Support the Stache

Alexander Cockburn on voting:

Listening to my complaints about Obama, a friend of mine in New York asked what alternative I had to recommend her. Since in New York the split for Obama-Biden is roughly 65-29 I told her it didn't matter. She could write in the straight Wiccan ticket if she felt so inclined. (Not a bad platform either, as she duly reminded me: "Do as you will, as long as it harms none.") It wouldn't make any difference, any more than it would in California, where you can vote for Nader or Barr or McKinney and Obama is going to win regardless. In most states in the Union you can write in the Bertie Wooster/Jeeves ticket, and even without your vote Obama-Biden will canter home. So get out there and have fun and don't feel excessively burdened by responsibility to History -- always a left-wing failing.

And wouldn't Barr be the first mustachioed occupant of the White House since Teddy Roosevelt? Even if you don't like the man, vote the mustache! This would be change we can see.

Comments

[Hugh Akston]

Barr's mustache is a sham. He only grew it to appeal to disenfranchised Whigs and Know-Nothings.

[Pat]

Taft had a stache after TR. I hope there is another in the White House soon. At least Obama could grow one when he wins.

[James Woods]

All I know is may god help us all of that liar McBush wins Tuesday. We have had to deal with Dictator Bushes lies for the last 8 years, enough is enough. Bring integrity back to the White house!

Jiff
http://www.internet-anonymity.net.tc

[Ironic]

I did not know there was a Wiccan Party. I am an atheist but I have more respect for Wicca than I do most religions. At least they are tollerant. I would say the same about Quakers.

[Robbie]

I'm sure that having political philosophies similar to the Wiccans is going to get the LP away from the nutjob fringe.

[KT]

Or, just don't vote. Easier that way.

[mike farmer]

"Bring integrity back to the White house!"

-James Woods

The only problem is that no one running has integrity -- perhaps we could just vote for the principle. Vote for Alfred J. Integrity.

[tired dog]

Obama w/stache? I think not; perhaps an Arafat style eternal two day stubble at best.

[P Brooks]

You call that thing a moustache?

I'm voting for Yosemite Sam.

[The Bearded Hobbit]

The best reason to vote for Mr. Barr is ballot access. Look, he's not going to win but every vote that he gets helps the LP to get on the ballot next time. Helps the candidates at other ballot positions as well.

.. Votin' Hobbit

[ed]

Vote the mustache! This would be change we can see.

Not to mention change that food can get stuck in.

[Thomas Paine\'s Goiter]

Staches are really taking a beating. Today, they are immediately associated with Porn or Pederasts and nothing else.

Bring back staches!

[Syd in Oklahoma]

In most states in the Union you can write in the Bertie Wooster/Jeeves ticket, and even without your vote Obama-Biden will canter home.

Except in my state unfortunately where McCain-Palin will canter home.

[Andy Craig]

As Pat points out, Taft was our last mustachioed chief executive. And thanks to Gene Healy, I'd much rather have another Taft than another Teddy Roosevelt. Rotundity aside, we're talking about a man who was infinitely happier to be Chief Justice than President. That's the temperament we need for a chief magistrate, not someone who was convinced it was his job to save everyone from everything, such niceties as "the rule of law" or "the Constitution" be damned, all while managing our "national soul", whatever the hell that is.

[BDB]

"That's the temperament we need for a chief magistrate, not someone who was convinced it was his job to save everyone from everything, such niceties as "the rule of law" or "the Constitution" be damned, all while managing our "national soul", whatever the hell that is."

Absolutely!

[RL]

Is it true Barr has said that they won't get his mustache until they tear it from his cold, dead face?

[Brandybuck]

A story up at Reason encouraging people to vote for the Libertarian Party candidate? I think I just fainted...

[Guy Montag]

Jesse,

I second the surprise of Brandybuck. Don't expect to be attending any Cosmotarian hopeandchange parties any time soon.

[Mad Max]

"She could write in the straight Wiccan ticket if she felt so inclined. (Not a bad platform either, as she duly reminded me: 'Do as you will, as long as it harms none.')"

(Assuming Cockburn is telling the truth) - Dear Lord, leftists are such a continual source of amusement.

[BZ]

Well said Brandybuck. I've never understood why Reason, of all institutions, feels the need to remain "neutral" between the various parties. The rest of the media is certainly not.

As for the matter of the article, the author commits another common (but extremely related) "Reason" fallacy: dismissing moral reasons to vote for the best person. To take a stand for what is right.

And both ARE related. The reason "Reason" can't line up behind anyone, or understand moral motivations is because most of their various writers seem to lack a moral yardstick. In politics, the closest they come is to make fun of statists, or simply report on them -- they can never condemn them -- they don't know HOW.

It's shameful.

[Ironic]

"I've never understood why Reason, of all institutions, feels the need to remain "neutral" between the various parties. The rest of the media is certainly not."

I may be because the Reason Foundation has Tax Exempt Status. Although, that did not stop Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

[jaybird]

I did not know there was a Wiccan Party. I am an atheist but I have more respect for Wicca than I do most religions. At least they are tollerant. I would say the same about Quakers.

Nixon was a Quaker.

[Andy Craig]

To say that reason "doesn't know how" to condemn politicians is laughable. Just about everything that comes out of reason is pointing out the failure or unintended consequences of some government policy or official.

Libertarianism is much broader than the LP, and that would be true even if the LP embraced the whole scope of libertarianism in the American body politic, which it doesn't. Perhaps more importantly, reason isn't supposed to be simply a place for libertarian advocacy. It's about journalism from a libertarian perspective, and that's what makes it so special. It's what separates reason from pure advocacy sites like Lew Rockwell or think tanks like CATO, that standing aside to take an objective view of something and then adding in your own editorial analysis. And that means injecting a sometimes enthusiasm-dousing dose of reality into discussion of the LP. That reality being that a lot of sympathetic-minded people for various reasons don't support the LP.

/for all its flaws, I do support the LP
//but a lot of changes need to be made to it

[Hugh Akston]

Is it true Barr has said that they won't get his mustache until they tear it from his cold, dead face?

He did, but if you go back to his Senate tenure, you'll find that he also co-sponsored a bill that prohibited registered sex offenders from owning a mustache, and preventing anyone with a mustache from marrying or adopting.

[Ironic]

"Nixon was a Quaker."

Maybe, but he sure didn't act like it if he was.

[Ironic]

"He did, but if you go back to his Senate tenure, you'll find that he also co-sponsored a bill that prohibited registered sex offenders from owning a mustache, and preventing anyone with a mustache from marrying or adopting."

Back then he was in denial about his facial-hair-orientation.

[Episiarch]

I was going to totally slag on mustaches, but then I remembered that Magnum had one, so I can't. If Magnum did it, it was cool.

[tim]

"Or, just don't vote. Easier that way."

In every state there are other things on the ballot besides the Presidential election. There are ballot initiatives to vote against, tax increases to vote against, there are wingnuts to keep off the school boards and Soil and Water committees (true story - there is a guy running for Soil and Water committee who sole platform is that he is against gay marriage). So get your ass into the ballot both, skip over the presidential section, and at least behave like you are a member of your society you live in.

[J sub D]

The reason "Reason" can't line up behind anyone, or understand moral motivations is because most of their various writers seem to lack a moral yardstick.

As someone who has often been accused of lacking a moral compass or yardstick, somebody who makes decisions with "no basis or grounding for my morality" let me just point out that is such an egotistical, dripping in self righteousness statement I'm surpried your hypothesized soul doesn't fucking explode.

Other atheists may sympathize with those sentiments.

[J sub D]

Oops, almost forgot to address the topic of the day, staches.

Go here to view a legendary one.

[Naga Sadow]

Jesse Walker,

I can not in good conscience "support the stache" for fear of Bob Barr's campaign slogan becoming "Don't be so uptight America. Expand your horizons and take a mustache ride!".

[tarran]

Uhmm,

You guys realize that if you don't fill out a ballot completely it is ignored, right?

You have to vote in every race, or your ballot is considered to be "spoiled".

I write in None of the Above myself.

[SIV]

You have to vote in every race, or your ballot is considered to be "spoiled".

This is completely false.

[BDB]

I think it would depend on the state, I'm guessing.

[Heinrick]

I am looking forward to a time in about a year when either of the candidates has won and not fufilled their major promises, the I can say to many many people "It looks like YOU were the one that threw your vote away after all".

Assholes

[SIV]

BDB,

Your guess is wrong.You are no more required to vote in any particular contest than you are required to vote at all.This country isn't a third world dictatorship yet.

[Geoff Nathan]

Well said Brandybuck. I've never understood why Reason, of all institutions, feels the need to remain "neutral" between the various parties. The rest of the media is certainly not.

As for the matter of the article, the author commits another common (but extremely related) "Reason" fallacy: dismissing moral reasons to vote for the best person. To take a stand for what is right.

Well, here we have it, folks. Proof positive of alternative universes--this commenter must live in one.
I've never seen anything in Reason that remains 'neutral' about anything. I can certainly understand that there is debate among [l]ibertarians about the best way to achieve our goals, and not all of us agree that voting [L]ibertarian is the best way.
Some of us generally do vote L, no matter how goofy the candidate is, while others believe that short-term self-defense is a rational choice as well, which will lead some to vote for Obama and others for McCain, depending on which analysis you buy. But to claim that Reason doesn't take a stand for what is right is to stand with your hands over your ears chanting 'I can't hear you'.
Give me a break.
(FWIW--I've been reading this mag since roughly 1973.)

[BDB]

"Your guess is wrong.You are no more required to vote in any particular contest than you are required to vote at all.This country isn't a third world dictatorship yet."

Well, that'd save me the time of having to write in the name of my dog when my Congrescritter is unopposed (which is always, fucking minority-majority gerrymander).

[Reasonable]

Great, now Obama's been recorded promising to bankrupt anyone who builds a coal plant.

I can totally see how he's the libertarian "Free Markets, Free Minds" candidate.

[Barack Obama\'s Aunt]

You have to vote in every race, or your ballot is considered to be "spoiled".

There are a lot of myths about whether you have to fill out ballots, or be a legal citizen, or obey a judge's deportation order.

The fact is, you can do whatever you want as long you say it's for Hope and Change.

[SIV]

I can totally see how he's the libertarian "Free Markets, Free Minds" candidate.

"Fair Minds and Fair Markets" soon enough Comrade

[VM]

Hay Auntie, how's yer 'stache? got the marie osmond thang going fur you?

[LGF Fan]

The Whitey Tape will come out any day now...

[tired dog]

tarran and all;

There is no requirement to vote every race on a ballot. For accounting purposes those empty slots tally as 'undervotes'. You can sign the book and cast a completely blank ballot if you wish.

Vote early and often...

[tarran]

This is completely false.

You may be right SIV. I looked for the paper I read many years ago that made this claim and could not find it.

I looked for election regs that govern how ballots are tabulated and came up empty.

I did however find this paper, which seems to imply that the ballots with undervotes are being counted.

I still recommend casting write in votes for NOTA though.

[JLE]

From a female sexual perspective, mustaches are sick, germ-infested, and unattractive. However, it doesn't matter who you vote for anymore. Done and done.

[concerned observer]

"support the stache" is probably the only cogent argument anyone could make for voting Libertarian in a crucial such as this. It's time to grow up and enter the real political world, kids. Yes, that means voting for a candidate who doesn't necessarily conform to every aspect of your ideology.

[concerned observer]

I expect to hear wails of "But Barack Obama would raise taxes". Well, I hate to burst your libertarian bubbles, but the vast majority of Americans are actually pro-education, pro-infrastructure, pro-welfare, and, yes, pro-entitlement. It would not be effective to balance the budget by spending cuts. This is where you stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly.

[economist]

Oh, gee, the unholy butthole is back. Nice to see ya, CO! Go f*** yourself!

[economist]

I will not feed the troll.

I will not feed the troll.

I will not feed the troll.

[concerned observer]

what a witty and intelligent comeback economist. I guess you couldn't come up with an actual rebuttal. Now you're going to go sulk in your parents' basement and eat chips I'll bet.

[economist]

CO,
I will break my own rule to say this: If it's a rebuttal you want, then post an actual argument rather than an insult, you wussy little prick.

[Jesse Walker]

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." -Vonnegut

[robc]

You can sign the book and cast a completely blank ballot if you wish.

Hmmm...I may actually consider this strategy. I wish the voting statistics were detailed enough to report the number of intentionally blank ballots. I wonder what the poll workers will do if I walk directly from the desk where they hand me my ballot to the scanner where it is read without walking over to the side area with the little mini-booths?

Almost worth trying as an experiment.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Jesse, great post.

Mustaches are no good unless you can offer mustache rides. That's the measure of a real man.

That said, TR and Wyatt Earp had awesome mustaches. Mine pales in comparison.

[NotThatDavid]

I may not like his legacy, but I cannot argue with the 'stache.

[Jan]

OBAMA : I WILL ENSURE ENERGY PRICES WILL GO UP
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e46U2Gnzpr
Please pass this on to others and on blogs too.
Click on video and when it plays run slider to 46 and hear him

I can't afford higher prices CAN YOU????

[Obama-Civil Libertarian]

I WILL ENSURE ENERGY PRICES WILL GO UP

Forget that noise, click my name to see how your civilian type liberties might fare under my new, ah, advances in keeping the peace.....

[Miller]

McCain-Pailn will bring it home, and that idiot Obama will lose. Mark my words. You'll look silly then, cynics.

[SugarFree]

95 YEARS IS LONG ENOUGH!

[The more you know]

In 1908 Florida only had 5 electoral votes and Arizona and New Mexico were both teritories.