Bill Bennett is Betting…

…that the Bush victory will be seen as a mandate for a socially conservative agenda. Given the high number of Bush voters citing "moral values" (rather than, say, Social Security reform or actual school choice) as a key issue, ol' Bill may be sitting on pocket aces this time.

Comments

[Ruthless]

Hey, Kerry has been preaching at black churches every Sunday for the past six months.
Doesn’t that count for something, Bill Bennett?

[gary]

All the more reason to boot Ashcroft. He’s the socon hitman.

[Ruthless]

Seriously, isn’t it funny how the same folks calling for moral values want more blood for oil?
Someone like Howard Dean had the potential to nip that thinking in the bud.
Mobs can be quelled with solid, courageous reason.
Bill Bennett’s is pure “mob mentality speak.”

[Jason Bourne]

Julian Sanchez,

Let’s deconstruct some of Bennett’s spin:

First off, Kerry never supported gay marraige; Kerry didn’t support drug legalization; and his views on abortion were wishy-washy, but hardly radical.

Second, the black voters that he cites that had problems with gay marraige largely voted for Kerry.

Third, regarding the “The Great Relearning,” one wonders what it is that we are supposed to “relearn.” The DEA still exists and is more powerful than ever, except for Massachusetts, there is no gay marraige in the U.S. (and Massachusetts seems poised to end gay marraige in that state), Vermont has civil unions but no other state seems to be recognizing them, gambling is largely confined to small enclaves in this country, etc. About the only thing social conservatives have to whine about is euthanasia in Oregon and abortion. What else do they really want? Locking up gay people for being gay, as the folks at the Brothers Judd have implied?

[Jennifer]

Whenever the government talks about enforcing “decency,” that always seems to involve the horrible treatment of people who aren’t hurting anybody.

It used to be America was always increasing the rights it afforded to people–outlawing slavery, giving women the vote, etc.–whereas now we’re in the phase of taking rights AWAY from people. Today it’s the gay people. I wonder who will be next?

[Jason Bourne]

BTW, the notion that Bush’s anemic performance – as a “wartime President” no less (has any President done worse than him in wartime?) – is a mandate for anything is, well, crap.

[Henry]

WAIT–you mean it wasn’t all about the “wolves waiting to strike”??

I’ll be damned, leave it to Bill “Double Down” Bennett to be truthful, if only inadvertantly and after the fact. I hope his body-building dominitriax kicks his ass but good.

[raymond]

Well, Bush’s marriage amendment was a master ploy.

I read somewhere that for lots of people gay marriage was more important than war, social security…

As he said: “I will do whatever it takes.”

[Ken Shultz]

Hasn’t Bill Bennett seen every election since 1980 as a mandate for a socially conservative agenda?

This looks like another example of the Elaine Garzarelli School of Prognostication. You tell everybody that the market’s gonna crash every day for years. One day you make it on to FNN (Yes, CNBC was FNN back then), and Bam! Black Monday ’87; Garzarrelli must be a genius; nothing beats a great pair of Haynes.

[Shawn Smith]

Jason Bourne,

I’m pretty sure Bush thought the 2000 election was a mandate after Sept. 11, 2001. I don’t have any actual quotes from him or stories about him saying that, but it is the impression I have gotten.

If that impression is correct, it seems like this election simply gives him more justification for the, “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists,” statement being true.

One thing I learned working on the Yucca Mountain Project a couple years ago is that in much of politics, science (or facts, in many cases) is nothing, perception is everything. With the noted secrecy and echo-chamber effect that causes in this administration, I don’t see how Bush’s perception is going to change.

[Mike]

First off, Kerry never supported gay marraige; Kerry didn’t support drug legalization; and his views on abortion were wishy-washy, but hardly radical.

And no one believed any of it. That was the problem with Kerry. He said stuff like “I don’t support gay marraige” when everyone knows — on both sides — that it’s a lie. John Kerry lied and lost because of it — and in spite of it.

[metalgrid]

Massachusetts seems poised to end gay marraige in that state

Before it can be ended in Massachusetts, the legislature needs to ratify the amendment in two consecutive sessions. Considering that the House leader resigned and several anti-gay legislators were voted out, the issue won’t even come up in next years session, and if it does, it will be rather soundly defeated.

Whenever the government talks about enforcing “decency,” that always seems to involve the horrible treatment of people who aren’t hurting anybody.

And it just takes the aquiescence of everyone else, for them to keep doing it.

[Madog]

BTW, the notion that Bush’s anemic performance – as a “wartime President” no less (has any President done worse than him in wartime?) – is a mandate for anything is, well, crap.

Well, the White House hasn’t been burned down yet.

[gaius marius]

regarding the “The Great Relearning,” one wonders what it is that we are supposed to “relearn.”

bennett, along with a lot of born-agains, really believe their movement isn’t innovative — that it is recapturing some lost idyll. it’s the same revisionist fallacy that gets neocons believing that jefferson and the founders unanimously dreamed of an “empire of liberty”.

it’s not that we’re as moral as our western ancestors. clearly, imo, we aren’t.

it’s that what bennett would “recapture” — a totalitarian society of moralists — has no enduring antecedent in the west except a few short-lived experiments.

the “re-” in his “relearning” is horseshit as fact, of course — but its a powerful sell for the weak, simple, confused and aimless in a decadent, deteriorating society.

[Jason Bourne]

Mike,

Are you suggesting then that Kerry would have tried to pass something like a Gay Marraige Amendment? Sorry, I don’t see that happening.

I’ll be completely forthright; I support gay marraige.

[Russ D]

What else do they really want?

Jason, they want what they already have, only faster and harder. They can’t end liberties fast enough.

[Jason Bourne]

metalgrid,

That’s interesting.

[Jason Bourne]

Madog,

I meant electorally. 🙂

Probably the only President to do worse than GWB in “wartime” was LBJ in 1968 (because LBJ didn’t even run).

[Dan]

(has any President done worse than him in wartime?)

Yes and no.

There have been five wartime elections in the last century, in 1944, 1952, 1968, 1972, and 2004. In two of them, the incumbent Presidents were so unpopular that they didn’t even run for reelection. Of the three wartime Presidents who actually had the nerve to run for reelection, however, Bush has the lowest share of the popular vote. So, basically, Bush is the median value for wartime Presidential reelection in the last century.

[Randy]

Wow. Nothing could suck more really.

[joe]

“Seen” by whom?

The people running George Bush are going to see this as a mandate for whatever they feel like doing when they wake up in the morning.

But then, they seemed to feel that way about the last election, too, so I guess it’s all good.

[dlc]

“He said stuff like “I don’t support gay marraige” when everyone knows — on both sides — that it’s a lie.”

Do you have any evidence whatsoever of this claim? Or do you (and apprently everyone else) just KNOW it must be true, because, uh, Kerry is of of ’em libruhls?

[Joe Majsterski]

When Bill Bennett is happy, I’m afraid.

[joe o]

Kerrey was one of the few senators to vote against the stupid “Defence of Marriage” Act. He is probably pro gay marriage.

[Mark Bahner]

“Bill Bennett is Betting…
…that the Bush victory will be seen as a mandate for a socially conservative agenda.”

Read it and weep, you “libertarians” who voted for Bush.

[evangofascist_reign]

what mr. bahner said

[Gadfly]

On 911 we lost 3,000 innocent civilians. After this election we are no longer innocent.

[fyodor]

Jason Bourne,

Just because social conservatives may not really have had anything to fear doesn’t mean that they thought they did and acted accordingly.

As far as a mandate goes, like art, it’s in the eye of the beholder, and ultimately you do whatever you can get away with whatever your justifications. Social conservatives will push their agenda and those opposed to it will fight it, regardless of whatever hot air is blown over interpreting the election results now.

[Todd Fletcher]

They always act like they have a mandate. Why wouldn’t they? They didn’t go through all the trouble getting elected so they could hang out in the White House doing nothing….it’s too bad, isn’t it?

[Brian]

I guess the only hope for people who aren’t interested in a theocracy is to move to a blue state. That is if the republicans respect federalism and don’t federalize morals laws.

“republicans respect federalism”

Hahahhahahhahahhahhahah! Oh boy.

Being in a red state myself, I’m seriously concerned about a red state brain drain as the “knowledge workers” flee. Which would discourage 21st century employers from locating in the red states. I guess I can get a job in the fields or the mines or Walmart.

[Mark Bahner]

Oh, and another thing: you “libertarians” who voted for Kerry can take comfort that, owing to the closeness of the election, G.W. Bush probably now realizes that it would be a good idea to push for even more federal money for education, as John Kerry called for.

With friends like y’all, we REAL libertarians don’t need any opponents.

[fyodor]

Dan,

Interesting history you bring up there. But putting Bush in the middle presumes that Johnson & Truman would have ultimately fared worse had they had stuck it out. A fairly reasonable presumption, as presumptions go, but at the same time we don’t really know that and never will. Maybe it was just lack of nerve and they would have found more rallying ’round the flag than they realized!

[Dan]

Read it and weep, you “libertarians” who voted for Bush.

Oh, grow up. None of us thought we were voting for a libertarian candidate; we were just voting for the candidate who was least offensive to libertarian values.

[fyodor]

dlc,

Whether or not Mike has evidence for his distrust of Kerry’s social agenda, his belief that Kerry was lying is nevertheless indicative of the politics of the matter. As the saying goes, perception is everything.

[Ken Shultz]

“…we were just voting for the candidate who was least offensive to libertarian values.”

Which libertarian value was that, a respect for prayer?

[cdunlea]

No, Ken, it was ending corporate subsidies. No, wait, it was the value placed on civil liberties. Actually, it was more about the focus on deficit reduction. Come to think of it, I don’t remember why the fuck I voted for him.

[clarityiniowa]

What staggers me is that a formerly coke-snorting, whiskey-swilling womanizer is seen as morally superior to someone of approximately the same background who, as far as I know, never did any of those things.

Those who voted for “moral values” want to take the mote out of other’s eyes without removing the lumber from their own. In other words, it isn’t about having moral values or even preaching moral values, but about being willing and able to impose a certain idea of moral values on others.

[Ruthless]

Seeing this thread degenerate into loss of self-respect in the morning–for having voted for the evil of two lessers, do a thought experiment with me.
First, I note that Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe has a column full of more happy horseshit about how we have a duty to vote, etc.

Imagine speaking with an election observor from the Planet Blypton. Who knows what kind of government, if any, exists on Blypton. Could anyone here convince him that voting makes sense?
(The sole purpose of voting is to be a pacifier.)

[rox_publius]

I’m no great fan of the socially conservative bent this administration is showing, but nationalizing healthcare (11-18% of the national economy) and refusing to touch the entitlement program that is crushing europe with us not far behind could leave us in a lot worse bind than have to defend our less sexually mainstream friends from hypocritical moralists.

[Dan]

putting Bush in the middle presumes that Johnson & Truman would have ultimately fared worse had they had stuck it out. A fairly reasonable presumption, as presumptions go, but at the same time we don’t really know that and never will.

Well, true. But while we’re playing the “what if” game, ask yourself this: would Nixon have done as well as he did if the Democratic Party hadn’t been in full meltdown at the time? And would FDR still have managed a 55% (only four points higher than Bush) if he hadn’t had near-total control over what the press could report about the war? The 1944 equivalents of Michael Moore could have gotten a lot of mileage out of the fact that Germany presented no real military threat to us and was primarily killing Jews and Communists (two groups the American public loved to hate) — and, of course, out of the fact that FDR was giving higher priority to the war *he* felt was most necessary, rather than to the war against the nation that actually attacked us.

[rox_publius]

clarity –

no, i haven’t read it. but i don’t buy it. europe is being crippled by their pension system and we aren’t far behind.

[Dan]

Which libertarian value was that, a respect for prayer?

Small government, property rights (including low taxes), free trade, self defense rights, and national defense.

And before you complain that Bush increased government or put tariffs on steel or yadda yadda yadda — duh, I know that. I’m not saying Bush is good on these things, I’m saying Kerry is worse.

[Pavel]

On 911 we lost 3,000 innocent civilians. After this election we are no longer innocent.

Maybe next time, Mr. Bin Laden will have the wherewithall to attack a city that doesn’t already hate Bush to begin with.

[Ruthless]

This whole line of what passes for thinking inside a lynchmob was incited by the column by NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF in today’s New York Times.
He’s a nincompoop.

No surprise Dan Rather joined the mob and ran his little piece on 60 Minutes tonight. He should just get some sleep.

[clarityiniowa]

rox_publius –

You don’t have to buy it, it’s already bought. Why do you think everything in bottles from whiskey to motor oil has a label indication in liters? Speaking of which, everything from Quaker State motor oil to Motts applesauce belongs to European corporations. Motorola used to be the top cellphone manufacturer, now it’s Nokia. And Deimler-Chrysler? Please…

Thing is, the EU has laws against outsourcing and downsizing. All these companies have facilities in the US. When the shit hits the fan, they won’t be able to lay off EU workers, so where do you think the cuts will come from?

[Jim Walsh]

Regrettably, I think Bennett is right. Bush won because of his support from the “Onward Christian Soldiers” crowd. This could get really scary. To paraphrase Mencken, no one ever got voted out of office by underestimating the intellegence of the American voter.

[Ken Shultz]

That’s a great quote Jim.

[Phil]

The 1944 equivalents of Michael Moore could have gotten a lot of mileage out of the fact that Germany presented no real military threat to us and was primarily killing Jews and Communists . . .

Except for, you know, sinking our merchant marine and other Lend-Lease shipping all over the North Atlantic. And lobbing rockets over the English Channel every day with an eye towards rockets that could reach the U.S. And the atomic bomb development program, held up largely by the fact that Allied saboteurs blew up the Norsk Hydro heavy water factory.

So, by “fact,” you really meant “lie,” right?

[Ken Shultz]

As Jim Walsh once said…

I’m gonna use that.

[nic]

I’ve got a feeling that the only thing worst than being gay or a minority over the next 4 yrs. is to be, well, a gay minority. middle america…where the fuck are your priorites? not questioning your vote, just the logic (lack thereof?) which brought you there. I would claim that Joseph berger’s column in the NYT today was overly critical of ya’ll…perhaps even pretentious…except for the fact that I agree- you really are a bunch of couth-less yokels. Well, at least you’ll be safe from all the faggots and towel heads for another 4 yrs.

[Dan]

Except for, you know, sinking our merchant marine and other Lend-Lease shipping all over the North Atlantic

The hypothetical “Moore of ’44” would have explained that that was our fault for siding with the imperialist Brits in the first place.

And sure, Germany was developing nukes and long-range missiles. So are North Korea and Iran — and despite that fact, tens of millions of Americans are retarded enough to believe that our problems with those countries are due solely to our own misbehavior. The Republicans of ’44 could easily have appealed to the same “we learned political and military strategy by playing Candyland” crowd.

So, by “fact,” you really meant “lie,” right?

I should have thought that much was obvious from my mention of Michael Moore. I meant “convince the ignorant and bigotted by distorting the facts until they are indistinguishable from a lie” — i.e., what people like Moore and Limbaugh do.

[Jason Bourne]

Dan,

Oh, grow up. None of us thought we were voting for a libertarian candidate; we were just voting for the candidate who was least offensive to libertarian values.

Meaning neither Kerry nor Bush. You’re the one who needs to grow up and face reality.

rox publius,

…but nationalizing healthcare (11-18% of the national economy)…

Which this administration is slowly doing as every administration has since the 1960s.

…and refusing to touch the entitlement program…

Which they have so far refused to anything about.

Dan,

Small government…

Republicans don’t support this.

…property rights…

Republicans don’t support this.

…free trade…

Republicans don’t support this.

…self defense rights, and national defense.

Republicans support these intermittently.

And before you complain that Bush increased government or put tariffs on steel or yadda yadda yadda — duh, I know that. I’m not saying Bush is good on these things, I’m saying Kerry is worse.

No, they are about even actually.

Dan, what you are doing is rationalizing your reason for voting for Bush; yet your rationalizations upon further inspection simply do not hold up.

[Jason Bourne]

Dan,

By 1944, the U.S. was heavily engaged against Germany. In early 2003 the U.S. was not heavily engaged with Iraq. Your analogy falls flat on its face I am afraid. Please, keep your psuedo-history to yourself.

[Dan]

Dan, what you are doing is rationalizing your reason for voting for Bush; yet your rationalizations upon further inspection simply do not hold up.

Gosh, Gary, and I was really hoping to earn your respect and admiration, too.

Whatever. It isn’t like libertarianism is some cool club or something, and I’m just dying to be affiliated with the really popular kids in the Libertarian Party. From a libertarian perspective, Bush was preferable to Kerry. That fact may not pass muster with the You’re Either A Pure Libertarian Or One of the Unwashed Masses crowd, but I stopped caring what they think back in… er, wait, actually I never cared what they thought.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll go back to enjoying my profound sense of relief that John Kerry will never be my President.

[Les]

Dan,

I promise I’m not one of “those” libertarians, but I have to ask. Do you really think that, considering how similar Kerry and Bush were and considering how hard it would have been for Kerry’s scariest ideas to get through the Republican-controlled Congress, it was worth it to vote for an unethical, fundamentalist simpleton? I didn’t vote for Kerry because I didn’t think he was worthy of the office. But I don’t know for a fact that he’d tolerate blatent and deliberate dishonesty in his adminstration (though I suspect he would), or that he’d be unable to admit mistakes (a fatal flaw in anyone even pretending to be a man), or that he’d be willfully and proudly ignorant, or that he’d base any decisions on his belief in what “God” wants him to do. It seems to me that these are all qualities that make a person unfit for the job and undeserving of anyone’s vote. What has Kerry done to make you fear him so much that you’d vote for a person who is so unqualified for such a variety of reasons?

[Les]

Let me clarify my statement about “God.” I don’t mind Presidents reflecting of the lessons of their faith. But once they start thinking they know what “God” wants them, specifically, to do, I’d rather they not hold the position of the most powerful human in the history of humanity. I know the opposite is true for most Americans, but I think it’s just because they haven’t sat down and really considered the ramifications. Or maybe they have. What do I know? Don’t answer that.

[raymond]

None of us thought we were voting for a libertarian candidate; we were just voting for the candidate who was least offensive to libertarian values.

I voted for Attila the Hun. His stand on 2nd-amendment rights was… Well, I was just voting for the candidate who was least offensive to libertarian values.

[Jason Bourne]

Gosh, Gary, and I was really hoping to earn your respect and admiration, too.

Gosh Dan, I was really hoping you would take your head out of your ass. So far, that still seems like the remotest of possibilities.

It isn’t like libertarianism is some cool club or something, and I’m just dying to be affiliated with the really popular kids in the Libertarian Party.

You’ve stated before that you aren’t a libertarian or a Libertarian, so at best your statement is a reiteration of your past position, and lends nothing to your erroneous argument. Of course recently you flip-flopped on the matter of whether you are a libertarian or not, but somehow I think that was more for effect than anything. I’ll take you by your first word on the matter.

From a libertarian perspective, Bush was preferable to Kerry.

Actually, from a libertarian perspective, they are about equal. About the only thing that Bush might have as a good point is his willingness to press the Congress to lower taxes, but that hardly makes up for the clusterfuck of a President that he is.

That fact may not pass muster with the You’re Either A Pure Libertarian Or One of the Unwashed Masses crowd…

This is a false choice and thus fallacious. Is this canard really the best that you can do? It seems so; indeed, given your track record, that seems about par for you.

Finally, I am not asking for purity at all (though you lie and attempt to imply that I am); hell, I am (and I am sure many other libertarians to boot) even willing to compromise; but there is no compromise from the Bush administration in return, and thus there is no reason for me to hold any allegiance with them. In a contest between two devils, don’t expect me to pick either.

[Akira MacKenzie]

“Regrettably, I think Bennett is right. Bush won because of his support from the “Onward Christian Soldiers” crowd. This could get really scary.”

Just keep telling yourself: September 11 changed everything… September 11 changed everything… September 11 changed everything…

It certainly did. Thanks to September 11 we’re now a nation that’s more paranoid, more hateful and narrow-minded, and more willing to find solace in the mythology of religion and the bigotries that it spews forth in exchange for the false promise that “God” (or those earthly proxies who claim to speak for him) will protect them from the infidels.

[Jason Bourne]

Akira,

I think we have every right to be fearful of the religious fanaticism that could possibly come directly or indirectly from this Presidency.

[raymond]

It occurred to me this morning, as I was dragging my huge head out of bed, that a theocracy would be preferable to democracy-as-it-is-now in the US.

But it would have to be ruled by a nice god. A god who insists:

God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

and

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

and not the nasty kind of god who orders slaves to obey their masters, who considers man-lying-with-man to be as abominable as man-eating-lobster, and who wants Harry Potter to be stoned (and not in a good way).

A truly libertarian god presiding over a eutheocracy.

Toute leur vie ?tait dirig?e non par les lois, statuts ou r?gles, mais selon leur bon vouloir et libre-arbitre. Ils se levaient du lit quand bon leur semblait, buvaient, mangeaient, travaillaient, dormaient quand le d?sir leur venait. Nul ne les ?veillait, nul ne les for?ait ni ? boire, ni ? manger, ni ? faire quoi que ce soit… Ainsi l’avait ?tabli Gargantua. Toute leur r?gle tenait en cette clause :

FAIS CE QUE VOUDRAS,

car des gens libres, bien n?s, biens instruits, vivant en honn?te compagnie, ont par nature un instinct et un aiguillon qui pousse toujours vers la vertu et retire du vice; c’est ce qu’ils nommaient l’honneur. Ceux-ci, quand ils sont ?cras?s et asservis par une vile suj?tion et contrainte, se d?tournent de la noble passion par laquelle ils tendaient librement ? la vertu, afin de d?mettre et enfreindre ce joug de servitude; car nous entreprenons toujours les choses d?fendues et convoitons ce qui nous est d?ni?.

[Jason Bourne]

raymond,

Sorry, but in a theocracy, we would be the first thrown into the soccer stadium and shot/beheaded. There’s a pretty damn good reason why many of the Founders feared the passion of religious belief.

[Skeptikos]

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/110304.asp

[trollpatrol]

Who’s fault is it precisely? The Great Unwashed, who voted their beliefs, or the political process and parties that didn’t give them a real alternative. When Libertarians give them a candidate that’s not a freakin loon, then they can complain. When the Dems give them a candidate who appears to believe in something other than his own desire to be President, then they can complain.

[Jason Bourne]

trollpatrol,

Please, my First Amendment rights aren’t subject to the vagaries of the voting public or the wisdom of the political parties you numbskull.

[Jason Bourne]

PHILADELPHIA – The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6405485/

[SR]

Interesting. That was predicted by many of Spectre’s critics, but I didn’t actually believe it would happen.

[R C Dean]

Jason, put down the kool-aid and back away slowly.

This is not a theocracy. No one is being beheaded in soccer stadiums, and no one will be. No one will be punished for their religious beliefs, or lack of them.

The Republicans lack most libertarian virtues, but the Democrats are as bad or worse on every single domestic issue with very, very few exceptions. Remember, the Dems voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and the Patriot Act, just like the Republicans did.

Anyone who believes John Kerry would have advanced a domestic libertarian agenda one inch further than George Bush is a freakin’ loon.

[trollpatrol]

Please, my First Amendment rights aren’t subject to the vagaries of the voting public or the wisdom of the political parties you numbskull.

If what you suggest is about to happen happens, then apparently they are. If it doesn’t, then you’re spewing bile over nothing.

And only girlsfriends get to call me a numbkull. What wouldn’t happen to be selfish, overeducated, and unemployed, slightly redeemed by blonde hair, large breasts and low self esteem would you?

[trollpatrol]

Please, my First Amendment rights aren’t subject to the vagaries of the voting public or the wisdom of the political parties you numbskull.

If what you suggest is about to happen happens, then apparently they are. If it doesn’t, then you’re spewing bile over nothing.

And only girlsfriends get to call me a numbkull. You wouldn’t happen to be selfish, overeducated, and unemployed, slightly redeemed by blonde hair, large breasts and low self esteem would you?

Must learn to preview…

[Russ D]

RC,

You can wake up now.

No one is being beheaded in soccer stadiums, and no one will be.

No, instead you’ll be rounded up and thrown in jail if you smoke some pot or drink 3 beers or subscribe pain killers.

No one will be punished for their religious beliefs, or lack of them.

Ask that of the Muslims who were held for 18 month and more (and I’m not talkin’ Guantanamo here) for unspecified reasons.

You can exaggerate what won’t happen, or you can realistically talk about what is already happening.

[raymond]

in a theocracy, we would be the first thrown into the soccer stadium and shot/beheaded

Not if _I_ were god you wouldn’t.

[Wild Pegasus]

When Libertarians give them a candidate that’s not a freakin loon, then they can complain.

Badnarik might be a loon, but his main problem was that no one has ever heard of him.

– Josh

[trollpatrol]

Badnarik might be a loon, but his main problem was that no one has ever heard of him.

Honestly, I think that Badnarik was better off without people knowing who he was or like, hearing him speak. Although, much respect to the lib in Lehigh Valley PA who threw up a s’load of Badnarik signs in the last couple days before the election.

No, instead you’ll be rounded up and thrown in jail if you smoke some pot or drink 3 beers or subscribe pain killers.
Well, you’ll get locked up for most of that already in good ole’ secular, ‘pre-theocracy’ America. Could it be that gasp! whatever the motivating ideaology, government seeks to control citizen’s lives! Zut alor!

Ask that of the Muslims who were held for 18 month and more (and I’m not talkin’ Guantanamo here) for unspecified reasons.
Two thoughts:
a. Could it be that they were held not because someone dislike like Muslims, but because someone dislikes people who blow shit up, and Muslims have a nasty habit of blowing shit up.
b. Every black man who’s ever been detained or held for “matching the description” greatly appreciates how liberal Americans deign to give a rat’s ass once Muslims and white folk are the ones getting locked up.

[Jason Bourne]

R.C. Dean,

Put down the Kool-Aid and learn to read comments more closely.

This is not a theocracy.

Never claimed that it was.

No one is being beheaded in soccer stadiums, and no one will be. No one will be punished for their religious beliefs, or lack of them.

Never claimed that is what will happen.

The Republicans lack most libertarian virtues, but the Democrats are as bad or worse on every single domestic issue with very, very few exceptions. Remember, the Dems voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and the Patriot Act, just like the Republicans did.

Non-sequitor; I never claimed that voting for Democrats was the solution, so one wonders why you bring it up. Oh, wait, to imply the falsity that I support the Democrats.

Anyone who believes John Kerry would have advanced a domestic libertarian agenda one inch further than George Bush is a freakin’ loon.

Never claimed that he did. Again, a non-sequitor. And again one wonders why you bring it up. Oh, wait, again to imply the falsity that I support the Democrats. You know, you might actually try to address my comments in the future.

trollpatrol,

Numbskull. Not, blonde, etc., but I have a big cock I can service you with. 🙂

[Jason Bourne]

R.C. Dean,

Also, I am get quite tired of your fabrications.

[Andrzej]

Actually, to their credit, Dems funded the ads just before the election that called for reforming the Patriot Act, you know, the “safe and free” thing? I saw that as light at the end of the tunnel for the Democrats, i.e., since the Republicans have all but abandoned privacy and personal rights (‘cept for guns and prayer in school, of course), the Dems ought to pick up the slack and be classical liberals again. Beat ’em at their own game.

That’s what the Dem “reformers” ought to be talking about, anyway … topics like this, but instead it’s the same old crap from Pelosi and Co.

[Bill Bennet's dominatrix]

You’ve been bad, BAD!!! Lick my boot, you snivelling little weasel!