of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment, of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, how well should libertarians expect to do with the political descendants of emperors and caliphs, of Toussaint L’Ouverture and Mao Tse-tung?
___
The people who made Russia’s Communist revolution in 1917 believed that they were merely striking a spark that would ignite a worldwide fire. They regarded Russia as a deeply unpromising place in which to “build socialism,” her tiny urban proletariat and multitudinous medieval peasantry poor material from which to fashion New Soviet Man. Their hope was that the modern industrial nations of the world would take inspiration from them — that the proletarians of those nations would rise up against their capitalist masters and inaugurate a new age of world history, coming to the aid of the Russian pioneers.
When it was plain that none of this was going to happen, the party ideologues got to work revising the revolutionary dogmas. One of them — it was actually Joseph Stalin — came up with a new slogan: “Socialism in One Country!”
I think that libertarians should take a leaf from Stalin’s book. They should acknowledge that the USA is, of all nations, the one whose political traditions offer the most hospitable soil for libertarianism. Foreigners, including foreigners possessed of the urge to come and settle in modern, welfare-state America, are much less well-disposed towards libertarianism.
Read the whole thing...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTNiMDIxNTk3NGQ0NTUyYmExMWE0NGE2NTk1Mzc1Yzk=
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 4:14pm | #
For what it is worth, I thought we were discussing this...David Brooks bemoans the GOP's retreat from Burkean conservatism.
Legate Damar | October 6, 2007, 4:15pm | #
"Speech at the Robert Taft Club" Nov 11, Arlington VAThis event is listed on RP's website, but I can't access it because facebook is the devil. Can anyone relay to me what's going on then? I'd like to go to an RP event.
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 4:15pm | #
I would like to read iih's response to the argument Grande C posts...Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 4:16pm | #
I think that libertarians should take a leaf from Stalin’s book.Wow.
just....
wow.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 4:17pm | #
Chalupa, first of all, its not like the chances of libertarians winning is all that great anyway.Secondly, Mexico just elected two conservative Presidents in a row. Both of them would probably feel right at home in the GOP. Yes, thats right, Latin Americans have diverse political views too! They aren't all Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.
So, is there anytime when its right to support a tax hike or oppose a tax cut?
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 4:19pm | #
Cesar,I get the sense that, if paired with removal of the income tax, a tax on material throughput such as a carbon tax would get support among some libertarians.
Not really a tax increase, however.
Fluffy | October 6, 2007, 4:25pm | #
I think it's right to oppose a tax cut when the legislature makes it plain that they will not cut spending by a similar amount.Tax cuts that increase the deficit increase the long-term amount of tax collected by the amount of the deficit plus financing costs.
rm2muv | October 6, 2007, 4:26pm | #
Obama's not toast. Only flag/Nazi's believe that an American citizen can't choose weather to wear a pin on his lapel.Don't get me wrong - I LOVE the little pins, my flag, and my country. I just can't stand lapels, or people who want to tell me what I have to wear.
Three cheers for Barak.
prolefeed | October 6, 2007, 4:29pm | #
So, is there any time any of you all would support a tax hike at the state or federal level? Or should it be no new taxes, ever?Seeing as how I'm a very minimal minarchist, bordering on anarcho-capitalist, I can't think of any level of government in the U.S. that needs more compulsory taxation to do essential tasks of government.
So, yeah, no new taxes.
Neu Mejican -- I'm pro-immigration and a right-lib, not a conservative. But, funny post!
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 4:31pm | #
Tax cuts that increase the deficit increase the long-term amount of tax collected by the amount of the deficit plus financing costs.
I hate it when that happens too but I've heard the argument that if the tax cuts grow the economy, the debt will shrink as a percentage of GDP anyway keeping it manageable. I'm not sure I buy it though, I'd much prefer a (small) balanced budget.
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 4:36pm | #
prolefeed,Sorry... I often read "right" and "conservative" positions as equivalent even when I know they are not.
I will file you under "right-lib" from now on.
To be clear that means you are not one of those "South Park Republican" libertarians, but more of a "Goldwater libertarian." Right?
Fluffy | October 6, 2007, 4:37pm | #
Cesar -Like with anything else financed by debt, there's always the chance that the future value of the funds will be worth less to you [due to inflation, increasing wealth - not the same thing - etc.] than the present value of not employing financing.
But when you're talking about taxation, you're making that judgment FOR EVERYONE. I don't want to be in the moral position of declaring that future taxpayers shouldn't mind paying my debts because they're so much richer it's no big deal. That certainly won't be the case for every last taxpayer. And at least one guy will go to prison because he can't come up with the scratch to pay my debts. Is that right?
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 4:40pm | #
prolefeed,I'm a very minimal minarchist, bordering on anarcho-capitalist,
Make that a "Sex Pistols, V for Vendatta" libertarian.
Cesar | October 6, 2007, 4:41pm | #
But when you're talking about taxation, you're making that judgment FOR EVERYONE. I don't want to be in the moral position of declaring that future taxpayers shouldn't mind paying my debts because they're so much richer it's no big deal. That certainly won't be the case for every last taxpayer. And at least one guy will go to prison because he can't come up with the scratch to pay my debts. Is that right?Thats correct, and I'm pretty much opposed to any kind of deficit financing unless we find our selves in a real (not neo-con fantasy) World War II-type situation. And that won't happen anytime soon. Taking out any other kind of debt is irresponsible IMHO.
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 4:49pm | #
I don't think you should be absolutist on the subject of surplus/deficit in the government, but too much of either is probably not good...Someone with more authority on the matter...
"Deficits must matter," Greenspan asserts, because "uncontrolled government spending and borrowing can produce high inflation 'and economic devastation.'"
iih - interesting stuff. Hayward WI still has the Sons of Norway winter festival - I actually saw highlights of it on NRK, norwegian tv!
Neu Mejican | October 6, 2007, 5:00pm | #
New topic-BAGHDAD (Reuters) - More than a thousand Iraqis marched in west Baghdad on Saturday in a rare public demonstration to protest against a wall they say the U.S. military is planning to erect around their neighborhood.
ADVERTISEMENT
Carrying an Iraqi national flag and banners condemning the wall the marchers in the predominantly Shi'ite district of al-Washash chanted "No, no to the wall. No, no to America."
The U.S. military sparked international outrage earlier this year when it began erecting a high concrete barrier to shield the Sunni Arab enclave of Adhamiya in east Baghdad from neighboring Shi'ite communities....
J sub D | October 6, 2007, 5:02pm | #
So, is there any time any of you all would support a tax hike at the state or federal level? Or should it be no new taxes, ever?Let me take a stab at this.
Assuming that programs that exist will remain, hell yes! Property taxes for churches, Yes! Remove tax exemptions for charitable giving, Yes! Disallow deductions for dependent children. Yes! Home mortgage deuction, get rid of it! Any sane, moral (non judgemental) tax code would obviously raise taxes for some and lower it for others. Steve Forbes got hammered on the flat tax and I still don't understand why. Sure his ultra dweebishness didn't help, but the tax code as it stands today is best described as a clusterfuck.Scrap it and start all over.
Oh yeah, if we get attacked/invaded too.
iih | October 6, 2007, 5:08pm | #
NM:I would like to read iih's response to the argument Grande C posts...
Are you referring to his super-long copy/paste comment? I skimmed through it (this is the weekend, and I have been reading way too many things at work this week), and the first thing that comes to mind is that being a minority, I would feel safest if I were just left alone ("don't tread on me"). I will respect all the laws, but I hope to be left alone (especially in light of the extremely anti-Muslim, anti-Arab rhetoric that often prevails among right wingers.
In any case. that is not all. I am attracted to many ideals in libertarianism (small government, low [if no] taxes, free markets, freedom of association, etc). May be if I were an immigrant residing in a predominantly Arab or Muslim neighborhood, I would have felt less interested in libertarianism. But again, I have long admired libertarian ideals without really knowing that they are "liber