Cats and Dogs Living Together (Part XXIV)

|

Via reader (and prolific commenter) Kevin Carson: Ralph Nader tells Amy Goodman that the Democrats should be scoping out paleocons and libertarians.

I think, for example, that the Bush administration is far more vulnerable politically than the Democrats are probing, or exposing. I refer people to essential.org which has my letter to George W. Bush from a month-and-a-half ago about the Texas State Republican Party platform of 2002 which has 25 positions diametrically opposed to the Bush administration. It's basically the platform of the conservative libertarian republicans who are furious all through the South, including other states, with the Bush Administration on the PATRIOT act, the invasion of privacy, the erosion of civil liberties, NAFTA, GATT, huge deficit, corporate welfare subsidies. It's surprising that the democrats are not probing a wedge that would depress Bush's vote. There are a lot of ways that to depress Bush's vote that the democrats have to be educated on.

NEXT: Putting X Back in Xmas

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is a little off-topic, but I’ve always thought that a libertarian-style platform, if packaged correctly, could sell to Democrats. What would it contain?

    -Obviously all of the civil liberties stuff, as well as a lot of the culturally liberal side of libertarianism (drugs, gays, etc.)
    -an economic platform that takes aim at corporate welfare (e.g. farm subsidies), promotes free trade (real free trade, not whatever aspects of the current situation that folks around here don’t like)
    -an economic platform that emphasizes the way economic regulations frequently hurt low-income families while benefiting business (e.g. zoning laws that keep housing expensive, benefiting anybody who already owns real estate but hurting those who don’t own real estate)
    -on taxes, a combination of tax simplification (get rid of the countless market-distorting loopholes, exemptions, credits, etc. that usually benefit whoever can afford a good lobbyist) and tax cuts, with the tax cuts matched to savings from eliminating programs discussed in the other planks (e.g. certain regulatory bodies, enforcement of victimless crimes) as well as off-setting revenue increases that come from eliminating various credits, loopholes, etc.

    I know, I know, this isn’t a perfect platform. Some might take issue with tax simplification, but I maintain that the only thing worse than the government taking your money is when the government adjusts the tax bill to micromanage the economy.

    Anyway, I think that if a Democrat could somehow win a primary with such a platform he’d be a formidable opponent for any Republican.

  2. Seems like Ralph may be trying to make amends for 2000, what with bailing on the Greens last week and now offering the Dems some fairly political advice.

  3. What’s it all about, Ralphie?

    Well, let me tell you.

  4. remember libertarian kiddies, bush has expanded government. so your response: vote for the other guy who is stumping for MORE government.

    fuck logic and remember that Dean is Baathist/Islamist-neutral and that is what it is all about.

  5. thoreau, you are thorough, and that’s the problem… at least as far as platforms go.
    Politicians win or lose by their sound bites or slogans not their platforms, even though they, supposedly, have a platform: Tippecanoe and Tyler too! It’s for the children! Tax cuts for working people! Living Wage! Level playing field! etc.
    Most of here will never be comfortable with either Dem or Rep sound bites and slogans.
    Too yucky!

  6. Julian, you make the most un-interesting friends– now it’s Nader!

    Do you really like hanging around with these guys?

  7. Well, obviously a campaign wouldn’t be built on long policy speeches (I’d change my name to Tsongas if I did that). But take what I put above and turn it into soundbites:

    “No more welfare for the fat cat corporations!”

    “A tax form so simple even a Congressman can do it!”

    “No more loopholes for the fat cats!”

    “No more bureaucrats making health care expensive!”

    “The government should balance the budget, not the lobbyists’ checkbooks!”

    etc. etc. It sounds really leftist almost, but the substance is libertarian.

  8. Seems a sad pass that political candidates who figure they themselves can’t win, would encourage people to NOT VOTE AT ALL to punish the candidate most likely to win. But abstaining from voting is a vote for the winner, ultimately – I mean, there are a lot of people whose “principles” are so outraged, they didn’t vote in 2000, and then griped about how the election turned out. This is not to re-open the debate, but to point out that the founders of this country sacrificed more than we can comprehend to secure for us the right to influence our government – and people who want to get into government are pressuring people to NOT take part, as a passive-aggressive bit of spite I suppose. I would never vote for someone who discourages voting – it demonstrates a lack of respect for the individual voter and for the foundation of our government.

  9. Thoreau – you’re right – it’s the bureaucrats that make health care expensive. In trying to guarantee health care for certain groups, it reduces the market’s ability to competitively price products and services that the public needs. Since businesses rely on many purchases for their profits, a free market system would actually work out to lower prices for the consumer, because that would be the only way to retain customers. Currently, they have some guaranteed income (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) and then they receive subsidies for “assisting” their business. I don’t know – I don’t think Edison received government subsidies. And he invented and perfected thousands of things in his lifetime.

  10. thoreau,
    Now you’re talking! There’s chin music!

  11. short term coaltions between seeming opposed groups have and do make a difference. for example, jesus crispies and the dworkinites teamed up in the 80s to ruin hundreds of lives with the phoney-baloney satanic ritual abuse scare.

    doesn’t mean the difference is going to be good, of course, but it does make things happen, which is more than what usually happens with the “L” label.

  12. thoreau:

    Doesn’t it seem like many canidates start off as you envision? It certainly looks to me like many state level goverment types start off with some generally libertarian views, (at least in some states, certainly not here in CA), but as soon as they enter the national arena all of the old habits fly out the window. Then suddenly that sound bite of: “No more handouts for the fat cat corporations”, means: “Support my campaign and we’ll funnel money to you, not those fat cat corporations *wink* *wink*”.

    Must be something in the air around DC that makes them all crazy.

  13. Andrew, you seem to think that just because you are motivated by an anti-government philosophy, that those on the other side of issues are motivated by a pro-government philosophy. This is absurd – the Left has led the charge on numerous anti-government issues, from opposition to the drug war to ending sodomy laws to opposing corporate welfare.

    The reason liberals end up supporting government solutions is the complete inability (or disinterestedness) of libertarians to present an alternate way of addressing the issues that DO motivate us – the material well being of the poor and working class, environmental quality, racial integration, the preservation of local color…

  14. I think everyone should kill everyone else.

  15. You could run as a “liberal”. The dems might think you are like Mondale. Only say “classic” as you are sneezing and don’t mention any specifics.

  16. “The reason liberals end up supporting government solutions is the complete inability (or disinterestedness) of libertarians to present an alternate way of addressing the issues that DO motivate us – the material well being of the poor and working class, environmental quality, racial integration, the preservation of local color…”

    Huh? Well, regarding ‘environmental quality,’ there is a large body of literature on quasi-libertarian free-market environmentalism (and several enviro groups, including the Nature Conservency, that have come around to that approach). As far as leftists’ faith in gov’t, what have they done for you lately regarding the environment?

    Regarding ‘the material well being of the poor and working class,’ how do you define “material well being”? Who’s job should it be to detrmine the appropriate amount of well being? The government? Libertarians and more-enlightened liberals have approached this topic from a number of non-government perspectives – see Nozick, Friedman, and even Rawls.

    Regarding racial integration, I think most libertarians support, in general, laws upholding equal treatment under the law and generally rely on the judiciary to sort out abuses. The main differences are about affirmative action and reasonable people can disagree.

    “The preservation of local color”… I have no idea what that means…Our local color is green and I want no part of any change to purple!

    -dlc-

  17. “The reason liberals end up supporting government solutions is the complete inability (or disinterestedness) of libertarians to present an alternate way of addressing the issues that DO motivate us – the material well being of the poor and working class, environmental quality, racial integration, the preservation of local color…”

    Nope. The reason liberals support government controls and regulations is their incessent arrogance and desire to control and spend other people’s money and micromanage everyone else’s life – as evidenced by Joe’s comments. If others aren’t sufficiently “motivated” about their “issues” to willingly follow their lead in how to conduct their affairs, why then government should compel them to do so. The liberal elite just KNOW that they are best equipped to set priorities for everyone else as well as themselves.

  18. Rebecca,
    Do you mind if I try to influence my government with torches and pitchforks, whisky rebellions, and the like instead of voting? BORING.

    Second so-called thought: Why doesn’t Reason have bumper stickers for sale? I’d buy most of the potential ones that have appeared here. (I have a Geo Metro, nicknamed the Stickermobile. The “Reason: Free Minds; Free Markets” is on it already.)

  19. Okay, here, I’ll spell it out for you numbnuts.

    A Republican presidency is a step onto the slippery slope toward statist tyranny.

    A Democrat presidency is a running start, followed by a flying leap, followed by a belly flop onto your greased stomach, onto the slippery slope.

    I’m amazed at how many people here are rooting for Howard Dean.

    Oh well, on the positive side of the coin, a Dean presidency would give us libertarians an opportunity to do lots of our favorite thing – fulminate about the state’s abuses in an impotent rage.

  20. I agree, Gilbert!! Very true. And to quote Rush Limbaugh, “Liberals want to equalize everybody. But redistribution of wealth has never given anybody dignity or self-respect. It goes against the grain of human nature. It has never worked in the history of the world — ever. And it never will.” (“See, I Told You So”, 1993, p.29)

    It is the triumph of faith over fact. And if it succeeds, well, we will have sacrificed our heritage for a mess of pottage.

  21. Ruthless – I’m all for the torches and pitchforks idea, so long as you don’t deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property, and you pick up your litter behind you, and you provide refreshments.

    And Stephen – excellent analogy. I’m pasting your quote on my wall.

  22. Eric Dreamboat,
    I resemble your remarks. Not.

  23. Stephen-

    I haven’t heard much enthusiasm here for what a President Dean would do, other than a few half-hearted defenses of particular stances taken by Dean (e.g. “he’s a federalist on gun rights…um, sort of”), plus some cheering for his anti-war stance (yes, yes, I know, many people here supported invading Iraq, but the point is that a lot of the “libertarians for Dean” types think of it as a selling point, however rightly or wrongly).

    What I have heard, and what I myself sort of sympathize with, is the notion that a Dean presidency will mobilize the Congressional GOP to actually block the growth of government. They don’t mind giving John Ashcroft lots of power or giving George Bush a blank check, but they are terrified of giving a Janet Reno lots of power or letting a Howard Dean spend as much as he wants (and they are right to be terrified).

    I’m not convinced that the “checks and balances” theory of a Dean presidency will work, but I don’t think it’s entirely crazy either. Fortunately, I live in California, and there’s no way California will be a swing state, so I can vote for the LP candidate and not have to worry that I missed my chance to swing any outcomes.

  24. There’s also the theory that it’s best to try to change presidents every election because it limits the amount of damage they can do (although Bush has proven that there are exceptions).

  25. The American electorate already sorts itself along the political spectrum, using party labels. Increasingly politicians themselves do this. It works– and of course both parties contain centrist wings…but a libertarian running as a democrat couldn’t reasonably be described as a centrist, any more than he could reasonably be described as a “liberal” in the way Americans use the word.

    When previously democratic voters have a change of heart, they fairly quickly become republicans (Most swing voter always were, and aren’t particularly apt to become either conservatives or libertaians– they become centrist republicans, at best.)

    Libertarians for Dean is harmful, not because the votes will matter, or the conservative/republicans might be pissed– but because it would lead ANYONE to think that self-described libertarians are fundamentally unserious people.

  26. Andrew-

    A purist libertarian certainly couldn’t run as a Democrat. But a person with strong libertarian sympathies who views issues through a left-wing prism could. For instance, somebody might have an overall low opinion of economic regulations, but figure that the only ones worth expending effort to repeal right now are the ones that do the most harm (direct or indirect) to low income families.

    Or, somebody might detest social engineering overall, but (for reasons best known to himself) detest “right wing” social engineering more.

    And on issues where this candidate doesn’t have strong opinions he might be more or less neutral on the status quo. e.g. he certainly won’t be lobbying for even more gun laws, and if a piece of gun legislation came before him he’d vote on the side of the 2nd amendment (that side being either yea or nay depending on the nature of the bill) but he won’t be sponsoring any bills to repeal gun laws.

    Such a candidate certainly wouldn’t be able to win a Democratic primary in most places, but there are some places where he might, and in a general election he’d be a formidable opponent.

  27. thoreau,

    Jim Henley proposed something like that in a platform he wrote for Democrats a few months back.

    Certainly a lot of liberal politicians are motivated by a lust to control others “for their own good.” But the average Democratic voter votes that way because of the perceived problems that affect his daily life. Pointing out to him or her how these problems are the result of government intervention, rather than the market itself, and that most forms of government intervention were actually designed to benefit the rich and powerful, might go a long way to peeling off support for activist government.

    I hope this comment wasn’t too prolific, BTW. 😉

  28. Oh Thoreau, why go hunting where the ducks aren’t?

    Another thing, the case for liberty isn’t well served “populist” anti-corporate imagery, or “radical” anti-American imagery. You pander to that sort of stuff at your peril, if the promotion of liberty is your object.

    I can illustrate what I am saying with an anecdote:
    I play chess at a coffeehouse where the milieu is student-Laft. In April I hailed a young opponent– “I suppose you were at Saturday’s demonstration?”

    Here was his response–

    FUCK THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT! IT’S FUCKING STUPID! SADDAM’S A BRUTAL DICTATOR!

    Here’s a young man who has broken with peer-pressure and achieved likely the first independent insight in his lifetime. What was I supposed to do? Taslk him out of it? Reassure him that Bush is a lackey of Halliburton, and US designs on Iraq are “imperialistic”?

    When you conjure with Chomsky’s mythology you make a lot more leftists than libertarians,

    In the coming year a lot of people at the demos are going to realize the anti-war movement WAS stupid. What will they think of libertarians who acted like cultural chameleons? Who associated themselves with an episode that many will rightly feel ashamed of?

  29. democrats have to be educated on.

    Whare do you begin??

  30. Given the Dems record of picking the least likely candidate, Mosely-Braun is a shoo-in. And how can anyone believe that a Rep will vote for a Dem.The Reps are the new Yellow Dogs.

    Well, at least I was able to make a dog reference. Can anyone fill in with a cat?

  31. “It’s basically the platform of the [b]conservative libertarian republicans[/b] who are furious [b]all through the South, including other states[/b],”

    And people get on Bush for his elocution?

  32. Actually, Saint Ralph is showing some solid political sense here. No one thinks that these folks will vote for a Dem, but they could well stay home in 2004 if the Dems can remind them of all their differences with Bush. This is an essential part of any winning campaign strategy, and Ralph is right on the money.

  33. “There are a lot of ways that to depress Bush’s vote that the democrats have to be educated on.”

    Lord knows, I’d have to be pretty depressed to vote for Bush.

  34. Bush’s embrace of big government has left a huge gap in the political landscape, at least in the presidential race. How bad it’s become is evident in this GOP press release bragging about how much more Bush has spent on education than Clinton:
    http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/education/funding/realgoprecord.htm From the 12/30 3:32 thread: “Right Wing Educators”

    Here are some ideas;

    As libertaians/paleos dessert they should be vocal about it. Let them know why Bush in unsatisfactory and what is desired: Budget cuts,(welfare, corporate welfare [World Bank, IMF], foreign aid, entitlements, military not essential for US defense), regulatory cuts, tax rate cuts. The implementation of an America first foreign policy and an end to hyper-interventionism. A freeze on Patriot Act enactments and other civil liberties threatening measures such as alteration of posse comitatus proscriptions against using federal troops against civilians. Also a jettisoning of the bid government liberal types in the administration, including the neo-cons should be demanded.

    Especially if it looks like Bush is going to win, this would be a great time to take out the frustration on liberal/big government Republicans. They are part of the problem. There are some Republicans who are principled and worth fighting for. But the really big spenders should be dumped. One can get a good idea of which are which at NTU.org The Dems. in congress are far far worse but the dumping of the really bad Republicans won’t hurt in the short run and may pay off
    nicely in the long run.

    The Libertarian Party should benefit from the neglect accorded to bad Republicans from the presidential race on down. It might be worth a try to start turning the Dems. into a more liberty friendly party. Perhaps an approach along the lines of: thoreau at December 30, 01:38 PM and December 30, 02:31 PM. as well as Kevin Carson at December 30, 10:40 PM would do well.

  35. Eric Deamer,
    You might try actually reading the links.

    You’ll get no defense of our government’s funding of the PA from me, and I think the evidence justifies your characterization of them as a “kleptocracy”.

    My point in calling attention to articles on libertarian sites such as antiwar.com by Israelis who are critical of the Sharon regime(I use the term “regime” sans any pejorative connotation) was to refute your anti-Semitism accusations against libertarians which I consider to be without merit.

    Happy New Year everyone!

  36. Rick–

    You neglected a couple of other huge gaps in the American political landscape (especially at the presidential level):

    the Hard-Core Old-Time Marxists have scarce an advocate in either major party

    the Garveyite/Nation of Islam axis don’t have a real friend, even in the Black Caucus

    the UFO-logists are lying low

    the Neo-Nazis get the brush from most elected officials

    and the Islamo-theocracy types have a real challenge choosing between parties

    Of course, there is a reason for this…they don’tr represent real constituencies in the American electorate.

    (France is another story.)

  37. Rick

    There are only two types of voters who can effectively bid their votes in the American political arena:

    a) Legitimate swing voters– voters whose genuine preference is close to the political center of balance, who are genuinely attracted to the centrist aspects of both major parties. The guys who switch their preference on the margin, depending on the success of the respective parties in marketing to them.
    These voters are not cynical, calculating, or even particularly conscious of what they are doing– they are just voting their real preferences.

    b) single interest constituencies with narrow and overwhelming needs– a farmer with his life savings in the field will sell his soul and his children to keep the farm afloat another year.
    It is needless to say that this kind of voter does not traffic in High Principle.

    Libertarians (and other kinds of ideolgical conservatives) don’t fit in either category…unless you want to trade principle for What?– legal pot, ending a war that is already over, and bashing Israel? And which major party will trade swing voters for THAT?

  38. “Eric Deamer” wrote:
    “What these groups have in common (doctrinaire libertarians, paleocons, and Naderite lefties) is pathological anti-Semitism disguised (or not) as “criticism” of Israel”

    “Eric Deamer’s” post is so void of reason that it’s likely it’s purpose is simply to attempt to discourage criticism of the Israeli government.

    It’s been my experience that there is very little racism in general among libertarians of various stripes and it’s ridiculous to claim that the criticism of the Israeli government can be chalked up to anti-Semitism. And, how would “Eric Deamer” classify all of the Jewish libertarians who attack the Sharon Regime? Also, the libertarian site; Antiwar.com features engaging articles by Israeli authors critiquing the Sharon regime: http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html

    The Israeli government is the number one foreign aid expense of the US government with ease. This year it’s $3 billion in aid $4 billion in grants and $8 billion in loan guarantees. All, for an industrialized nation. It would be unnatural for libertarians and fiscal conservatives not to attack this on cost and fairness alone!

    But of course it’s much worse than just that. The Israeli government is engaged in a thieving and murderous occupation of Palestinian land using those US tax dollars. Also repugnant to libertarians was Sharon’s incredable support of “Jews Only” housing areas, in open discrimination against the 15% to 20% Arab citizens of Israel: http://www.eto.home.att.net/jewsonly.html
    and:
    http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/article.php?sid=1779

  39. Random but relevant question: of all us people complaining about this party, that politician, etc., how many have sent a letter to their congressman? How many have sent letters to the President? Have you? I haven’t, not yet, but that’s how to influence government when it’s not election time. Tell them what you like. Tell them what you dislike. Tell them that they risk losing your vote if you don’t like what they’re doing.

    And keep it brief – it’s the 19-year-old interns who read and file the paperwork.

  40. Your point about reflexive “anti-semitism” accusations, Kevin, is right on. People are far too quick to throw perjoratives around.

    And hello Ruthless! Sometimes I do want to run out with a pitchfork. My point with “keeping it brief” is that, even though the congressmen don’t read most of their letters, they DO get the tallies of how many pro and con letters have been received. If a large number of people write in and most are for one side of the issue, then the congressman will pay attention to the numbers. Unless it’s an instance in which he has principles….. But at least he knows where he stands decision-making-wise.

    Writers need to keep the letters short and pithy so the interns can tally the ‘vote’ correctly. *That’s* what I think I failed to convey. 🙂

  41. Ralphie baby isn’t a politcal strategist and there are good reasons why. Who is upset with NAFTA? Conservative-Libertarians in Texas that opposed it during it debate? Lets not allow 10 years of fact play a role in Nader’s newfound adeptness for what Conservative-Libertarian Texans demand.

    The Age of Dean is needed. Not that I want Dean to get elected, I just understand that Bush needs Dean more than the American voter needs Dean. Bush needs a neo-Clinton to punch around so as to shift focus away from his administration and maintain media attention on Dean and his gaffes and goofs. The more we hear about Dean, the better Bush’s reelection chances rise.

    2004 is not a race for the Idealist candidate. We’re not in a peacetime mood. The population is still restless about terrorism and whether or not government can be trusted to handle it. Once you’ve chosen a platform of reactive defense to security threats you’ve lost the race. This would be emblematic of the Marxist wing of the Democratic Party. Spend, spend, spend some more defending the homeland, but don’t dare attempt to nip the security threats at the source. Dick Durbin might as well run for President.

    We’ve ditched the tax and spend for the tax cut and spend. We’re stuck with a President that the right identifies as non-conservative on spending and the left says he’s the most coked out right wing fasicst warmongering tool of Industry. Oh these times we live in.

  42. “We’ve ditched the tax and spend for the tax cut and spend”

    Well that’s progress. I’d much rather have a big tax cut and big budget deficit than high taxes with a balanced budget. The budget deficit will eventually force spending cuts – which is a good thing.

  43. “And keep it brief – it’s the 19-year-old interns who read and file the paperwork.”

    Rebecca, this pulled the rug from under your urging to write congressmen.

    Torches and pitchforks. Those will get through.

    Seriously, voters are complicit with their congressmen in plundering themselves. That’s why emotion doesn’t rise to the pitchfork level and won’t. That’s why you should simply drop out of the political games: become a peaceful anarchist. Works for me.

  44. “Rick Barton”:

    Since you, bizarrely, put quotation marks around my real name I’ll do the same for your (presumably) real name. Anyway, you got me convinced. I mean: one link to antiwar.com, a couple to some other pro-pali sites, case closed.

    And, what, you mean, there are some Israelis who are critical of the Sharon “regime” ?(I would have thought “government” would be a more appropriate word for the elected head of a parliamentary democracy, but hey)You mean, there are different political factions and stuff, just like in every other democracy? Who knew.

    You seem awfully concerned about Arab citizens of Israel. I am too, particulalry about the fact that Palestinian terrorists seem to like to blow them up just as much as they do anyone else.

    And, of course, since you’re holding Israel to such a high standard, I’m assuming you hold the Palestinian kleptocracy to an equally high standard regarding their treatment of homosexuals, “collaborators” etc. Have you checked on the civil liberties situation there lately? Oh yeah, since you know so much, maybe you can tell me, what the PA’s policies are towards Jews.

    What could be the reason for your buying into this double standard? Hmmm, I wonder . . .

  45. Eric Deamer,
    Surely there are other sites that have more defenders of Palestinian terrorists than Reason. Have you given them an earful?

  46. Pro-Palestinian sites that I’ve made attempts to debate the issues with have a poorly designed policy of censorship with a touch of Stalinism. The likely excuse is a need to protect the security of the website from dissenting voices.

    I like to debate the issue of the security fence that pro-palis suggest is an obstacle to peace, but if you mention the wall between Sinai and Gaza you get the banhammer. I’ve run out of email addresses to use for new accounts.

  47. Do you really think prolific commenting should be praised? I have my doubts.

  48. Who wants to e-mail hitandrun@reason.com to get a pure topic so pro- and anti-palestinians here can have it out?
    I’d contribute to such a topic.

  49. “anti-palestinians” is equivalent to the “anti-abortion” label. I’m certainly not “anti-palestinian”, but I view much of the Palestinians as the worship of the death cult. Absence of leadership that is Humanist, in either a Christian or Muslim or Secular(wishful thinking), is very desirable at this point, but it’s difficult to convert the a population that worships death and has useful idiots supporting them from the west where Humanism is well respected and advocated.

    In my opinion the best debate is that of leadership among the Palestinians. What sort of leadership will promote peace in hopes of mutual coexistence of an Israeli state and a Palestinian state. Can Arab Nationalism be subverted by Arabs without getting pushed into the slaughterhouse to prevent “the humiliation factor”?

  50. Brennan,
    I’m gonna keep what little powder I have dry ’til we get a fresh topic.
    Although I must admit the current title “cats and dogs living together” would work.

  51. Why would anyone but a dirty neoncon see any Jewishness in the words “Neocon Likudnik”? What is “Likudnik” a Jewish/Isreali party or somehting? I think not. Antisemitism is just another lie created by the dirty Likudniks.

  52. Is Nader still wearing those $2 hush pupppies he used to sport?

  53. Andrew:

    Very good comments! Keep up the good work!

    Perhaps Nader is just trying to make up for costing Al Gore the presidency in 2000?

    I don’t think we’ve ever thanked him enough for that.

  54. EMAIL: nospam@nospampreteen-sex.info
    IP: 213.228.213.160
    URL: http://preteen-sex.info
    DATE: 05/20/2004 06:58:08
    After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.