Because Really, My Tax Money Needs to Lock in the Windfall Historically High Price of Corn

The Washington Post today finds even more kernels of (subsidized) corn in the moose-turd pie that is the $307 billion farm bill:

Since the amount of the subsidy for 2009 is tied to recent record prices, farmers could reap a windfall if prices drop suddenly.

"I don't think many people on the House side who voted for the farm bill realized there were $16 billion in potential higher costs in there," said Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Conner. "The budget exposure is tremendous." [...]

The Agriculture Department estimates that subsidy payments to corn farmers alone could reach $10 billion a year if prices -- which have been $5 to $6 a bushel -- were to drop to $3.25 a bushel, a level seen as recently as last year. [...]

Republican Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), a strong critic of the new farm bill, accused House and Senate negotiators of "unbelievable gall."

"I don't think any of us had a clue this was in there. It was simply dropped into the conference report," he said.

This gives me a rare opportunity to agree wholeheartedly with anti-libertarian New York Times columnist David Brooks: John Sidney McCain is a thousand times better on this than Barack Hussein Obama, and one of the principal virtues of the coming McCain presidency is the prospect of him just vetoing the crap out of lousy legislation produced by emboldened Democrats (who suffer from a singular lack of Jeff Flakes).

See Flake's reason.tv interviews here. Jacob Sullum on the "bipartisan folly of farm subsidies" here.

Comments

sage | May 21, 2008, 3:21pm | #

The Washington Post today finds even more kernels of (subsidized) corn in the moose-turd pie that is the $307 billion farm bill:

I feel sorry for the reporter that had to dig them out.

P Brooks | May 21, 2008, 3:27pm | #

I haven't been to the old family homestead lately, but I suspect the current proprietor (my uncle), has planted corn on every accessible square foot, including the front yard.

ed | May 21, 2008, 3:29pm | #

I have an ear growing in a flower pot. I expect to get about $45 for it come harvest time.

NoStar | May 21, 2008, 3:31pm | #

Wait a minute. There are plenty of flakes in Congress, both Democrats and Repuyblicans.

Jonathan Goff | May 21, 2008, 3:40pm | #

Matt,
Is it really going to matter though if a president vetoes the bill if it has enough support for an override? I mean, it should definitely be vetoed, and McCain is right on this one. I'm just saying that while he's right, it doesn't seem likely to make a difference in my opinion.

~Jon

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 3:41pm | #

Barack Hussein Obama

Come on, Welch. You deserve whatever maltreatment joe gives you for this...

lousy legislation produced by emboldened Democrats (who suffer from a singular lack of Jeff Flakes).

So, the Republicans having one Flake out of 300 congresscritters makes them that much better than the Dems? Huh?

sixstring | May 21, 2008, 3:44pm | #

"I don't think any of us had a clue this was in there. It was simply dropped into the conference report," he said.

Geez, if we'd only known. 'Round these parts, if you don't RTFA you'll get mercilessly hammered (and I might add, deservedly so) for talkin' outta yer ass. You're making laws and you don't know what the fuck you're voting on? Are you cashing those paychecks?

Now I gotta go yell at somebody who doesn't deserve it just so I can feel a little better.

ed | May 21, 2008, 3:44pm | #

The Green Giant must be creaming his leafy tunic.

John | May 21, 2008, 3:49pm | #

I think obama voting for the farm bill shows how arrogant he is. It would have been a meaningless no vote. The bill was going to pass one way or another. But a vote against this monstrosity would have given at least some substance to his claim to be a reformer. A vote for it is just indefensible. How can someone claim to be a reformer and vote for this garbage? I think it is that Obama is so arrogant he doesn't think that he has to have any substance to what he says. He apparently thinks the shuck and jive act of "yes we can" is good enough regardless of his actual votes on things.

prolefeed | May 21, 2008, 3:51pm | #

sixstring -- Ummm, when the bill you haven't read in its entirety is hundreds of pages long, and stuff is snuck in a conference report that isn't technically part of the bill, and all this is sprung on you a couple of hours before the vote, then you can be excused if you missed something in the frantic pre-vote digest of the bill.

You're confusing "lazy" with "being on the short end of a deliberate ploy to prevent people from delving into the details by springing shit at the last minute before the vote"

Matt Welch | May 21, 2008, 3:54pm | #

Come on, Welch. You deserve whatever maltreatment joe gives you for this...

Wait -- you think "Hussein" is worse than "Sidney"?

(Mine's "Lee," btw.)

T | May 21, 2008, 3:56pm | #

You're confusing "lazy" with "being on the short end of a deliberate ploy to prevent people from delving into the details by springing shit at the last minute before the vote"

How about malfeasant instead of lazy? If you are voting for a bill that is going to become federal law and you haven't read the the damn thing thoroughly, you're not doing your fucking job. If you haven't read it, you shouldn't be voting for it.

Matt Welch | May 21, 2008, 3:57pm | #

Is it really going to matter though if a president vetoes the bill if it has enough support for an override?

One thing that will matter is what happens in the negotiation sessions w/ the White House before the final vote. As Robert Novak pointed out in his recent column on the topic, the Bushies gave Republican congressthings the go-ahead to put pork in their home districts, which helped win passage for the bill. McCain wouldn't do that.

Matt Welch | May 21, 2008, 4:01pm | #

So, the Republicans having one Flake out of 300 congresscritters makes them that much better than the Dems?

I personally prefer neither Crest nor Colgate (I'm more of a Crelm man). But I think there is a tangible muscle-memory, faint as it is now, of fiscal responsibility and limited governmentude in the GOP. I think there's less of the latter among modern Dems, and furthermore they are becoming ascendant at a time when their economics move leftward. Which is worth exploring now, before signing off on a unified Democratic Washington.

sixstring | May 21, 2008, 4:01pm | #

prolefeed-- Nope, not confusing it with laziness, but what you allude to. That these package bills are so all encompassing that it is impossible to read them before you vote should tell you something. Earmarks are a scab on the 800 pound gorilla, and are used as more diversionary tactics so we don't look at the real underlying problem. This is the shit that has to stop. One subject at a time. One bill at a time. Make them simple so people know exactly what they are voting for. Ah fuck it. It's never going to happen.

Art-P.O.G. | May 21, 2008, 4:05pm | #

Come on, Welch. You deserve whatever maltreatment joe gives you for this..

At this point, it's like satire. I think there's one person out there that just now discovered Obama's middle name and recoiled in panic and shock.

(Mine's "Lee," btw.)

An astoundingly common middle name. Believe me, I know.

The Green Giant must be creaming his leafy tunic

I don't know if the image of "creamed" corn dripping down his leg is more disturbing or funny.


P.S. Thanks, Jeff Flake. If it weren't for you, there's no telling how low my opinion of your party would be.

MP | May 21, 2008, 4:10pm | #

The grotesque abortion of a farm bill is still cheaper than a never-ending war in the sand.

John | May 21, 2008, 4:10pm | #

Matt,

What worries me about the Republicans is that outside of McCain, Flake and Colburn, they seem to be utterly unfazed by being in the minority. I really think that if you gave the Republicans in Congress truth serum and gave them a choice of being a part of a majority that limited government and didn't give them any pork or being part of a minority where the majority gave them all the pork the wanted, they would chose being in the minority every time.

You would think that after 1996 that the Republicans in Congress would have gotten religion and gone back to what got them in power in the first place. But at this point they are so depraved that being in the minority really didn't affect them too much. When your sole purpose for serving is to get your buddies rich and indulge in whatever perversion is to your liking, it really doesn't matter which side of the isle you are on.

John | May 21, 2008, 4:11pm | #

make that 2006. not 1996

Episiarch | May 21, 2008, 4:12pm | #

one of the principal virtues of the coming McCain presidency

I see Matt and I agree that he will win. Who else is with me? (note that this is not an endorsement, merely a prediction)

(Mine's "Lee," btw.)

So is my sister's. Can we call you Sissy Mary now?

robc | May 21, 2008, 4:14pm | #

An astoundingly common middle name. Believe me, I know.

Ditto.

Mr Anonymous | May 21, 2008, 4:22pm | #

Sidney McCain is a thousand times better on this than Barack Hussein Obama, and one of the principal virtues of the coming McCain presidency is the prospect of him just vetoing the crap out of lousy legislation produced by emboldened Democrats (who suffer from a singular lack of Jeff Flakes).

It's taken Reason this long to notice the exact thing that guaranteed my general election vote for McCain months ago. The Democrats are going to have a huge majority in Congress and Senate. A Democratic president won't be vetoing any of the stupid/silly/expensive legislation coming from Reid and Pelosi. I expect McCain to veto anything and everything other than immigration legislation, which is something I couldn't care less about.

Divided government has been least-bad for Libertarians for years, and at least McCain's much more of a spending hawk than Bush II is or Bush I was. I should think this would have been obvious from the start. For a good cringe, go to the Issues section of BHO's campaign site and cringe, realizing it is likely that Congress passes all of this crap with him as Pres. I couldn't get past page one, myself.

If a vote for Obama would get us out of Iraq, I might have something to think about. As it is, his "pull out most troops and leave the rest to get al Qaeda" plan sounds a lot like Rumsfield's disastrous "light footprint" talk, so, much as I hate to admit it, McCain edges Obama on that as well.

Get out, I says, but if we're going to stay, it's probably a better idea to stay in numbers.

SugarFree | May 21, 2008, 4:24pm | #

My middle name is "Earl." It's the sound a mule makes when it dies.

sixstring | May 21, 2008, 4:24pm | #

I'm fond of Lee as a middle name if it sounds like an adverb:

Ginger Lee
Mary Lee
Mark Ed Lee

John | May 21, 2008, 4:24pm | #

McCain's only hope to win the Presidency and to maintain any sort of popularity once he is there is to run against Congress. The Republicans are going to be a non-factor in the next Congress. McCain therefore has nothing to lose by bashing his own party. In fact he has a lot to gain because it shows that he won't be a Bush third term. The more Mccain insults and degrades Congress, the better off he will be.

ChrisO | May 21, 2008, 4:29pm | #

I see Matt and I agree that he will win. Who else is with me? (note that this is not an endorsement, merely a prediction)

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. To do better than Kerry, Obama would need either Ohio or Florida, and I don't see him carrying either one. Obama might put Virginia and Colorado in play, but then I think that the Joe Lunchpail factor puts Pennsylvania in play for McCain, too. Either way, I think it's going to be close in the presidential race, and a Democratic landslide in Congress.

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 4:42pm | #

You guys seem to be forgetting that the Dem Congress is perfectly capable of holding McCain's ridiculously expensive war funding hostage if he misbehaves regarding their ridiculously expensive domestic spending. They already did this to Bush earlier in the year.

So in all likelihood, divided govt means we get both war and pork.

John | May 21, 2008, 4:46pm | #

"You guys seem to be forgetting that the Dem Congress is perfectly capable of holding McCain's ridiculously expensive war funding hostage if he misbehaves regarding their ridiculously expensive domestic spending. They already did this to Bush earlier in the year."

I am not so sure. If McCain wins the election, the Democrats will have a hard time claiming a mandate to end the war. The Democrats talk a good game, but as we have found out over the last two years, they do not have the nerve to cut off funding to troops in the field. If the Democrats won't cut off funding to Iraq with a President at 31% approval rating, there is no way they would do it to a newly elected McCain.

P Brooks | May 21, 2008, 4:46pm | #

This is the shit that has to stop. One subject at a time. One bill at a time. Make them simple so people know exactly what they are voting for.

Hear, hear.

People who vote on stuff when they have idea what's in it should be tarred and feathered. Instead, they get appointed to plum committee assignments.

T | May 21, 2008, 4:52pm | #

People who vote on stuff when they have idea what's in it should be tarred and feathered.

I lean towards jailed and executed, but I'll take tarred and feathered.

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 4:54pm | #

John,

Earlier this year, Bush vetoed a domestic spending bill because of his newfound fiscal restraint. He was also fuming about how the Dems weren't sending him a new Iraq funding bill.

So the Dems attached their domestic spending bill to an Iraq funding bill, and he got the message. I imagine it will go similarly with McCain.

thoreau | May 21, 2008, 4:55pm | #

Um, Chris Potter, when has the Dem Congress actually done anything to resist Bush on, well, anything related to the war?

J sub D | May 21, 2008, 4:56pm | #

Wait -- you think "Hussein" is worse than "Sidney"?

Sidney is kind of gay, isn't it? NTTAWWT.

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 4:57pm | #

thoreau,

When they thought it would help them get their pork bill signed.

John | May 21, 2008, 4:58pm | #

"So the Dems attached their domestic spending bill to an Iraq funding bill, and he got the message. I imagine it will go similarly with McCain."

McCain would just call their bluff. As Thoreau points out, they have rolled over for Bush they would do the same for McCain. IN the end they are more afraid of being held responsible for losing a war than they are of being held accountable by the anti-war types who will vote Democrat no matter what happens.

Colin Clout | May 21, 2008, 5:05pm | #

Matt Welch,

What makes anyone think that the role of a Senator is anything like that of the President? The office itself has a lot to do with how the office holder acts.

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 5:05pm | #

Here is the story I'm referring to -- it was actually last December 19.

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 5:12pm | #

Slightly off-topic:

Clinton may take delegate fight to convention

Looks like she won't surrender by June 3 after all...

John Thacker | May 21, 2008, 5:15pm | #

So the Dems attached their domestic spending bill to an Iraq funding bill, and he got the message. I imagine it will go similarly with McCain.

Chris Potter:
Ah, but when that was tried on a recent bill, the Republicans in the House all voted "present" and the bill failed, since the anti-war Dems didn't want to vote for it with the Iraq funding attached and thought that the Republicans would pass it anyway. See here.

The House Democrats were trying a strategy of letting their antiwar members vote against the war while relying on GOP votes to pass the war funding and larding it up with some pork to make everything go down.

House Republicans knocked the carefully choreographed Iraq war funding process into chaos Thursday when they declined to vote for $162.5 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vote was a GOP protest against the tactics of Democrats, who added hard-to-veto domestic spending to the measure and bypassed the committee process.

Colin Clout | May 21, 2008, 5:19pm | #

Who thinks that there will be haitus on pork-barrel spending following the 2008 election? A significant reduction? Remain the same? An increase?

Matt Welch | May 21, 2008, 5:20pm | #

Can we call you Sissy Mary now?

You don't already?

What makes anyone think that the role of a Senator is anything like that of the President?

Nothing.

R C Dean | May 21, 2008, 6:03pm | #

I see Matt and I agree that he will win. Who else is with me?

I think he's got a 50.1% chance at this point. There are two huge variables that will decide this election: the economy (and its current surrogate metric, gas prices) and which of the two gaffe machines currently in contention coughs up the biggest loogie in front of a TV camera.

Clinton may take delegate fight to convention

Of course she will. She needs to keep her fundraising machine going long enough to let her campaign pay back the money she loaned it.

Episiarch | May 21, 2008, 6:36pm | #

Can we call you Sissy Mary now?

You don't already?

Ahh, you caught me.

joshua corning | May 21, 2008, 6:44pm | #

Which is worth exploring now, before signing off on a unified Democratic Washington.

pfft...

By the way since the ascendancy of the dems this is the last I expect to ever read here about how libertarians should vote for divided government.

Just for the record I thought it was dumb in 2006....and essentially the work of dishonest socialists posing as libertarians....the lack of that same sounding point in 2008 only proves me right.

Gabe Harris | May 21, 2008, 6:57pm | #

"John Sidney McCain is a thousand times better on this than Barack Hussein Obama, and one of the principal virtues of the coming McCain presidency is the prospect of him just vetoing the crap out of lousy legislation produced by emboldened Democrats (who suffer from a singular lack of Jeff Flakes)."

Welch is so rooting for McCain. If McCain wins then Welch gets to agree with McCain on the big issues for eight year and McCain can claim "even my biggest critic agrees with me"....

J sub D | May 21, 2008, 6:57pm | #

Who thinks that there will be haitus on pork-barrel spending following the 2008 election? A significant reduction? Remain the same? An increase?

No, No, No, Yes.

Karl | May 21, 2008, 7:15pm | #

joshua corning -
"...the lack of that same sounding point in 2008 only proves me right."

I'm waiting until the Democratic primaries are over and we're into the general to make that judgment.
-K

Occam | May 21, 2008, 8:13pm | #

Democratic formula:

Subsidies to Oil Companies = x votes
Subsidies to Farmers = 10x votes

Go with the votes.

Fred | May 21, 2008, 8:41pm | #

Oh my God, Matt, That's moose turd pie........ good though.

Kwix | May 21, 2008, 9:34pm | #

John | May 21, 2008, 3:49pm | #
I think obama voting for the farm bill shows how arrogant he is. It would have been a meaningless no vote. The bill was going to pass one way or another. But a vote against this monstrosity would have given at least some substance to his claim to be a reformer. A vote for it is just indefensible. How can someone claim to be a reformer and vote for this garbage? I

Again John's anti-intellectualism forces him to shove his foot in his mouth. This time because he could be bothered to a)read the article or b)look up the Senate vote himself.

From the update to the article:

The column by David Brooks on Tuesday said incorrectly that Senator Barack Obama voted last week for the farm bill. Mr. Obama did not cast a vote on the bill

A quick review of the roll call for the Senate would confirm that Mr. Obama, as well as Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain did not vote on the Farm Bill. Indeed the real question is; as a supposed proponent of fiscal responsibility, why did McCain not vote against it?

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 10:02pm | #

Heh, looks like the Democrats screwed this up: the bill they sent to the president was missing a 34-page section, so it doesn't matter whether they override it or not; they have to start the process all over again:

link

And an appearance by my own (disgusting) Representative:

"We will have to repass the whole thing, as will the Senate," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. "We can't let the farm bill just die."

How ironic that Representative Slaughter won't let the farm bill die.

John-David | May 21, 2008, 11:04pm | #

I just saw that story too, Chris, on CNN.com. Apparently they're blaming it on the printer. I can only assume that's the GPO, which is another government office that should be closed ASAP.

John Thacker | May 22, 2008, 1:06am | #

A quick review of the roll call for the Senate would confirm that Mr. Obama, as well as Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain did not vote on the Farm Bill. Indeed the real question is; as a supposed proponent of fiscal responsibility, why did McCain not vote against it?

Kwix, you must be being facetious when you claim that that is "the real question." The bill passed by a veto-proof margin, so none of the presidential candidates felt a need to stop campaigning and vote either way, as their votes would make no different. Sen. McCain contented himself with giving a speech in Iowa saying that he would veto it; Sens. Clinton and Obama contented themselves with saying that they were for the bill and attacking Sen. McCain for opposing it.

A quick review of the roll call would reveal that a bill that passes 81-15 is not worth flying back to DC to vote either way on; particularly not on the initial vote to pass the conference bill before the veto.

John Thacker | May 22, 2008, 1:09am | #

That printer's error is a remarkable story. I can't recall hearing one like that before.

Of course, any bill that has so many pages that "Section III," a full 34 pages, could be omitted and no one could tell at first deserves some extra scrutiny.

This will actually push the bill and the veto over the Memorial Day holiday. It would be nice to dream about actually organizing some opposition to the disaster.

Sean Healy | May 22, 2008, 7:52am | #

I'd like to back things up a little further: there's a Farm Bill? Surely we don't need Washington legislators involved in activity that has three simple steps - sow, reap, sell.

Other Matt | May 22, 2008, 8:28am | #

Come on, Welch. You deserve whatever maltreatment joe gives you for this...


joe's an fuckwitted idiot. Him objecting to you is prima facie evidence that you're on the right track.

Heh, looks like the Democrats screwed this up: the bill they sent to the president was missing a 34-page section, so it doesn't matter whether they override it or not; they have to start the process all over again:

So we don't really need divided govt so much as a group of incompetent people who can't even get the page count right. Unfortunately, with such support the chances of it being honestly revisted are basically nil, but one can live to hope.

Geotpf | May 22, 2008, 10:16am | #

Isn't this bill going to be/has been vetoed by Bush and then the veto overturned by Congress? How would a President McCain change things? That is, as a practical matter, McCain's veto would not prevent bills such as this from becoming law.

Also, how did McCain vote on it in the first place?

Geotpf | May 22, 2008, 10:49am | #

Matt Welch | May 21, 2008, 4:01pm | #

So, the Republicans having one Flake out of 300 congresscritters makes them that much better than the Dems?

I personally prefer neither Crest nor Colgate (I'm more of a Crelm man). But I think there is a tangible muscle-memory, faint as it is now, of fiscal responsibility and limited governmentude in the GOP. I think there's less of the latter among modern Dems, and furthermore they are becoming ascendant at a time when their economics move leftward. Which is worth exploring now, before signing off on a unified Democratic Washington.

Ignoring this particular bill and looking at the big picture-Republicans spend just as much, if not more, than the Democrats. They spend it on slightly different things (more military spending, for instance), but they are just as bad as the Democrats, if not more so (the bridge to nowhere was a Republican invention, for instance, and the war to Iraq is the opposite of cheap).

So, since the two parties are the same on this issue, you must throw it out and judge them on the other ones. Here would be the other ones:

1. Taxes. Now, in general, Republicans are for lower taxes. However, since they aren't cutting spending to match, is the alternative (running up huge deficits) really a good thing? The Democrats at least are fiscally responsible because they typically want to pay for their additional spending (via higher taxes).
2. Guns. This is one issue I think everybody can agree that the generic Democratic position is inferior to the generic Republican one.
3. Foreign policy/war. Clearly, the Democratic position is superior.
4. Civil rights/Patriot Act/domestic spying. Again, the Democratic policy is superior.
5. Free speech. The generic Democratic policy is superior, although you do have some cultural warriors on both sides. A weak plus for the Dems.
6. Drug policy. While the majority of both parties are for the drug war, the Democrats are much weaker on the issue. Most Dems are in favor of medical MJ, and it was a Democrat, Barney Frank, who introduced a decriminalization bill.
7. Sexual rights/gay marriage. Again, the Democratic position is superior.

So, with spending, we have eight issues that a libertarian would care about. One (spending) is a tie. One (taxes) favors the Republicans, but is actually bad policy since they don't hold down spending to match. (Because the Dems at least try to match spending with taxes, one would have to say they are more fiscal responsible than the Republicans.) One (guns) straight out favors the Republicans. The other five issues favor the Democrats.

Why are libertarians associated with the Republicans again? Clearly, it should be the other way around.

I suspect the reason that libertarians are associated with Republicans more than Democrats is because many, maybe even most, "libertarians" aren't actually libertarians. They are I-hate-paying-taxes-and-don't-care-about-anything-else-ians.

R C Dean | May 22, 2008, 11:28am | #

3. Foreign policy/war. Clearly, the Democratic position is superior.

Hmm. Once you start a war, I think any professed policy that is not intended to win starts at a disadvantage. A policy that seems geared to leaving our allies and those relying on us exposed also starts at a disadvantage. Reasonable minds can differ, etc.

I also think that the general Dem approach to foreign policy - reliance on the UN, a certain taint of transnational progressivism, is structurally flawed.

And the Dems are, of course, the party of protectionism.

4. Civil rights/Patriot Act/domestic spying. Again, the Democratic policy is superior.

Actions speak louder than words, and the Dems don't seem too committed to converting their words to actions. Call it a greater rhetorical commitment.

5. Free speech. The generic Democratic policy is superior, although you do have some cultural warriors on both sides. A weak plus for the Dems.

What is the Dem policy that is superior, here? By and large, I associate infringements on free speech in the form of "hate speech" and "hostile environment" laws primarily with the Dems, and the biggest infringement on free speech, McCain-Feingold, was enthusiastically supported by Dems.

6. Drug policy. While the majority of both parties are for the drug war, the Democrats are much weaker on the issue. Most Dems are in favor of medical MJ, and it was a Democrat, Barney Frank, who introduced a decriminalization bill.

Give 'em another rhetoric-unaccompanied-by-meaningful-action gold star.

7. Sexual rights/gay marriage. Again, the Democratic position is superior.

I suppose, but the tactical approach (courts exceeding their Constitutional role) strikes me as not entirely positive.

TerryP | May 22, 2008, 12:30pm | #

Geotpf

Why in the world would you give the economic side only one maybe two issues to vote on and the rest six issues. People vote overwhelmingly with their pocketbook. You should have the economic side have five or six issues and the other side two to four.

And irregardless a vote for McCain by a libertarian, is a vote for divided gov't, definetly not a vote for his policies. Divided gov't is about the only thing a libertarian has to look forward to for the next four years with the current crop of Rep & Dem candidates. Until a libertarian candidate can make a difference or one of the parties puts out a candidate that makes it out of the first round that has some libertarian leanings, divided gov't is about the only way we can slow the socialist monster down a little.

PapayaSF | May 22, 2008, 3:26pm | #

Geotpf: 1) All those points aren't equal. 2) Democrats better on free speech? Really? The party of "hate speech" laws and campus speech codes? The party that talks about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine?

Mr anonymous | May 22, 2008, 6:44pm | #

3. Foreign policy/war. Clearly, the Democratic position is superior.

Invading Iraq was a really bad idea (obviously so), but invading Darfur, something that has been rhetorically endorsed by both Clinton and Obama, is just beyond any possible justification involving cost, benefit and risk, so no.

Also, the Democrat withdrawal plan leaves about half the troops in Iraq, which is a horrible idea. If you stay, you stay in numbers. Don't even get me started on the Democrats' bizarre faith in the UN.

Never forget that the Democrats voted for the war as well.


4. Civil rights/Patriot Act/domestic spying. Again, the Democratic policy is superior.

The Democratic position is to acquiesce to the Republican position, which is not better than the Republican position. Plus, the Patriot act was a plagiarism of old WJ Clinton proposals.


5. Free speech. The generic Democratic policy is superior, although you do have some cultural warriors on both sides. A weak plus for the Dems.

I can't think of any Republican-backed effort to criminalize speech (ostracizing people for saying thing X isn't the same as criminalization and is, itself, an expression of unpopular, i.e. free, speech) other than McCain-Feingold, which was the brainchild of John McCain and a bunch of Democrats.

Contrarily, I can think of multiple instances in which a Democratic politician has suggested an abridgement of free speech, attempted to affect one, or succeeded in doing just that.


6. Drug policy. While the majority of both parties are for the drug war, the Democrats are much weaker on the issue. Most Dems are in favor of medical MJ, and it was a Democrat, Barney Frank, who introduced a decriminalization bill.

Since the Democrats are in the process of socializing (or, at least, federalizing) medicine, classifying a benign, recreational drug like Marijuana as a "medicine" is worse than the status quo in some ways. Though I can think of nothing more destructive than the drug war, knowing that my tax dollars could, in the near future, be taken from me and given to a bunch of "anxiety"-filled 17-year-old pot-heads just so they can sit around the apartment watching Half-Baked and making stupid, slow jokes--at my expense--makes my head explode. Besides, decriminalization (as opposed to legalization) doesn't do anything to solve the black market issues surrounding recreational drug distribution.


7. Sexual rights/gay marriage. Again, the Democratic position is superior.

But you're putting words into the mouth of the DNC. The Democratic position is "no" to gay marriage, "maybe" to civil unions, and misses the point entirely, since marriage isn't a federal issue, except as it pertains to taxes. In other words, it fails on every count.


I'm not saying I like the Republicans (especially these Republicans), but even Republicans like this are the lesser of two evils when compared to the Democrats. As Welch already said But I think there is a tangible muscle-memory, faint as it is now, of fiscal responsibility and limited governmentude in the GOP.. Also, even though the amount of unnecessary things the modern Republican party involves the federal government in is staggering, it's still less than the corresponding number for the Ds. Go to Obama's website. He has a federal plan pretaining to pre-school. Pre-school.

Robert | May 22, 2008, 8:14pm | #

My middle name is Mathew, with one "t".

Voice of Reason | May 22, 2008, 10:45pm | #

John Sidney McCain... Barack Hussein Obama.

You obviously want people to associate Islam with Obama. That's why you threw in the middle name.

But then you try to make yourself sound so fair by throwing in McCain's middle name as well, so when someone criticizes you for highlighting Obama's middle name, you claim you are "being fair."

Of course you are not being fair. "Sidney" has no rhetorical power in our xenophobic, terrorist-obsessed culture; "Hussein" does.

What a pathetic attempt to smear Obama, again. Typical right-wing smear.