Will Loves Libs, Other Libs Love Bing

Dave Wolcott notes that George Will puts in a good word for libertarians in his current Newsweek column on censorship of political speech:

So Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a 48-year-old Texan, tried riding to the rescue. Hensarling is a Republican, which means next to nothing nowadays, but also a libertarian, which means he believes, as Republicans once did, in limited government.

I gag at putting in a good word for any baseball elegist or bowtie-wearer, but Will consistently provides a strong critique of campaign finance reform in media that regular people actually pay attention to; he's probably the most prominent figure making this argument in the mainstream media. So godspeed to him. And I'm partial to any article where playboy, dilettante and unregenerate cad Steve Bing gets a featured role. This time, the dabbler in cinema and politics gets to sit in on a high-level Democratic confab because, in the words of the execrable Barbara Boxer, he is "just really interested in making this country better." (Through better policing of deadbeat dads, no doubt.)

Comments

[Johnny]

Fascinating that he only finds liberals responsible. I could have sworn that this was a bi-partisan attempts to stop free speech.

[D.W.]

Fascinating that he only finds liberals responsible. I could have sworn that this was a bi-partisan attempts to stop free speech.

That's often his way since he is the conservative-half of that Newsweek column. But, he's also come out pretty hard against the GOP in his columns on spending, education, and the general direction of the GOP.

I was partial to his recent WaPo column on limited government.

Indiana's Book of Daniels

[Ken Shultz]

Will came out kinda big against intelligent design the other week on "This Week with George Snufalufagus", more or less calling it the science of the supernatural.

I still can't think of George Will without chuckling to myself about his "Thanksgiving Death Porn" article, as described by Matt Welch.

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/11/thanksgiving_de.shtml

[fyodor]

I know some folks may take the "libertarian litmus test" idea too seriously at times, as some, like thoreau, are wont to point out. But consider that a Republican can believe and support just about anything and still be a Republican, while that's a lot harder to say about a libertarian (thus Will's contrasting the two), and one can see the value of having the term libertarian mean more than just anyone who likes to identify himself that way.

[GreenBoy]

Will came out kinda big against intelligent design the other week on "This Week with George Snufalufagus", more or less calling it the science of the supernatural.

Nothing new there. A decade ago, on "This Week" (with David Brinkley) George Will said "No serious person believes in Creationism". Next to him was Pat Buchanon who retorted "You may have evolved from apes but not me."

[GreenBoy]

Ken,

George Will was also agast at the Republican response to the death of Terri Schrivo. 'A human life is important, but so is the law'.

On the political significance of teaching Creationism in some Kansas public schools, Will identified this as a moment when the tent that had once covered both religious conservatives and a good number of libertarians may have been fully dismantled.

[Shelby]

Tim:

Should that be "elegiaist"? Or is that too much of a George Will-type question?

Greenboy:

Maybe Pat was conceding some have evolved more than others. 😉

[NoStar]

I agree with Pat Buchannon. He hasn't yet evolved from apes.

[Wintermute]

I don't know Steve Bing, but the linked article doesn't provide enough evidence for the epithet thrown at him.

Unilateral decisions to carry to term, especially outside marriage, are a growing problem.

[joshua corning]

"On the political significance of teaching Creationism in some Kansas public schools, Will identified this as a moment when the tent that had once covered both religious conservatives and a good number of libertarians may have been fully dismantled."

yeah as a libertarian I am not so much against creationism being taught in public schools as I am simply against public schools.

[Captain Awesome]

When I mentioned I was a libertarian, my old highschool friend called me a republican. Itried to explain what libertarians are about and she asserted that that was what republicans were about. When I tried to explain what republicans are for to get contrast I drew a blank. What do they stand for?

[Ken Shultz]

What do they stand for?

There used to be a list. It included cuts in marginal tax rates, a balanced budget, a pragmatic foreign policy an aversion to regulation and a passion for free trade. That was when I went door to door for them (I was too young to vote.), but those days are over.

...Now they stand for culture war conservatives, and they stand for incumbency.

[Stevo Darkly]

Captain: A few weeks ago, a friend with whom I rarely discuss politics asked me what I "was" politically. I said, "A libertarian."

She said, "What's that?"

I said, "Libertarians believe in having as small a government as possible."

She said, "Well, that's just the same thing as being a hard-core Republican."

I said, "Not really, that's just what Republicans say they believe in."

I don't really know what if anything "Republicans" actually stand for nowadays, which is why I stopped identifying with them sometime during the era of George Bush I.

Republicans in particular, and conservatives in general, were last a cohesive movement during the Cold War, when they were united against the global threat to freedom posed by international communism. Then the Berlin Wall fell and the ever-pragmatic Chinese opened the door to economic reforms. Hardly anyone feels threatened by Russian, Chinese or any other communists anymore. Now Republicans/conservatives are without a purpose to compare with their Reagan heyday.

That's a problem with all kinds of movements -- once they've essentially "won," they go rudderless. Then various fringe groups that claim to be the current standardbearers for the cause try to capture the movement for themselves.

Look at what happened to the civil rights and women's liberation movements after the 1970s. (Or the entire Democrat/left-liberal movement, for that matter.)

[Ken Shultz]

Now Republicans/conservatives are without a purpose to compare with their Reagan heyday.

Things seemed simple then.

[citizengnat]

I call myself a libertarian and a Democrat. Am I the only one who thinks that is possible?

Yeah, my mom (who was a Goldwater girl when she was 16) keeps tring to tell me the Republicans are the party of liberty (of the major parties) . I think 20 years ago this would have been a tougher choice.

[The Real Bill]

It is absolutely not possible to be both libertarian and a Democrat. Read the Democrat's party platform.

[Ken Shultz]

There are plenty of people who think that you can be a libertarian and a Democrat. Welcome to the fun citizenqnat.

...Even in the Reagan days, I remember people complaining that the conservative and liberal wings had more continuity than the two big parties had internally. As far as I'm concerned, anyone whose primary political values include liberty and justice should feel free to call themselves libertarian.

I think we lose focus, sometimes, talking about details and tactics.

[citizengnat]

TRB- Do you honestly base your voting decisions on a party's platform? Do you live in the U.S.?

What we need is big tent libertarianism. I want the NRA and the ACLU to hold a joint march on Washington under the banner "Now representing most of the bill of rights!"

Yeah, its a fantasy, but so is the LP.
Speaking of which, I've often wondered how many actual "big L" Libertarians visit this site. Show of hands? What about bona-fide Objectivists?

[citizengnat]

Oh, and thanks for the validation Ken 🙂

[joshua corning]

libertarian democrats?!?!

yeah there are many libertarian republicans who identify them as such and are identified as such from others and MSM...show me the libertarian democrats out side deadwood and i will be astonished...but seriously i am listening.

[Rick Barton]

Yeah, my mom keeps tring to tell me the Republicans are the party of liberty.

There are far, far more adherents to liberty in the GOP than the Democratic Party. The picture is some what muddled however cuz the Bush administration's actions strongly tend to be very antithetical to individual liberty.

Also, there's a lot less in the GOP platform to make us libertarians nauseas than there is in the Democratic Party platform.

Lastly, there are a number of GOP congress people and other GOP officeholders who can be fairly described as friends of liberty and others who can, at least, be described as friends of economic liberty. Among the Dems, this is not true.

Full disclosure: I am a principled libertarian and a registered Republican. The last Republican candidate for president that I voted for in the general election was Reagan.

[Rick Barton]

I too welcome Will's comments but for the record, in the past he has inveighed against libertarianism.

[citizengnat]

I will allow that the Repubs have more elected officials who could be called libertarian, but they are a handful on the fringe of a party increasingly dominated by the Christian right. The Republicans have sacrificed all credibility on trade, fiscal discipline, and federalism. The Dems can offer legal abortion, porn, and not hating gay people all that much. The Repubs can offer... guns. I'm not saying I'm happy with my choices, but the Republicans are much more likely to make me nauseous.

[Mark B.]

I for one am glad that Pat Buchanan disavows any descent from apes - the idea that he might be is a slap in the face to every self-respecting gorilla, chimp and orangutan on the planet.

[Rick Barton]

citizengnat:

The Republicans have sacrificed all credibility on trade, fiscal discipline, and federalism.

If you change "Republicans" to "Bush administration" in your statement, then I think it's quite accurate. Note that the Republicans in congress tend to be far more frugal than their Dem counterparts.

http://www.ntu.org/main/

The Dems can offer legal... porn

Show me some of those outspoken pro porn freedom Democrats! Of course, it's the 1st Amendment that protects our liberty here, not politicians.

Recall that it was Republicans in congress who led the way to have sunset provisions put on the Patriot act. Note also that Hillary, Lieberman, Schumer et all are falling all over themselves to be bigger war hawks than the Bush administration. Their motivation is to curry favor with that large segment of the media that neocons such as Rupprert Murdock either control or influence.

[Rick Barton]

Republicans, economically speaking, are mercantilists.

Among Republicans in congress, you'll find more free-traders than among the Dems.

[citizengnat]

Rick Barton-

Sigh. We could argue this sort of thing forever, since both parties are so far from being libertarian in the slightest. I admit that I am conflating Bush administration policy with Republican policy in general, but he's kept it that way most of his term and if you think less loyalty to Bush will move the congress in a pro liberty direction I think you are fooling yourself (though I honestly hope you are not). I suppose i is more about which direction the parties seem to be headed for me. Its impossible to tell where the fuck the Dems are going, but the Republicans seem to be headed somewhere very very scary.

[eric mattingly]

I've always like George Will a lot, in spite of his critiques of libertarianism (which never seem to have much steam). I think the man is brilliant in many ways, and I think he probably would LIKE to be a libertarian (or at least more classically conservative) but is divided about it due to the whole neo-con argument about america being the only superpower and thus having a responsibility to maintain order in the world. Not that I agree, but I still like him. Besides, he's never been one to refrain from criticizing the GOP.

[Rick Barton]

...if you think less loyalty to Bush will move the congress in a pro liberty direction I think you are fooling yourself.

Well citizengnat, the Bush administration has been so anti-individual liberty; I don't think that they deserve any loyalty at all.

To illustrate my point vis a vis Bush and the Dems: As much as federal spending has exploded, the administration has proposed even more spending than has passed! And the Dems in congress have voted for even more spending than the Bush Administration has proposed! The Republicans in congress are the relatively frugal ones of the three.

Among the Republicans there are non-trivial number of small government partisans. I think we should encourage them since in previous elections; they've ridden the small government vision to victory.

[M1EK]

"Among the Republicans there are non-trivial number of small government partisans. I think we should encourage them since in previous elections; they've ridden the small government vision to victory."

Nationally and macroscopically, it's clear that with the recent batches of both, we're best off with a Democratic president and a Republican legislature.

Although I find quite a few examples of Republican congressmen who are particularly odious in exactly the same way as the Bush administration (Inhofe, for instance).

The problem is that most people here won't admit there's ever any difference between Ds and Rs, so we have to pretend the 1990s never happened.

[thoreau]

so we have to pretend the 1990s never happened.

Given some of the women that I dated prior to 1999, that sounds like a good idea!

[thoreau]

Nationally and macroscopically, it's clear that with the recent batches of both, we're best off with a Democratic president and a Republican legislature.

You mean that our system might work better if the different branches of government are opposing each other? But, that's not how it was designed to work!

Oh, wait a minute...

[Mike Laursen]

re: "I call myself a libertarian and a Democrat. Am I the only one who thinks that is possible?"

Platform schmatform. How many registered Democrats or Republicans or whatever know or care about everything in their party's platform. Of course, a Democrat can be a libertarian.

[tarran]

Speaking as one whom you love to mock for having approximately equal levels of contempt for the Republicans and Democrats, I don't pretend that the 1990's happened so much as blame it on one of the greatest counterfeit rings in human history, the managers of the Federal Reserve under the tutelage of Alan Greenspan.

The boom of the mid to late '90's followed by the 2001 recession were the result of a pretty classic boom-bust cycle fueled by credit expansion.

Certainly, there is an advantage when the government officials fight each other instead of working together, since they usually are too consumed by stabbing each other in the back to effectively loot the productive classes.

The last time I compared economic growth as a function of party control was in the early Clinton years, and it had Republican president and Democratic Congress showing the greatest growth, followed by Republican President with Democratic Congress, then Democrat/Democrat, followed by Republican/Republican.

Of course, these exercises are limited in their utility since what would be the natural steady growth of the U.S. economy is masked by the Federal Reserve's boom-bust cycles. So the growth appears to take place during the Boom years, followed by stagnation during the Bust years. Since the Bust is usually acompanied by a change in party control of govt, it means that theguys with low growth curves can be inheriting the fallout of the bad policies of their predecessors.

Then again, it is hard to classify the current Republican controlled Federal Govt as anything but an economic disaster, since they are consuming and destroying a great deal of wealth with their wars, protectionist tarrifs, subsidies and social welfare programs. These policies distort the apparent demand for types and quantities of goods, and leads to wasted production and surpluses in less desirable goods and scarcities in more desirable goods. While the distortions have been a significant economic factor throughout the 20th century, I believe the current Govt.'s policies are introducing distortions that are simmilar to those associated with LBJ and Nixon.

[Strep Throat]

...the execrable Barbara Boxer...

An acquaintence of mine who is friends with a certain prominent U.S. Senator from the Midwest, tells me that even among her allies, Boxer has a rep of being a real dumb bunny.

[Jim Walsh]

Re: the comments of the unevolved Patrick Buchanan: I'm reminded of an old New Orleans R&B ditty that goes...something...like...this...

Three monkey sat on a coconut tree
Discussing things has they are said to be
Said one to the other, now listen you two
There is a certain rumour that cant be true
That man descended from our noble race
The very idea is a big disgrace
No monkey ever deserted his wife
Nor her baby and ruin her life
Yeah..the monkey speaks his mind

And you never known a mother monk
To leave her baby causing it to plunk
Nor pass them on one to another
Till they scarcely knew who was their mother
Yeah...the monkey speaks his mind

And another thing you will never see
A monkey build a fence around a coconut tree
And let all the coconuts go to waist
Forbidding all other monkeys to come and taste
Now if I build a fence around this tree
Starvation will cause you to steal from me
Yeah..the monkey speaks his mind

Here is another thing a monkey wont do
Go out at night and get on a stew
Or use a gun a club or a knife
To take another monkey's life

Yes man descended the worthless bum
But my god brothers from us he did not come

(Recorded by Dave Bartholomew and Dr. John, among others...)

[Rick Barton]

Of course, a Democrat can be a libertarian.

I was gonna say that since the Democratic Party is so obnoxiously statist: why would any libertarian want to be a member? But if there are folks who can actually make that party more freedom friendly; I say Mercury's speed to em.

And the policies of the Bush administration are so collectivist that this might be an opportune time to try to get the Dems to offer some counterpoint in a more libertarian direction. That might be starting to happen with the small group of Blue Dog Democrats in the House rebelling against their own party by offering a more fiscally restrained budget than the Bush administration's. It's a welcome development that they have joined the Republican Study Committee, a larger group of fiscal conservatives in the House, in offering alternatives to the Bush administration's liberty destroying, big government agenda.

[The Real Bill]

Do you honestly base your voting decisions on a party's platform? Do you live in the U.S.?

Heh? How old are you? I'm nearly 36 and I have lived in the US my entire life.

Look, I thought everyone would understand that it is trivial to be a registered Democrat (or Republican) and be a libertarian. Party registration means nothing; how one votes means a bit more. To be a true believing Democrat is antithetical to being a libertarian, so it is impossible to be a Democrat and a libertarian in this sense. Once again, party registration means nothing. I'm registered as a "free spirit"; seriously, that's what I wrote in the "Other" category on my registration card.

Now, here's a little reality: It may matter to some extent who one votes for in local elections, since the voting pool may be small, but it never, ever matters who you vote for in a presidential election. The likelihood that one vote will ever decide a presidential election is vanishingly small--it could happen, but you might just win the lottery, too! So, basically, anyone that struggles with the decision between voting for the evil donkey or the evil elephant is fundamentally ignorant of mathematics. (No, I do not mean that you don't know that 2 + 2 = 4; I mean that you do not have an intuitive understanding of probability.)

One cannot be a libertarian and a Democrat or a Republican because the vast majority of the pols and party members in general are not libertarian. (If someone has a better way to define what it means to be a Democrat or Republican, I'd like to hear it.) More simply, the majority of Democrats and Republicans are control freaks and one cannot be a control freak (except over their own life) and be a libertarian.

(Yes, I used some generalizations. I defy anyone to falsify these generalizations. I mean this in a good way. I actually like to be proven wrong on occasion; it means I learned something new and that I am no longer in error.)

One more thing: Some may disagree that "not being a control freak" isn't a good description of a libertarian. Does anyone have a simple, yet better description?

[The Real Bill]

Jeez... Could I have put more negatives in one sentence! How about this:

Some may disagree with the description of a libertarian as someone who is "not a control freak."

(Not perfect, but hopefully better.)

[David Emami]

It used to be that there were things about both the Democrats and the Republicans that a libertarian could agree with. But over the years they've softened and compromised away their good positions, while growing more enthusiastic about their bad ones. Just as Republicans are no longer (for the most part) dependable advocates of smaller government, you don't hear many Democrats, for example, advocating drug legalization, or speaking out against censorship.

[Ken Shultz]

Real Bill,

I registered libertarian when Bush Sr. broke his tax pledge, but I continued to vote Republican right up to and including Bush Jr.'s first campaign. At the time, I thought my libertarian registration was sending a message to the Republican Party, that if they wanted to appeal to more people like me, they should spin themselves more like the LP. ...but, looking' back, I think it was more of a transition phase--and I think there are a lot of people like that.

...I've recently considered registering Republican again and just voting Libertarian, but I'd hate for anyone to misinterpret that as support for the Republican Party. Anyway, a letter to GOP leadership has more consequence, I think, than registering or even voting does anyway.

[jw]

Tarran,

Let me, also, thank you for the "pocket history lesson". But you left out any mention of the Nativists or Know-Nothings; where did they fit into things? Were they not originally a faction of the Whigs that split off to become a separate party and who eventually became (for awhile) allied with the Republicans?

I definitely have to second your remarks concerning the Federal Reserve and Greenspan. The average American seems to have not a single clue as to how much the government and financial establishment has robbed him over the years. That is not surprising given the MSM's perpetuation of the myth that inflation is simply a rise in consumer prices. That, of course, is the government's and the establishment's definition,...I prefer the older and more honest one of it being an expansion of the supply of money and/or credit. (Some of us know who controls that.)

The idea of a former associate of Ayn Rand and purported supporter of capitalism like Allan Greenspan presiding over the monetary ripoff of the last four or five years (actually much longer) is astounding to me. What is even more astounding is the relative silence about it even in libertarian circles. But even on this site people's eyes tend to glaze over when ecconomics is brought up.
What really brings a smile of derision to my lips is when I hear how the Fed under the auspices of the Great Greenspan is moving to "tighten up the supply of credit" in order to "stave off any fears of inflationary pressures" or some such drivel. Do they think that we are ALL of us a bunch of rubes?! Hell, the inflation has already taken place!...all through the first four years of the Bush presidency! (Of course, that is not to say that there was not plenty of it going on prior to that.) All the easing of credit to stave off a recession or to pull us out of one, the deficit spending to pay for the war...I'd have to say that the Republicans learned the lesson of the Bush/Clinton election quite well: whatever you do, keep that ecconomy going or make it appear to do so anyway.

Okay, I've ranted enough; let me go back to fondling my remaining gold coin before Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld decide that I am some sort of ecconomic enemy combatant.

[tarran]

jw,

I left them out because they were unimportant, not because my fatigue-addled memory forgot about them as I stayed up way past my bedtime to post on a blog. 🙂

Yeah, there were a bunch of different movements that allied together to create the Republican party. Each group received something out of the Republican victories. It's been a long time since I studied that stuff, so my memory is a little hazy on the exact sequence of events by which the various movements were coopted or merged with the Republicans.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Mike Laursen said, "Platform schmatform. How many registered Democrats or Republicans or whatever know or care about everything in their party's platform. Of course, a Democrat can be a libertarian."

By the same logic, of course, it is silly for critics of the Libertarian Party to criticize various party platform planks as being "dealbreakers." A neocon critic says he cannot support the LP because of the "isolationist" stance in the platform. A drug war true believer says he can't support the LP because of its platform plans against the drug war, and so forth.

If nobody reads the platforms, who cares? If people DO read the platforms, and expect the parties and their candidates to behave accordingly, then it is hard for me to see how a real libertarian can be a member of either the Demos or GOP.

[John Rhoads]

I don't usually post, but there are a few errors in the long history post by Terran that I feel compelled to correct. Mainly, Jefferson's party is commonly referred to now as the "Democratic-Republicans" but at the time referred to itself as the Republican party, and the modern Republican party took this as it's name as an homage to the "Jeffersonian-Republicans". The Republican party of Jefferson's time basically dominated the Federalist party throughout the Federalist party's existence. (The Federalists were really only ever able to elect war heroes). This led to a period from about 1816 to about 1824 where everyone who ran was calling themselves a Republican. The Democratic party was founded in the 1820s and Andrew Jackson was it's first presidential candidate. The Whig party was founded as a reaction against the perception among many politicans of Andrew Jackson as a tyrant. The political debates of the 30s and 40s largely consisted of the Whig and Democratic parties both trying to claim that they are the true successors of Jeffersonian Republicanism. Some former Federalists joined both parties, but it is not really accurate to call the Democratic party the same party as the original Republican party. The know-nothing movement was in fact a big part of the support base for the second Republican party that was founded in the 1850s. Due to the breakup of the Whig party and the vast splits between northern and southern democrats, the 1850s were generally very politically unstable, which allowed parties like the anti-immigrant American party (know-nothings) to gain a large amount of political clout.

[John Rhoads]

I guess while I'm at it, I might as well respond to citizengnat's question about whether or not any big "L" Libertarians are reading this. I have pretty much been voting Libertarian since I've been voting, so I guess I qualify. I'd agree that libertarians tend to come from both parties since Democrats are typically seen as more socially libertarian and Republicans are typically seen as more economically so. Of course this is largely all perception. The Patriot Act passed 99-1 in the Senate and the Real ID act passed by a similar margin. In recent years, both the Republicans and Democrats have been so terrible on the issues that I care about that any "lesser of two evils" arguments go right out the window. I suppose no Democrats voted that we should torture people, so I have to give them some credit for that. On the whole though I agree that voting Libertarian is a lost cost...I just think that thinknig that voting for Republicans or Democrats will ever result in a tolerable government is even more of a lost cause.

Oh, and most Libertarians I know started as Democrats, so I definitely don't see libertarianism as particularly compatible with the Republican party.

[Ken Shultz]

If people DO read the platforms, and expect the parties and their candidates to behave accordingly, then it is hard for me to see how a real libertarian can be a member of either the Demos or GOP.

Most people don't jump into the deep end. ...They put their toe in the water, and then they wade in up to their knees. ...and if that works out, maybe they swim on over to the deep end.

As "L"ibertarians, it would behoove us, I think, to welcome the the waders and the people with just their toes in. ..."Come on in", we should say, "The water's fine."

[John Rhoads]

Terran,

Yeah, I wasn't trying to be overly critical...it's difficult to summarize the history of the United States without making some mistakes...and that's not even taking into account the inherent subjectivity associated with it. Not that there isn't historical fact; we can only guess at what it is though.
As for your other point, I agree that the distinction between Mercantilism and Liberalism is quite significant, but I do think that libertarians tend to mention this quite a bit. They just usually refer to it as "corporate welfare." The fact that most libertarians are just as bothered (or in some cases more bothered) by government forcibly taking income and giving it to United as they are to giving that money to the poor is one of the points that the "libertarians are uber-republicans" camp seems to consistently miss. That and the whole "morality legistlation" thing. Which is probably what bothered me most about government until about 4 years ago.

[Andrew Bissell]

gnat, I lurk every now and then and I'm about as bona fide as Objectivists get. I was TOC's summer intern for 2004 after Reason didn't hire me. I consider it a serendipitous outcome, given what Gillespie and Young had to say on the occasion of Rand's centenary, in particular Gillespie's decision to take the unjust and irrelevant "tawdry personal life" line for another walk around the block. On the other hand, though, I thought Brian Doherty's tribute was one of the best (perhaps *the* best) ever written.

Back to the regularly scheduled thread, already in progress.

[David Rollins]

Hooray for the objectivists, there are a few of us here. There's just not much to post here on objectivist topics, and besides libertarians are usually a lot funnier than objectivists.

What I want to know is, how do objectivists vote? Speaking for myself I usually vote Democrat when judges are up for election, and parse the platform statements of other local officials for the least statist candidate. For prez and congress I usually go republican, because in the absence of a balanced budget amendment we can at least try to "starve the beast" by cutting taxes.

On the subject of Sunday shows, did anyone else see John McCain squirm when asked by Tim Russert whether taxes should be cut? He'll play to the right during the primaries, but turn into another Bush I once in office. "Read my lips".