Mitt Romney

A Libertarian Democrat Considers Mitt Romney

So much for the hope that Obama would move the party in a back-to-the-future Jeffersonian liberal direction.


He flip-flopped on health insurance. He's interventionist. He backed off gay rights. He has no serious immigration plan. He supports the drug war. He's coldly analytical, but with a loving family.

I'm not talking about Mitt Romney. It's my deeply disappointed view of President Barack Obama, as both a libertarian and a former "professional Democrat" (I was party press secretary in the 1980's.) I was hoping—obviously, against hope—that Obama would move my party in a back-to-the-future Jeffersonian liberal direction, which I wrote in a piece for in September 2008: "The libertarian case for Obama."

There aren't many self-described "libertarian Democrats," so I'm not claiming to represent a block of voters. But contemplating a ballot for my first Republican presidential candidate since I began voting in 1968, my quandary may be a microcosm of what is going on in the minds of many independent voters, as well as libertarians, seduced by hope and change four years ago.

The two best examples of why Obama has been such a disaster are the defining domestic and foreign policy distinctions he drew between himself and Hillary Clinton. He said he was opposed to an insurance mandate for health care "reform," and he claimed to represent the anti-war majority of Democrats, calling the elective war in Iraq dumb, while Clinton voted for it.

Then, within 10 months of taking office, he started a second war in Afghanistan. And he took three full years to withdraw troops from Iraq, negotiating until just weeks ago to keep troops there. As his premier domestic policy initiative, Obama rammed through a Democratic-controlled congress a welfare program for pharmaceutical companies, the centerpiece of which was—yes—a mandate forcing millions to buy coverage.

Consider other ways in which Obama betrayed a personal liberty agenda. In 1996, running for the Illinois senate, he professed support for gay marriage, but now he uses weasel words to claim his position is "evolving." He also tries to have it both ways on immigration, eyeing Hispanic voters but with no serious effort for reform. A confessed youthful user of drugs, he led us to believe he would oppose a crack down on medical marijuana, but he's as bad as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, willing to put thousands in jail for what they themselves did.

Of course, the skeptical libertarian will respond, "Wouldn't Mitt Romney be as bad or worse on many of those things?" Yes, he and his party would. On two of the three issue frames of politics—culture and security—Romney carries the un-libertarian baggage of Christianists and militarists in the GOP base.

Most libertarians find scary the politicized religious wing of the Republican Party. But they lost the culture war, reaching an apogee in 1994, when Republicans took the U.S. House. Since then, they've made little more than noise, because Baby Boomers and GenX'ers are now the socially liberal center of the electorate.

As for the increasingly strident militarism of the GOP base, including Romney's debate rhetoric, it is nearly matched by the vast majority of Democratic Members of Congress and our present president, slaves to the military industry war profiteers, about whom Dwight Eisenhower warned us in 1961, the year Barack Obama was born.

Thus, do pragmatic libertarians really need to worry much about social-cultural or defense-and-foreign-policy issues, since little is likely to change, whether Obama is re-elected or Romney replaces him? Should libertarians consider voting for either the likely Republican nominee or Obama?

Yes. And it's because of the awful economy, stupid.

For the first time in my life, I feel my financial future in jeopardy, much the way other middle-aged and older voters felt in 2009, when the Tea Party grew from fears about plummeting home equity and retirement income.

In every other presidential election in which I have voted for 44 years, my primary concerns were war, civil liberties, cultural questions…and, did I mention, war?

Though without the populist know-nothingism of many Tea Partiers, I now instead ponder the puzzling economic policy failures of Barack Obama, his reliance on broken government spending levers to stimulate jobs, and his mind-boggle-ingly stupid corporate welfare foolishly called "health care reform."

I fear economic doom so much I might be willing to place another hope-against-hope bet, this time on the guy with the too perfect hair and picture-perfect family, who at least offers a symbolic affinity for limited government and free markets. Though he didn't make stuff like his car-building father, Romney seems to understand what drives job production and wealth creation.

Will I roll the dice? I don't know. Like other libertarians, I could cast a protest vote for Gov. Gary Johnson if he is the Libertarian Party candidate, especially if he gains enough traction to send a message of "voters like liberty" to the two major parties, as Ron Paul has been doing in the GOP preliminaries.

I may risk the opprobrium of Democratic friends, and lose some of them—which comes with being an apostate. I may act with cognitive dissonance toward all those things I find troubling and even disgusting about the Republican party, and vote my pocketbook. I won't be alone.

Terry Michael is executive director of the Washington Center for Politics & Journalism. Michael's "thoughts from a libertarian Democrat" are collected at his web site,

NEXT: The Foie Gras Fight - Animal Cruelty or Animal Rights Propaganda?

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There’s no such thing as a libertarian Democrat.

    1. I beg to differ.

      1. “Illegal Immoral War!”

        1. “on May 10, 1801, the Pasha declared war on the U.S., not through any formal written documents but in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate”

          1. I had a guy trying to use the corsairs as evidence that Muslims have always been jihad-ing against the West.

            I patiently explained to him that their religion had virtually nothing to do with their chosen profession of piracy, any more than modern Somali pirates are hijacking frigates for Allah. And a sizeable minority of corsairs were from other religions, outcasts and criminals who threw in their lot with the pirates.

            1. You explained wrong. Read the correspondence from those who negotiated with the pirates. Or like read anything about typical Islamic behavior (ask the Slavs for instance) when it came to treatment of non-Muslims or why the lines about the US NOT being a Christian nation appear in the Treaty of Tripoli. Or why Jefferson felt the need to study the Koran to understand them. Just because some other rejects joined them doesn’t mean they weren’t acting out the Muhammad playbook of banditry and slaving and false truces.

              1. Any links to these claims?

                1. It’s all on the main wiki page. They captured christian slaves for sale to the Ottoman sultan, but that was also practiced by several of the christian maritime powers whenever they came into a load of captives or slaves from Africa. Some tidbits:

                  The first half of the 17th century saw the peak of Barbary raiding. This was due largely to the contribution of Dutch corsairs, notably Zymen Danseker (Simon de Danser), who used the Barbary ports as bases for attacking Spanish shipping during the Dutch Revolt. They cooperated with local raiders and introduced them to the latest Dutch sailing rigs, enabling them to brave Atlantic waters.


                  The continuation of piracy was assisted by competition among European powers. France encouraged the corsairs against Spain, and later Britain and Holland supported them against France…those countries’ commercial interests then benefited from the impact of continuing attacks on their competitors, and as a result there was little interest in imposing a more general cessation of corsair activity.

                  This was in no way a bunch of evul mooslims preying on innocent christians in the interest of jihad. It was a business transaction.

              2. He studied the Koran because it was reasonable to do so. By your ‘logic’ a mulsim diplomat that studied the bible to better understand the U.S. of the time would be evidence of how ‘extreme’ Christianity is.

                This is why public schools don’t teach logic anymore. So we can have so much fun debating idiocy.

                That said, Islam is currently a more feral religion than Christianity. But it’s not as if Christianity or Judaism weren’t even more feral way back. The religions were tamed by the enlightenment influence, particularly Scottish imo, influence.

                It was recently, with the establishment of the United States that established the doctrine of separation of Church and state, and it was because European states were still largely draconian in their views of enforcement of whatever religious doctrine they supported. Not just America, before the US we had witch hunts in America. It was the U.S. and the Scottish enlightenment that guided it.

                Put another way it was the nascent philosophy of Liberty that really tamed, in a real way, Christianity.

                Islam is feral because it has not been exposed to the philosophy of liberty. And while that cannot be solely blamed or even primarily blamed on us, our foreign policy has not helped them in this regard. We have set them up for dictatorship after dictatorship, because we refused to actually participate in the free markets we say we believe in, but never do.

                So long as we keep giving their leaders convenient and plausible excuses for blaming America for their woes, their people will keep buying it, because the kernel of truth is enough.

                Short answer. Buy Iran’s cheap oil. Become their best customer. Sell them iphones. Become their best provider.

                You don’t nuke your best customer. Sorry, feral religion or not, that doesn’t happen.

                China loves all of our foreign policy idiocy by the way. Sucking up that cheap Iranian sweet with a straw.

                They are going to get nukes. Everyone is eventually. We need to deal with reality and stop thinking our fantasy of being able to control every nation that wants them can happen forever. It just can’t.

      2. That’s about how far back you have to go to find an actual libertarian who is also a Democrat.

        1. Grover Cleveland was a [Bourbon] Democrat.

          1. I confess to engaging in hyperbole. But only a little.

            1. He was also the last president who had previously been a mayor. A role model for Bloomberg, perhaps?

          2. Cleveland was great by our presidential standards, but he wasn’t a libertarian/Jeffersonian.

            1. If you’re calling a slaveholder a libertarian, you’ve already lowered your standards enough to include Grover Two-Time.

              1. Jeffersonian ideals, Tulpa, do not rest upon Jefferson’s personal failings. Try harder.

                1. So Jefferson wasn’t a Jeffersonian either? OK, but that’s weird.

                  1. He wasn’t, unfortunately.

                    1. Jefferson qas a schitzophrenic in his political presence.

                      As a philosopher he was as libertarian as they come. As a politician, he was a statist bastard who didn’t see it fit to veto even 1 fucking law submitted from Congress.

                  2. Keynes would not be called Keynesian by today’s interpretation of the word either.

                    As you are aware, Jefferson himself wanted to do away with the practice as a matter of policy, he just didn’t have the personal strength to do it himself. I suspect possibly it was more because he was afraid of losing temporal control over the woman who he was romantically involved with, as much as anything else. If she were free.. she might have left him.

                    Freeing the one you love is a tough thing to do if you’re a smart, even moral, but ultimately weak, man.

                    But certainly you are not suggesting that anyone claiming to be Jeffersonian believes in holding slaves?

                    So it’s not weird, poetic irony perhaps, but I’m pretty sure you can grasp the nuances.

                    1. I am fascinated by your suggestion of Jefferson’s motives for keeping slaves in servitude. In the materials I have studied on Jefferson, this angle is not explored. Can you provide some links to relevant material on the web? I am genuinely curious to know what history tells us about the likelihood of a freed Sally Hemmings dumping Jefferson.

                  3. Gingrich’s home life does not truly reflect Gingrichian beliefs on family values.

            2. Cleveland was more pro-individual liberty than any president elected since, and most elected prior. Of course, there were some flaws in his administration’s record, and he was a product of his time, like any other man. But he’s probably the best we’ve ever gotten, speaking from a classically liberal standpoint. He definitely fits within the Jeffersonian/liberal tradition. But of course, I’m biased in his favor, as my handle suggests.

          3. I am a [Scotch] libertarian.

        2. Except the Ferengian liberty to follow their prime directive:

          “Thou shalt own thy neighbor as thyeself.”

          1. Something something gambol

          2. With respect, what you don’t know about the Great River would fill several data pads.

      3. Haven’t we discussed this before?

      4. Seems to me what it meant to be a “Democrat” or “Republican” back in the days of ol’ TJ bears no resemblance to what it means today.

        And in fact, TJ’s party was the Democratic Republicans, which eventually evolved into the Republican Party.

        But I don’t know that you really can apply what they valued to either major party today.

        1. You can’t. It was a completely different era, where words had completely different meanings.

          1. Yeah, isn’t it like, uh 100 years old or somethin’.

        2. I beleive this is incoreect. The Democratic Republicans became the Democrats – while the Republican Party was formed in the 1850’s.

          1. “The dominant faction of the Democratic-Republican arty supported Andrew Jackson and evolved into the Democratic Party, a continuation of the original party with a truncated name. The other main faction, led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, formed a new party initially known as the National Republicans; it evolved into the Whig Party, the northern wing of which eventually became the civil-war-era Republican Party.”

            It was a heavy, multi-wing split, but the original party was ideologically precursory to the Republicans, not the Democrats. Note the development of the party in the early west.

            1. No, “the original party was ideologically precursory to the Republicans, not the Democrats” is false. It held much closer to Jeffersonian principles than any other party. The fact that it had a huge pro-slavery wing is not really relevant to anything, though it is worth remembering that Jefferson remained a slaveowner in spite of any misgivings about the peculiar institution that he might have expressed in his later life.

              Throughout the 19th century the Democratic party was the party of free trade and limitation on federal power.

              The Republicans continued the Whig policies of high tarriffs and an increased role for the federal government. The evolution of some Republicans into progressives was a fairly natural one.

              The reversal of party roles and philosophies started with Woodrow Wilson, was advanced massively by FDR but was not really completed until the election of Ronald Reagan.

              In general, though, the notion that either party is based on ideology or any sety of principles in nonsense. Both are based on pragmatism and pure political manipulation.

              1. Good post. I can’t even trace a straight line of secularism from Jefferson to modern liberals because the William Jennings Bryan era would break that up.

                1. The Democrats weren’t a particularly secular party until the late 20th century. Ever heard of the Solid South, shrike?

              2. William Jennings Bryan was a Dem, so the transformation occurred earlier than 1912.

                1. I don’t think the Republicans transformed at all. They’ve always been wigish, promoting mercantilism through taxation and inflation.

                  They look better because the Democrats went full retard and went from being the party of freedom to the party of totalitarianism while the Republicans stayed in one spot.

                  1. The rhetoric coming from the GOP has increasingly had many elements that we used to expect from States Rights Democrats.

                    I did not mean for anyone to infer from any of my comments that I think that Republicans are libertarians. 🙂

                  2. Everybody know you never go full retard.

              3. The fact that it had a huge pro-slavery wing is not really relevant to anything

                You don’t think the opposition to federal power (except for fugitive slave laws) had its roots in the defense of slavery?

                Let’s not forgive the Dems for the sectionalist policies they supported (slavery, states rights, low tariffs) and then damn the Whigs and Republicans for supporting the New England/industrial Midwest sectionalist policies.

                1. Fair points all, Tulpa.

                  My comments were meant to be more descriptive than judgmental. After all, some people thing that government intervention and an increased role for the federal government are good things. 🙂

                  1. But, I will add that there were in fact anti-slavery Democrats through those same years who had the same feelings about federal power and free trade.

        3. You can’t. It was a completely different era, where words had completely different meanings.

          Words like “infringe” and “shall not”, after all, mean whatever we WANT them to mean in the world of today! Yay!

          1. Do you have a PHD in Constitutional Law?

            If not then you may not even joke about interpreting complex and intricate like “infringe” or “shall not”, and leave it to your betters.

            Words mean what the experts say they mean, and unless you’re an expert you can’t possibly understand.

            1. When I use a word,[[said in rather a scornful tone]], it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less.

        4. The Dem-Reps became the modern Democrat party. The Republican party was a third party which arose just before the Civil War and supplanted the Whigs. That’s why the Republican party is called the Party of Lincoln and the Democrat party is called the Party of Jefferson.

          1. Listen, Zombie Jefferson would brutally slaughter every Democrat for what they had done. He’d move on to slaughtering the Republicans afterwards, but he’d start with those claiming him as their founder.

            1. Jefferson was a secularist. That is where ideology begins for most. Conservatives = theocracy (see the Middle East) and liberalism = secularism.

              Its why capitalism and war-mongering abound in both philosophies.

              I know this place is 90% conservative and won’t agree however.

              1. I know this place is 90% conservative

                This word “know”…

              2. Needs more “Christ-Fags”.

              3. When did secularism become the opposite of theocracy? Seems to me that it’s just the opposite form of tyranny – enforced atheism is not better than enforced theism, and free practice of religion (that promoted by Jefferson, Locke, etc.) =/= secularism.

            2. Zombie Jackson would be even more pissed. And want the presidential power that Obama has.

              1. Jackson would raise up an army of undead Cherokees, start building the pipeline, and say “Mr Obama has made his decision, let him enforce it.”

                1. 😮

                2. But since Obama is an Executive and not a Justice, and since he actually has forces at his disposal, which the objects of Jackson’s original jibe did not, that joke doesn’t really work. Points for trying, though.

          2. “Democrat party is called the Party of Jefferson.”

            Never heard that. Disgusting.

            1. The Democrat Party has also been described as the party of Jefferson and Jackson.

              1. It’s Democratic, FOX sheep.

                1. You say tomato, I say tomato, get over it.

                2. If that’s Fox’s thing, then they got it from me.

                3. “It’s Democratic, FOX sheep.”

                  Says the one who uses “tea-bagger” reguarly

                4. Really? Because I don’t see anyone ever refer to members of the Democrat Party as Democratics.

              2. In the best-remembered speech he gave againt Roosevelt, Al Smith called the Democrats the party of “Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland.”

                Personally, as much as I admire Grover and TJ, I wouldn’t rush to claim Jackson. He was kind of a raving madman who just happened to be on the right side of the national bank issue, and even that was due more to a personal hatred of rich bankers than to any underlying principles. But that’s typical of Jackson. Van Buren was really the brains behind the official formation of the Democratic Party, and antislavery to boot. Plus his independent treasury proposal was just about spot on. It really is too bad that his presidency was more or less ruined by the Panic of ’37, which Jackson caused by mucking about with his pet banks. He could’ve been really good, I think.

            2. “Never heard that. Disgusting.” RPA, just how young ARE you?

        5. TJ’s party was the Democratic Republicans, which eventually evolved into the Republican Party.

          Actually, no, the Democratic Republicans eventually evolved into the Democratic Party.

          The Republican Party was formed in the 1850s out of abolitionist wings of the Whigs and a couple of other parties.

          1. Again, that’s if you’re just considering the continuation of the party as an organization regardless of ideology. Otherwise, the party of Thomas Jefferson (not technically, but ideologically and in spirit) broke away from the post-Jefferson entity that was the Democratic-Republican Party, and jumped from National Republican to Whig to Republican.

            1. See my comment above @ 3:16PM.

        6. “And in fact, TJ’s party was the Democratic Republicans, which eventually evolved into the Republican Party.”

          Incorrect. The Democratic-Republican Party eventually evolved into the Democrat Party. The Republican Party began as a result of former Whigs, members of the Free Soil Party, and other abolitionists gathering together in opposition to the Democrats and (while they existed) the Know-Nothings.

          1. The Know-Nothings would be today’s Tea Party – fiercely provincial and anti-immigrant.

            1. “Derp” was all I got from you.

          2. The problem with that is that it leads people to believe the Democratic Party represented Jeffersonian ideology. But yeah.

            1. The Democratic Party did represent Jeffersonian ideology for most of the 19th century. The turn to government intervention and an increased role for the federal government does not appear until the beginning of the 20th century. Both things had been a feature of the Republican Party from its founding until well into the 20th century. The liberal (later the Rockerfeller) wing of the GOP did not disappear until the 1980s.

              1. Except for the fugitive slave law?

                Hmm. I wonder if there’s something beyond federalism concerns behind the 19th century Dems’ positions.

                1. Yes, I’m pretty sure there was.

                  As I’ve said elsewhere, party affiliation has more to do with perceived material interests than ideology.

      5. I was speaking in the present tense.

        You aren’t still alive, TJ.

      6. Unconstitutional acquisition of vast tracts of land to place under direct feeral control;

        Attempts to interfere in the judicial process to get a conviction for treason (Aaron Burr) with no witnesses to an overt act, in contravention of the Constitution;

        and the whole slavery thing.

        1. You misspelled “feral control”.

    2. I suppose you have surveyed every member of the Democratic party to come to this conclusion.

    3. Reason staff?

    4. Yes there is….it’s called the Democratic Freedom Caucus.

  2. People talk a lot of shit about Mormons, but it turns out that Newton Leroy Gingrich is the polygamist in this race.

    1. I hope Newt wins South Carolina so once and for all we can see the true colors of the so called “values voters”. Sarah Palin, Ralph Reed, the Goldberg family and the rest of the lynch mob seem to have one value — and that is their own sense of moral superiority to others of different races, nationalities, religions, etc. Let these values voters hop into bed with the cheating, lying, freddie mac lobbying, house sanctioned, Gingrich so all the country can see what kind of values these assholes really have.

      1. I like how they’re making a big deal about Newt having “asked for forgiveness”. As if that erases everything. Of course, this is totally consistent with the goofy Protestant conception of redemption by saying the right words and thinking the right thoughts for one moment in your life.

        Newt’s current faith doesn’t make it quite that easy. Maybe he should consider losing this campaign a solid dose of Catholic temporal punishment.

        Does that work for drug users and gay couples and Muslims who live in targeted countries? We should ask.

        1. Redemption is always a nice narrative. If you believe the person has really redeemed himself, that is. Darth Vader did it, because he didn’t just say, “Sorry about all of those evil things I did, son”, he threw the emperor down the conveniently located disposal pit.

          Note how I had to turn to fiction for a reliable redemption story.

          1. Newt’s second wife is singing real ugly today. It will probably take care of all of this once and for all.

          2. I like how Newton “sex bomb” Leroy Gingrich has pimped out his daughters to the defense of his marital infidelities. Wonder what their price is?

            1. Sounds like somebody has a case of jealousy? Kim and Courtney? OMG, puhlease.

            2. Ahoy! Don’t be so quick to judge. Take it from me: A beautiful blonde woman can make a man do crazy things…

              1. Beautiful? I hope you’re not referring to Callista! I just puked a little in my mouth.

        2. That doesn’t sound much like the Protestant conception of redemption that I am familiar with. Not that I put too much stock in it one way or the other.

        3. The goofy Catholic concept of “You weren’t really married to that women you pledged your fidelity to and had kids with, so it’s all good” sure is working to Newt’s favor.

          1. You kidding? Most protestant churches are even more flippant about remarriage.

    2. you’re too slow, old man.…..nt_2774268

    3. If nobody makes a LEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOY GINGRICH video the internet has failed.

      1. Hey Leroy, your mama’s calling you, man. She’s gettin’ mighty mad!

    4. It’s pretty obvious that our religious right would prefer a philandering, corrupt, daughter pimping, K street hack and serial liar rather than a straight laced, magic underwear toting M-O-R-M-O-N. That is all you need to know about the religious right.

      1. Are you making a list? Gonna check it twice? You have abused the comma and for that you shall NEVER be forgiven!

  3. This is beyond doubt one of the funnier articles I’ve read in some time.

    … of course, I was reading it imagining Rick Moranis reciting it. Try it. It really adds a lot to the piece.

    1. Holy shit dude. I have to admit I was skeptical, but that just made my day.

  4. Then, within 10 months of taking office, he started a second war in Afghanistan.

    No point in reading further.

    1. The truth too painful shriek?

      1. One has to be abjectly dishonest (which you are) to say he started that war.

        Doubled the troop size? Maybe. I don’t recall the numbers. And the writer had to be an idiot to not hear Obama campaign on taking out bin Laden/AQ using Afghanistan as a platform.

        Similarly, Obama voted for telecomm immunity as a US Senator. He has been consistent if lacking in civil liberties.

        I got what I wanted – economic conditions which will double the S&P 500 (806 to over 1300 and 1600 by year end).

        1. And the writer had to be an idiot

          There you go. “Libertarian” Democrat? Check. Thought Obama would be some sort of Jeffersonian (classical) liberal? Check. Didn’t realize that Obama’s background and associations pointed to one and only one thing: a crony capitalist with the manners and morals of a timber rattler? Check.

          I think idiot sums it up.

          1. Associations? You’re not pulling some Hannity shit out are you?

            Jefferson was quite anti-corporate (not that Obama is) for a classic liberal.

            Damn, just noticed NatGas was down to $2.31 – 15 year low – and you guys kept talking about “hyperinflation” – I still chuckle at your bad predictions.

            1. Associations?

              Sure. Look he associated with: crooked community activists, radical academics, Daley machine apparatchiks.

              What’s wrong with that? How can you possibly reach any conclusion about a candidate for any office without looking at their associations?

            2. NatGas is the one commodity down in recent years because of a domestic production boom. With that said, i dont think theres “hyper” inflation at the moment.

        2. I got what I wanted – economic conditions which will double the S&P 500 (806 to over 1300 and 1600 by year end).

          Ahahaha! Yes, all those brilliant Obama moves on the economy that will take effect any day now! You so funny!

          1. No, shrike–while a vile piece of shit that should be scraped off the boot of the world–is probably going to be right on this.

            Just like the MSM talked the economy into a tailspin to get Obama elected (sorry all you fuckers that had to go bankrupt as a result), they will spend the rest of the year talking up a recovery so as to get him elected (see: crowing about Jan employment figs).

            1. MSM propaganda isn’t “economic conditions,” though. There are too many economic dominoes around the world ready to topple this year, and Obama doesn’t have a fucking clue.

              1. Yes, but many of them are predicated–like S&P 500–on consumer confidence. Something the mass media can influence at the bulging center to left of the IQ curve.

                1. If they push too hard in their preferred direction they look like Baghdad Bob, and with Europe going bankrupt and Egypt starving and gas prices rising again, they’ll have a strong headwind.

    2. what 2d war in afghanistan? u mean the surge where the theater commanders wanted double the number of troops obama sent? by that measure, iraq had 2 wars like vietnam, korea (inchon), & WW2.

  5. Obama voted for the bailouts in 2008 BEFORE the election and you still voted for him?

    Of course, the options were McCain he supported them too and Barr, who was, well, Barr.

    However, you’ve been voting for 20 years longer than I have. I learned my lesson after my first presidential ballot in 1988.

  6. I was hoping?obviously, against hope?that Obama would move my party in a back-to-the-future Jeffersonian liberal direction . . .

    I had a girlfriend once that displayed the same credulity when I told her I wouldn’t come in her mouth.

    1. Anybody who genuinely believed Obama would do anything Jeffersonian deserves to feel like an asshole.

  7. Who’s getting the Elvish vote?

    1. Who is running on the Aldmeri Dominion ticket?

      1. Those Talos doubting Dbags are gonna to get what’s comin to em!

        1. I’m still up in the air. Stormcloak? Or Empire? Just dunno.

          Meanwhile, I am very sorry I decided to take the trip up to Boethia’s Sacellum.

          1. Stormcloaks. A divided Empire will be easier to defeat. Without any Nords or Redguards in their army, the Imperial City will be easy to take this time.

          2. Boethia’s mission following your Svenslaughter is a pain in the ass if you pick it up at level 45 and did the entire game as a tank.

            I leaned Stormcloak until I got to the cease fire negotiation since they never actively tried to chop my head off and aren’t Dominion pawns. Then I found out how much of a megadouche Ulfric is. Best to just concern yourself with dragonslaying and leave the zealots to their own devices.

            1. I did the revolution quests to get the achievements and won’t fool with it on another play-through. Not necessary, no really good loot.

              I have finished all faction and main quests and have all the achievements, btw.

            2. aren’t Dominion pawns.


              Actually, they are (for realz). Far more so than the Imperials.

        2. We are the true rulers of Tamriel. I can show you why if you’d like.

      1. gimme a boot babie !

      2. If New Hampshire ever secedes, don’t be surprised if he becomes their monarch.

      3. He ran as a Democrat this year. I’m surprised he didn’t do better. Partisan primary voters have no sense of humor.

    2. The Darhel just have that vote rigged anyway.

  8. A Libertarian Democrat Considers Mitt Romney

    Has he reconsidered whether HIV causes AIDS yet?

  9. There are no True Neutals.

    1. You can say that again!

  10. So, you just now realize that Obama is a worthless piece of shit and your response is to turn to Mr. Uncanny Valley? Did you actually learn anything from your mistake?

    Please, A) stop calling yourself a libertarian anything and B) never vote again.

    1. ” Mr. Uncanny Valley”

  11. “Change your Hope, 2012”

  12. Thinking about what Obama has done to the state of American civil liberties has me so utterly depressed, I’m afraid my minor case of the sniffles will explode into full-blown AIDS.

  13. So the libertarian democrat is telling us libertarian libertarians to vote for republican Mitt Romney…while Ron Paul is still in the race….


    1. RON PAUL is batshit insane.

      1. In that he is right about 95% of the time?

        1. Is this part of the 95%?

          1. Yep. These are the same economists who said the housing market wasn’t a bubble in 2007.

          2. Panning gold. Heh.

          3. so, the alternative, incrementally taxing the poor harder than the rich (via inflation) is sane how?

          4. Shitheads that have absolutely no understanding of how economies function calling Ron Paul “batshit insane”? This is priceless.

          5. The gold standard has a better track record of easing the business cycle then the FED has…and the whole fucking purpose of the FED to was ease the business cycle!!!

            How is pointing to the actual facts of history batshit insane again?

            Is gold loving irrational? Sure, but it is less irrational then putting ones faith in the FED.

        2. to be fair, he is batshit insane the rest of the 5%.

          The catch is that the 5% of the time RonPaul is batshit insane, the policy generally doesn’t hurt anyone, whereas most other times the politicians are batshit insane a higher percentage of the time, have charisma over the power-fellating public enough to pave over it, and are insane on policies that hurt people.

          1. People seem to forget that even if RP is in favor of batshit insane policies, he is also in favor of a role for the President that is limited to the terms established by the Constitution. That means that most of his policy preferences will be watered down by Congress anyway. Having “moderates” pushing for moderate policies is how you end up with “cuts” that increase the size of the federal government.

      2. Terry Michael RON PAUL is batshit insane.

      3. Yes, and this sensible driving off the cliff that every other candidate (LP excepted) is openly planning to do, this is sane?

        Paul may be crazy, but he’s not crazy in any dangerous way. Everyone else is, as they’re more concerned about politics than the fact that our government is taking us Greecewards.

      4. Ron Paul is a bad libertarian, a decent paleolibertarian and a great conservative. I don’t want a conservative, I want a libertarian who believes states shouldn’t take away a woman’s right to choose (or the feds, since RP wants an abortion amendment) or marriage rights or etc.

        1. How is being pro-life inconsistent with libertarianism? It seems to me that pro-lifers who generally share libertarian viewpoints are disagreeing with you over where to draw lines on rights. This is not inconsistent with the nonaggression principle.

          Note that I’m not agreeing with the pro-lifers. I have generally supported a woman’s right to choose, though not without misgivings. Just pointing out that it’s possible to be a pro-life libertarian.

          1. Depends on what libertarianism is. Is libertarianism a general application of property rights and the non-aggression principle, leaving room for disagreement on just how those principles ought to be applied, or is it strict adherence to the writings of Murray Rothbard?

        2. You don’t want the “states to take away a woman’s right to choose” what? To kill a fetus? You need to be a little more specific here. Paul accurately believes the fetus is a human life. As such, he reasonably believes it has some rights which are not completely obliterated by a woman’s “right to choose” to kill it.

    2. I think the implicit assumption is that Romney will be the GOP nominee, which seems likely at this point.

      1. The Gingrich surge in the SC polls is suggesting that I might be right about a second thing this cycle.

        Romney really does look to have a cap somewhere in the 30s. He is gonna struggle to win this thing if that is the case.

        If Romney has a 35% cap and Paul has a 25% cap, this could go on for a long time.

  14. I’ve said before that Republicans are marginally better than Democrats with power because Democrats are, in practice, no better on civil liberties (and, in fact, unabashed statists are usually worse) than Republicans, but there is a better chance that Republicans’ economic policies will tend to be just a little less destructive than Democrats’. (Republican cronyism seems to have a tiny bit better chance of getting to job creators instead of just to unions.)

    Let me be clear, Mitt Romney is going to be an (at best) diappointing president (even on low bar standards) but economically better than what we have now.

    (And that is how you hedge your praise.)

    1. ^This^

      Karl Hungus|1.19.12 @ 1:41PM|#
      I was hoping?obviously, against hope?that Obama would move my party in a back-to-the-future Jeffersonian liberal direction . . .

      I had a girlfriend once that displayed the same credulity when I told her I wouldn’t come in her mouth.

      You nailed it Karl. It never occured to me that anyone anywhere thought Obama would move in that direction as he so obviously is what he is.

      1. Before taking the presidential oath, Barack Obama had never governed a day in his life, so he was a blank slate. That doesn’t mean there weren’t ample clues that the man would find a state-imposed solution for every one of life’s problems (real or imagined).

        1. Before I knew much of anything about Obama, I saw the interview where he admitted that increasing the capital gains tax wouldn’t bring in any additional revenue, but that he wanted to do it anyway because that would be more fair. He flat out admitted that tax policy should be used to punish people for making money rather than used to fund the government, and we elected this asshole anyway.

      2. “Re-elect me and I promise not to come in your mouth….again”.

        1. I’m a Mormon and therefore not allowed to even put it in your mouth in the first place.

          1. Bill Henrickson disagrees. Oral is moral.

    2. Great. So Mittens gets elected, we continue our handbasket journey (if only on a slightly slower pace), things don’t come up roses, and the “free market” and “deregulation” get blamed because that’s what everybody with an R after their name shouts from the rooftops no matter how much they do the opposite.

      I don’t consider “prolonging the agony” an acceptable alternative. Unless they’re going to actively reverse the slide, there’s no practical difference.

      1. Exactly.

        This is why Obama is a better choice in the long run.

    3. Um… no. Democrats are better on civil liberties, if not perfect (Obama did end the evil torture regime). Republicans, I may remind you, nearly destroyed the economy.

      You’re willing to gloss over huge abuses on the part of Republicans because they favor 4% less in income tax on billionaires who only pay 15% as it is. Just say it.

      God damn you people are ridiculous.

      1. Tony is gushing because George Bush led the country to the edge of a cliff, and Obama took over and had them take a big step forward…

        1. Nearly half a million jobs lost per month to modest job growth for 22 straight months.

          More net job growth under Obama than Bush’s entire 8 years. Stocks doing great.

          Indeed the only possible narrative you can get from the last 3 years is that the stimulus did exactly what it was designed to do, though we could have used more to get to higher growth and lower unemployment.

          What planet do you live on? This obsessive need to equate the two presidents, when one was without question the worst disaster this country has seen in the better part of a century, and the other has been modestly successful in cleaning up his various huge messes, is absurd.

          1. i fuck around with data and outright lie because obama’s such a dreamy guy.

            oh, god, yes, oh, oh, YES! *winds up washing machine tuner to increase vibrations*

          2. Oh good, the clueless dickhead is back.

          3. Indeed the only possible narrative you can get from the last 3 years is that the stimulus did exactly what it was designed to do


            That’s the only possible narrative for a hopeless partisan like you.


            1. If that same lame argument is the best you can do, then you don’t really have anything. That projection was made before Obama was inaugurated based on growth estimates that were too optimistic (but which aligned with most economists at the time). Really lame.

              1. …based on growth estimates that were too optimistic…

                Then it fucking well didn’t do what it was projected to do, now did it?

              2. So the projections on which they based the argument for 800 billion in spending were way off, meaning they were utterly fucking wriong about what the stimulus would accomplish, and that’s a lame argument? Like I said, hopeless partisan.

              3. [::to Tony’s head::]

                “Bob FASTER, goddammit!”

          4. Nearly half a million jobs lost per month to modest job growth for 22 straight months.

            Wow this has got to be a spoof. No one is that stupid or mendacious. I hope.

            1. What is wrong with that statement?

              1. Other than the fact it’s total bullshit?

              2. It’s complete garbage. Their has not been “modest job growth” for 22 straight months. The official unemployment rate peaked 22 months ago, but it has not decreased for 22 months straight, and it doesn’t even accurately measure real increases and decreases in employment, since it doesn’t count so-called “discouraged workers” who stop even looking for jobs. The total number of employed Americans is barely keeping up with population growth.

                1. Nobody’s saying it’s great, but it’s better than where it started–one thing keeping the numbers down are public sector layoffs. The private sector is doing OK not great.

                  And what do you propose to do about that? Cut billionaires’ taxes some more?

                  Because libertarians seem to go back and forth saying nothing can be done about joblessness, then blaming Obama for it.

                  1. What a lovely assortment of strawmen you have there.

                    1. Yes, he excels in strawmen. He was a basket weaving major, doncha know.

          5. Or thats the fucking business cycle and we had already bottomed with regards to the rate of jobs losses before the stimulus was even passed.

            If Kerry had been president in 2008, the same crisis would have occured and the new republican president coming into office in 2009 would have seen similar results as Obama did.

          6. Nice lies.

            On average, the economy as shed 40,000 jobs per month since Obama took office.

            Get sell your lies somewhere else.

            1. Oh nothing disingenuous about averaging the months including the first few when Bush’s recession was killing jobs in the hundreds of thousands.

              1. I didn’t include January 2009 for obvious reasons. His Excellency is responsible for all the rest because he’s, you know, in charge. It’s called taking responsibility.

                I looked at it your way too.
                For 2H09 the economy shed on average 346K jobs per month.
                2010 the economy added 104K jobs per month.
                2011 the economy added 131K jobs per month
                The average of all that is an average monthly add of 26K per month. A far cry from your boast. Not to mention that a significant portion of those adds were just the bounce off the floor.

                Considering the economy needs to add at least 100K jobs per month just to keep up with population, I think it’s safe to say the policies of His Excellency are a complete failure.

          7. Nice lies.

            On average, the economy as shed 40,000 jobs per month since Obama took office.

            Get sell your lies somewhere else.

          8. Nice lies.

            On average, the economy as shed 40,000 jobs per month since Obama took office.

            Get sell your lies somewhere else.

            1. To be fair, I don’t think it’s accurate to count that way either. Sure, that’s the average, but it’s counting the initial period when there was a steep decline averaged with the latter period in which the number of employed people has increased. Not to say Obama has done anything but hamstring the economy over and over, mind.

              1. If you assume that doing nothing would have resulted in the stock market going to zero and unemployment going to 100%, then you think Obama has done a great job. If you compare the “recovery” to historical data, however, Obama’s actions seem to have done little to help, and have most likely done a great deal of harm – and that is before the $5T price tag is factored in.

      2. You’d better stock up on napkins, Tony, because Obama’s ejaculate isn’t going to wash ITSELF off.

        1. Curious advice from someone who prefers wrinkled septuagenarian dick.

          1. Ron Paul will be gone, forever and mercifully, after the GOP Convention.

      3. Wait, you believe in God?

        1. Sometimes I can’t distinguish Tony from his impersonators.

          1. There is no difference. There is no “real” Tony. He’s just a sockpuppet.

      4. Democrats are better on civil liberties

        Peurile bullshit. Define terms and provide support for this assertion.

        Unless you believe renewing and strengthening the PATRIOT Act, enacting the NDAA and killing people by remote drone attack is “better on civil liberties,” your statement is absurd.

        1. They stopped torturing people.

          The average Romney voter wants to return to a torture policy and probably doesn’t care who suffers as long as he’s brown.

          You really want to take the risk of putting Republicans back in charge of civil liberties? Ah who cares you probably bash the ACLU.

          1. Holy shit, you really are as stupid as everyone says, aren’t you. Jeez, I thought they were exaggerating. I didn’t think it was possible for a human to be so stupid and still capable of autonomous motor functions.

          2. The GITMO torture policies stopped in 2003. Any stuff going on after was happening via extradition to foreign countries – which Obama has continued. That front hasnt changed a bit.

            1. Therefore vote Romney?

              1. Therefore your one talking point (“Obama ended torture”) that “proved” your Beloved Blue Statist Party was better on “civil liberties” blew up in your face.

              2. You’re the one who touts system. So yeah, for you, time to vote Romney.

          3. Begone you racist scumbag.

          4. and probably doesn’t care who suffers as long as he’s brown.


      5. Yeah, Obama ended the “torture” regime and gave us the “we can lock you up indefinitely with our super-duper top secret evidence” regime.

        That’s change we can believe in.

        1. Obama also gave us assassination of American citizens, don’t forget that one.

      6. Democrats are better on civil liberties, if not perfect (Obama did end the evil torture regime).

        And Obama started new wars with questionable motives and little to no legal standing. And he’s drone-happy. Lateral move from the previous administration, at best. Averaging things out, it doesn’t look too good for your team on civil liberties.

        Admittedly, the multitude of policy decisions that led to economic disaster had their roots in both parties. (Hint: It wasn’t deregulation.) Republicans show slightly more promise learning from their mistakes.

        (I’m judging these things relatively speaking.)

    4. What Fist said. Plus, there’s a better chance (but only that) that Romney will nominate judges who see the Constitution as more than a blank slate.

    5. Let me be clear, Mitt Romney is not going to be an (at best) diappointing president

      1. You wish. (I more or less also wish.) But it’s going to happen. I don’t know why people are pretending that he is not getting the nomination and/or pretending that he is not going to then win the presidency.

        You should listen to me. You’re talking to the guy who correctly predicted the end of P.M. Links.

    6. Not only that, but the press tends to report more aggressively on Republican abuses of power.

  15. The triumph of Hope over experience.

  16. Odds of Terry Michael popping into the comments?

    1. Slim to none.

      1. I am only entering the comments because Reason allows any jerk to use someone else’s name, which the writer of “Slim to none” just did.

        1. Sorry, couldn’t help myself

        2. I wouldn’t voluntarily comment here. The Kochs make me do it.

        3. Apparently they let any jerk who calls himself a libertarian write an article, too, but you don’t see us complaining.

          Oh, wait, that’s exactly what we’re doing. Never mind, carry on.

        4. Yeah, because everyone here thought that was the real you.

        5. Main Entry: Any Jerk
          Synonyms: ass, blockhead, dolt, donkey, dope, dunce, fool, idiot, imbecile, jackass, nitwit, numbskull, simpleton, Terry Michael, twit

        6. Look! A man trying to engage our minds! KICK HIS ASS!

        7. There is a reason Tim Cavanaugh is my favorite writer here.

  17. “I now instead ponder the puzzling economic policy failures of Barack Obama”

    Considering this is what he pretty much promised, bigger more expansive government, how the heck can you be puzzled by it? That’s like being puzzled by the fact that shit tastes like shit. What the hell did you think it would taste like, chicken?

    1. or whale . . .

    2. puzzling economic policy failures of Barack Obama

      They can’t be puzzling because nobody thought Barack Obama was going to go on a crony capitalist spend and regulate bender unprecedented in human history.

      And they can’t be puzzling because nobody could foresee that a crony capitalist spend and regulate bender unprecedented in human history wasn’t going to help the economy.

      So what’s puzzling about them, again?

    3. Nothing puzzling about them, really.

  18. Anti-war Democrats psyched themselves out like this back in 1968, too.

    As a reward, they got the Kent State shootings and the Operation Linebacker II Christmas bombings.

    Romney: Nixon with pomade.

    1. Romney asserts that there is no product at all in that hair.

      1. Damn. If he said he was a Dapper Dan man, I might reconsider my policy of never again associating with anyone devoid of principles enough to vote for him.

  19. Yawn.

    Someone who votes for either Obama or Romney is NOT a libertarian. Period.

  20. This article is a joke right? It is a spoof, making fun of Obamabot hopey changey voters, right?

    Even his campaign posters gave me the creeps. They look like they came from a graphic novel set in a Stalinesque totalitarian nightmare. His stated goals, voting history, the odd sound bite here and there….it all adds up to tryant and nothing else.

    Really Terry, who bought that shit?

    1. …Really Terry, who bought that shit?

      53% of the electorate in 2008.

  21. One problem with Democrats is that they blindly think they’re the party of civil liberties, despite decades of evidence to the contrary.

    For the GOP, at least, the RLC knows that the GOP isn’t good on civil liberties, limited government, or free market principles and is fighting to make it better. They don’t pretend or assume everything is groovy when it isn’t.

    There’s an argument that libertarianism can never take permanent hold in either major party, of course, but the Democrats don’t even see that they have a problem.

    1. Note that there’s no Ron Paul analogue in the Dem party inveighing against their statist economic policies.

      Democrats claiming that there’s more room for diversity in their “big tent” make me sick.

      1. Let’s ban the party.

      2. Also notice there’s no analogue to the two Pauls in the republican camp, either.

        I knew this would happen; everyone talks a good game about not being closet TEAM RED, and then, when Mittens looks inevitable, people start rationalizing voting for him.

        Note: it doesn’t matter if you do it grudgingly or enthusiastically, the vote counts the same. Voting for Mittens because he might be slightly less bad than Obama is the exact same thing (from a practical standpoint) as excitedly endorsing all of his positions.

        1. I don’t think I can go there. The one thing about maybe voting GOP sans Paul is the court appointments–don’t want anymore by Obama–but I don’t think Romney would be much better on that score.

          He might be better fiscally, but that’s so uncertain and, frankly, doubtful that I wouldn’t vote for him for that reason alone.

          No, it’s GOP-nominated Paul or LP-nominated Johnson/whoever.

          1. I’m with you. It just frustrates me when people on here validate anything that people like MNG say (i.e. bashing the GOP until it’s election time, then lining up like lemmings with a bunch of lame excuses on why they’re once again voting for a big-gov’t conservative).

            1. If I somehow twist myself into voting for Romney because I become convinced that Obama is that awful–not entirely inconceivable, but unlikely due to Romney’s crapitude–then I’ll say so. I’m not going to attempt to rationalize my decision based on the idea that he’s somehow a libertarian.

              We’ve seen the same thing with “libertarian” justifications for Giuliani, McCain, even Bush. Nuts.

              1. Has anyone other than Donderooooo tried justifying Guiliani?

                1. See comment above. Damned squirrels.

                2. Has anyone other than Donderooooo tried justifying Guiliani?

                  Dondero’s more recent bullshit is that it is Romney that is the candidate of limited government, not Ron Paul.

            2. I don’t think you’re a lemming if you realize that the guy you’re voting for is going to be as bad as the other guy on 70% of things but he might be better on the other 30% and are willing to except that tradeoff. A lemming has no idea what it’s doing.

              1. Fair enough on the lemming, but I fail to see how voting for a big-government republican would make you anything other than…a supporter of big-government republicans.

                Remember: your vote doesn’t come with an *. A vote is a vote. So whether you do it begrudingly or no, the message is still: I approve of what you’re doing. The only way to push the GOP in a more libertarian direction is to not vote for these assclowns and continuing to reward them.

              2. I am not sure that recognizing a 30% improvement counts as lemming behavior. Obama is a disaster, if there is a benefit to being on the fast track to hell, I am all ears.

                1. I’m not sure where this 30% is coming from…I’d put it more at about 5%. But regardless, if one of the options isn’t to actively begin fixing the problem, then the faster you hit rock bottom, crash and burn, however you want to put it, the faster you’ll be forced onto the actual path of recovery.

              3. Lemmings don’t do that anyway.

            3. I don’t know. That’s who I was thinking about with the reference to the Mayor of 9/11?, of course.

        2. What’s funny is seeing John and Tulpa argue so much with the knowledge that they’ll be arm in arm singing “Kumbaya” and extolling the virtues of a Romney vote in a few months.

          1. Yep, I’m looking forward to the lulz.

        3. Yeah, I hate it when people think that they can vote strategically or something. Just vote for the candidate you think is best. Or don’t vote if none is acceptable. We will never have any choice besides Stupid Party #1 and Stupid Party #2 unless people stop believing that they are the only “serious” choices.
          Your vote doesn’t matter, and it matters even less if you throw it away by voting for someone you don’t actually want in office.

      3. Does Ron Paul have an anal log in the Democratic Party?

        1. Occasionally Russ Feingold used to step up on civil liberties issues (opposed the PATRIOT Act), and Crony Capitalism (opposed TARP & Medicare Part D), but he was defeated in the last election. Kucinich every now and then does something positive, but aside from them, no there really isn’t a “Ron Paul-type” figure in the Democratic Party.

  22. It would also be wise for a libertarian Libertarian to vote for Romney, though that may be expecting too much pragmatism.

    1. If Romney is the GOP candidate, Johnson is the only pragmatic vote.

      1. Exactly. I cannot understand the logic of, “The way to push the GOP in a more libertarian direction is to reward non-libertarian big-gov’t conservatives by voting for them.” Does not compute.

        1. The most pragmatic thing to do is make it clear to the GOP that the libertarian minority (about 20% based on Paul’s results) of the party WILL walk away from big-government GOP candidates.

          Stick and carrot. The carrot is the GOP can run as many candidates like Sen Paul as they want and they will be supported. But the stick must be used.

          1. I see that, and you see that…but there’s a depressing number of “libertarians” in these comments who disagree.

          2. Except that that won’t happen.
            Paul will not get the nomination, and the libertarian wing of the Republican party will again vote for the anti-gay anti-abortion big government liberal who gives lip service to small government.

            1. anti-abortion

              Romney is anti-abortion? Since when?

              or alternative response:

              You say that like its a bad thing (I consider abortion part of the 95% Paul is right about).

              1. Romney is anti-abortion? Since when?

                Lick your finger and hold it up in the political wind.

                1. More lies. Lying is fun!

                  He’s been pro-life for at least 8 years, during which time the political landscape hasn’t become more favorable to pro-lifers.

                  1. The political landscape or his political landscape?

                    His political landscape has indeed changed. From one state to the entire nation, and his *snort* heartfelt *scoff* views have changed along with it.

                  2. He’s been pro-life for at least 8 years

                    Is he, or has he just been saying that? Why the change? What philosophical or life-changing event did he have that caused him to change positions?

                    Im also willing to believe he has always been pro-life and lied to get elected in MA.

                    Neither one looks good though.

        2. The way to push the GOP in a more libertarian direction is to reward non-libertarian big-gov’t conservatives by voting for them.

          That’s like an ant pushing a tricycle, to quote Geordi. Social conservatives are more numerous, have higher voter turnout, and higher tendency to vote in blocs. Libertarians are not going to overpower them unless we’re willing to accept incremental changes.

          And tbh an Obama victory probably makes the GOP go in a more statist direction. They can quite plausibly say they tried the fiscal conservatism and it didn’t work.

          1. Or it makes the GOP go in a more libertarian direction, because they tried “democrat-lite” and it didn’t work.

    2. Let me tell you something, slave: when your argument ultimately boils down to “love it or leave it”, and the subject is the scrap of land where I was born, then I’ll be goddamned if I’ll be convinced to throw my symbolic support behind either of the two bullshit choices you shove in my face every four years.

      Dickhead X or Dickhead Y, what’s it gonna be? Well, FUCK THAT.

      A vote ain’t gonna to do shit anyway, so might as well keep whatever shred of dignity you can. THAT’s pragmatic to me, and you can go off and fuck yourself with a corncob.

      1. The one and only place my vote theoretically counts in favor of one of the two inevitable Dem or Rep statists is in a swing state. Since I don’t live in one of those, why would I sell out my principles and vote for Mittens or Obummer? For that matter, how different, really, are those two morons, when it really comes down to it? Both are pretty awful, so why should I sell out and pick one who is slightly less awful?

  23. He took three full years to withdraw troops from Iraq, negotiating until just weeks ago to keep troops there.

    If true then he did much worse than simply act like Bush as he has on so many other issues. He actually came around to McCain’s view on the matter.

  24. Libertarians are really fucking stupid.

    1. Well if there’s one thing you are pre-eminently qualified to opine upon, it’s “really fucking stupid.”

    2. Libertariansals are really fucking stupid

      Yes, we know. You prove it to us every day.

  25. Upon further reflection, I apologize for being too harsh. Michael is getting excoriated here for believing in ‘hope and change’, and much of the criticism is well deserved. We may be heaping on him the collective guilt of all the hope and changers though.

    On the other hand, he deserves some praise for recognizing the mistake and coming forward about it. That is more than can be said for most and makes him definitely not an obamabot. Millions are going to vote for Obama again.

    Advice to Terry Michael;

    It may seem oversimplified, but it works very well. A single good litmus test for any candidate for any office is their stand on gun-control. It tells you what their view of the citizen/government relationship is. No person who is pro gun control is a believer in the notion of the free citizen.

    1. Some of us are really fucking sick of idiot rednecks dictating how the rest of us should live. No one is coming for your precious firearms you half-wit.

      Freedom for you idiots always comes at a huge cost to everyone else, and you seem just fine with that because baby jesus told you how special you are.

      1. Freedom for you idiots always comes at a huge cost to everyone else

        More peurile bullshit. How the fuck does expecting the government to leave me the fuck alone and not take my shit cost anybody else anything at all?

        1. People on Medicare might say it will cost them something.

          1. It “costs” them something they were never entitled to in the first place. So fuck them.

            1. Yeah the only legitimate entitlements are the ones you get. Same story every single time.

              1. The disconnect you make is fucking amazing. If you want to tax people to pay for things like police and firefighters, those are services the government provides to ALL people within it’s borders. If you want to tax me to pay for your father’s retirement and medical care that is benefiting ONLY YOU AND YOUR FATHER. That is a big fucking difference.

                That is the same boring crap that White Indian spouts without the brackets and shit. You’re really him, aren’t you?

            2. According to Tony, not-giving is taking.
              If you don’t give to Paul something you took from Peter, you are actually taking something from Paul and giving it to Peter.

              Likewise not-taking is giving.
              If you take less from Peter to give less to Paul, you are actually taking from Paul and giving to Peter.

              1. “Freedom is slavery” pretty much sums up Toni’s train-wreck of logic. Cause and effect are a jumbled mess. He is a walking advertisement for the statist socialists who use crony capitalism to destroy the middle class.

                “Thought crime is death.”

        2. How the fuck does expecting the government to leave me the fuck alone and not take my shit cost anybody else anything at all?

          Democrats, like Tony, believe the government deserves everything you own. The fact that you get to keep any of your earnings is a blessing from our benevolent leaders. So either say thank you or shut up. Ingrate.

          1. The Tonys can’t rob you themselves because government will stop them.
            But nobody will stop the government from robbing you.
            The Tonys see this as an opportunity to have government rob you on their behalf, since they can’t do it themselves.
            For them government is not an instrument of justice, rather an instrument of plunder.

      2. Some of us are really fucking sick of idiot rednecks dictating how the rest of us should live.

        And holy shit, that is fucking hilarious. I bet you can’t even see the irony there.

        1. I don’t pretend otherwise and sing patriotic hymns about freedom while I’m destroying your environment and shrinking your paycheck in payment to our wealthy betters, like idiot rednecks.

          1. I have decided to stop embarrassing myself by responding to Tony and take the sage advice of Aristotle;
            There is no honor in besting a fool.

            1. Something about wrestling a pig…

            2. Arguing with an idiot is futile. First he brings you down to his level, THEN he beats you with experience.

      3. You fuckers are telling me I shouldn’t continue turning my personal preferences into laws, and I am fucking pissed off about it! I have the right to regulate you, take your money, and give it to whoever I please.

      4. Should we call you a waahhbulance? I love how assholes like you get so worked up over the fact that the opinions and votes of people you hate count exactly the same as yours. Go die in a fire you statist shithead.

      5. [citation needed]

      6. Wait a minute, you arent the real Tony. That is a good troll though.

      7. I know, I shouldn’t feed the troll, but I just gotta.

        Tony, no matter how many times you say it, none of us are telling anyone else how to live. We’re just insisting that they not get into our business and our lives.

        Of course, you already know that and just don’t have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that you WANT to control people.

        1. When all someone understands is force, then everything is force.
          Even an absence of force is force.
          So not allowing people to control you is in fact an act of aggressive force, for how else do you stop them from controlling you except by controlling them?
          Which puts you on equal terms morally, because the only way to stop someone from putting a gun to your head and bossing you around is to put a gun to their head and tell them to stop putting a gun to your head.
          This makes libertarianism aggressive to aggressors, and thus no different from them.

      8. Pull your nose out of your mother’s twat. Just cause some people don’t live in those bastions of liberty *cough*bullshit*cough* New York and California, doesn’t mean we are rednecks.


    2. Similar test, but I think you learn more from a person’s position on the War on Drugs. Those for it are at best false friends of liberty or stupid, and at worst outright enemies or evil. The very worst you can get with an anti-WoD candidate is a well-meaning eccentric like Kucinich.

  26. Anybody claiming that they had genuine expectations that Obama would be anything other than a petty tyrant has to have been illiterate until after the presidential election in 2008. Or you liked his statism and voted for him, and now, no offense, you’re just full of shit. Take your pick.

    “Obama” and “Jefferson” in the same sentence, Mr. Michael? Really?

  27. So evangelical South Carolina voters will vote for two Catholics and a Mormon over the Baptist. I guess religion doesn’t matter all that much.

    1. The Baptist is polling ahead of one of the catholics. The one with one wife.

      1. Wait, open marriage, open primary, I get it now.

  28. Romney seems to understand what drives job production and wealth creation.

    Care to explain, because while this may be what Romney wants you to believe, there doesn’t seem to be any rational reason to believe it.

    1. It’s very simple. Because Obama shows absolutely zero understanding of those matters, anyone who has ever held a real job in the private sector knows more. Literally, anyone else.

      1. How does holding a private sector job give one insight into macroeconomic policy?

        Or are you just believing bullshit fed to you in the form of Republican talking points AGAIN?

        1. What in the world makes you think Obama has any “insight into macroeconomic policy”? All evidence indicates he has zero insight into anything economic, and thus anyone with more than zero beats Obama.

          1. Unbiased assessments show that the Obama stimulus did exactly what it was designed to do in terms of job growth.

            Mitt Romney’s laissez-faire bullshit indicates that he not only doesn’t know anything about correct macroeconomic policy, he will do everything he possibly can to make things worse, assuming he doesn’t flipflop to modern economics at some point.

            1. Unbiased assessments show that the Obama stimulus did exactly what it was designed to do in terms of job growth.

              Bullshit. It’s well-known that it didn’t reduce unemployment the way he claimed it would, and that this is the slowest “recovery” from a recession since roughly forever.

            2. Mitt Romney? Laissez-faire?


            3. Unbiased assessments show that the Obama stimulus did exactly what it was designed to do in terms of job growth.

              That’s funny, I thought it was suppsed to get us down to 6% unemployment.

              And, BTW, the labor force participation rate is down. The employment status of the civilian population:

              2008: 145,362,000
              2009: 139,877,000
              2010: 139,064,000
              2011: 140,700,000

              Note that what job growth occurred happened long after the stimulus came and went, we’ve added fewer than 500,000 jobs per year since 2009 while the working age population has grown much faster, and we are still well below the 2008 level.


            4. “Unbiased assessments show that the Obama stimulus did exactly what it was designed to do in terms of job growth.”

              That is the problem.

            5. Does anybody else remember when unemployment was under 5% all we heard from the MSM was that the economy was horrible. (Bush was president, I won’t credit or blame him for that)

        2. That white stuff dripping down your cheek — it’s not milk, is it? *Hears Obama running away, desperately attempting to pull his pants up.*

          1. You must be great at parties.

            1. What the fuck, dude? The napkins ARE IN THE CORNER. Stop standing there like an idiot and GO GRAB SOME.

              1. Truly Hitchens-level wit.

    2. It might be because his living has been based over the years on turning companies around. Despite all his other shit aspects, he probably does have a better idea about what goes into a business deciding to hire someone. In that regard hes better than most of these ass clowns who have been lawyers and politicans their whole lives, have never had to make a business decision or create anything of value and have only made money using force to take things from other people.

      1. The government functioned much better when lawyers were in charge instead of bankers.

        Business is fundamentally different from government and the idea that one should act like the other was tired in the 80s.

        1. It’s cute that you don’t think lawyers are still in charge of the government.

  29. So which is it, guys, are you a Democrat or a Republican?

    Funny how it comes back to two parties, doesn’t it?

    1. When offered the choice of being kicked in the nuts or punched int eh face, I like to at least ask that I get neither.

  30. Based upon Bane Capital, I expect Romney will break up America, selling off the valuable bits for profit and writing off the rest on his taxes.

    1. In other words, I have zero understanding of how business or income taxes work.

    2. Maybe he’s gonna restructure – liquidate the Northeast Corridor, California, and Northern Illinois while keeping the rest intact? Works for me.

      1. If you claim to be a libertarian then arguing for anyone other than Ron Paul makes you either really confused or a liar.

        1. Funny, I don’t see any indication that I will be voting for Romney in my comment. Amazing talent you got there, reading my mind over the internet.

    3. That might not be the worst idea.

    4. It would be cool if he cut the federal budget by laying off federal employees, but that will not happen.
      Federal jobs are for life.

    5. So not only did he paralyze Batman, but he also started a vulture capital firm. What an evil prick.

    6. So not only did he paralyze Batman, but he also started a vulture capital firm. What an evil prick.

  31. Umm… why is everyone acting like Ron Paul isn’t an option? I thought we left that to the mainstream media.

    1. That’s who I’m voting for. I advise anyone who likes liberty, limited government, and free markets to do the same.

    2. Because, when push comes to shove, a lot of people simply cannot break the tribal TEAM mindset, so they concoct wild fantasies to sell themselves on voting for a big-gov’t conservative.

      Otherwise, you’re “throwing your vote away”, since that argument always holds so much water when exposed to even the barest scrutiny.

    3. Ron Paul won’t be a candidate for president by September of this year, so, I guess a lot of people are looking realistically at Gary Johnson (or the LP nominee that is hilariously not GJ) or Willard Romney…

      You’re going to blame people for using foresight and reality to come to the conclusion that Ron Paul will never be the Republican nominee? Interesting.

      1. Paul’s hardly out of the running in this election, even if things just keep plugging along. And there’s plenty of time for things to go a different direction. Romney fell to pieces in the South last time and may very well do so again. What happens then?

      2. Blame? No, I just asked a question. But people were talking about Gary Johnson, and nothing about Ron Paul who is way more mainstream. Ron Paul is way more electable (or even protest-vote-able) than Libertarian ticket what’shisname. Plus he hasn’t ruled out running as a third party or independent yet.

        Splitting the vote when you’re in a political minority is just bad sense. You’ll never make a dent with your voting “statement”, let alone actually elect anyone unless you get realistic.

  32. He is most certainly an expert on that.

  33. Terry Michael Explains Why a Libertarian Democrat Would Vote for Mitt Romney

    Because it’s either that or Obama?

    Well, there’s always (snicker) one of (snort) the third (mmph) party candidat- bah ha ha ha ha! Sorry, just couldn’t keep a straight face there. =D

    Also, note I kept it civil by not using silly Obama pun names like Nobama, Obammer, Obamarama, Blowbama and OBlahBlah. That is all.

    1. You forgot Captain Zero, President Downgrade, Obumbler……..

      Has any president ever had so many derogatory monikers?

  34. Terry, please.

    At best, voting is a minuscule gift to others or symbolic gesture.

    You want to send the message “I prefer welfare/warfare statist B to welfare/warfare statist A”? What a great gift to humanity!

    Fuck Romney.

  35. I wonder how many people realize just how much is at stake with this election. Obama and the current congress have been hard at work doing things that are so over the top that had they done it 50 years ago they would have been hanged by mobs of angry citizens. Given a second term and the chance to use the powers he has gained ( particularly under the defense authorization act, Obamacare and whatever version of SOPA they eventually get passed ) this piece of shit is going to grind our faces into the dirt with his boot. I understand there is a bill in the senate now ( Joe Lieberman ?) that would grant the executive the power to strip people of their citizenship, presumably so they can be detained indefinitely.
    This horseshit has to stop. These people have to be stopped. Captain Zero has to go. The people who support this kind of shit need to be shamed into silence.

    I really dont see anyone running who rings my bell, but I will support nearly anyone who can beat Obama.

    Any second now, Tony is going to scream like a spoiled child and start throwing shit.

    1. So you’re going to vote for Mittens who has all the negatives that Obama does?

      You do realize that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results, right?

      1. If it comes down to mittens / obama, yeah I suppose I will have to hold my nose and do it.
        A second term of Obama and I see us sliding into full-on dictatorship. I dont see that with mittens.

        1. Really? Obama by any objective measure has been a moderate centrist. Stop believing the hyperbole and lies the fat man tells you. It’s bad for your heart.

          1. Ha! Ha! Ha!

            Tony talking about “objective measure”!

            Now that’s funny.

          2. You cant posssibly believe any of that shit . I am laughing my ass off here.
            Still a perfect record tony.

            For those who dont know, tony is on a quest to not only say something moronic everytime he speaks, but to make each utterance more moronic than the last. So far he is doing very well. Please give him some encouragement.

            1. Obamacare was the Republican alternative to Clinton’s healthcare plan in the 90s.

              Now it’s evil socialism.

              The only thing that’s gotten more radical are you people. Obama is a centrist based on his policies. No matter what the fat man on the radio spittles at you.

              1. Ah…. since Repubs argued for it 25 years ago and they’re arguing against it now…. well, that means it was a perfectly good idea the whole time I guess.

                lol – Do you know the meaning of the word ‘irrelevant’?

    2. You do realize that Romney will continue Obama’s policies just as Obama continued Bush’s policies, don’t you?

      1. yes, I realize that, but not necessarily with his foot jamming the accellerator to the floor.

        Look, if Paul can get the nomination I will go Paul all the way. He is head and shoulders above any of the others but I just dont see him getting it.

        1. Don’t be too sure about that.
          The only discernible difference I see between Republicans and Democrats is that the Democrats promise bigger government and give you bigger government, the Republicans promise smaller government and give you bigger government.
          At least the Democrats are honest about it.

          1. Maybe I am just shooting arrows at the devil I can see and who is currently jabbing us with his trident. Still, I dont see romney, as despicable as he is, using the NLRB, the BATF, EPA etc. to actively destroy this country. I truly believe Obama is the Manchurian candidate.

            I am an independent so I dont get to vote in the republican primary anyway. I will be supporting whoever is against Obama.

  36. OT: Look at what Wikipedia’s “Liberalism” article starts with:

    “Liberalism in the United States is a broad political philosophy centered on the unalienable rights of the individual. The fundamental liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion for all belief systems, and the separation of church and state, right to due process and equality under the law are widely accepted as a common foundation across the spectrum of liberal thought.

    The main focus of modern liberalism in the United States includes issues such as voting rights for all adult citizens, equal rights, protection of the environment, and the provision by the government of social services, such as: equal education opportunities, access to health care, transportation infrastructure, basic food for the hungry and basic shelter for the homeless.

    Some American liberals, who call themselves classical liberals, neoliberals, or libertarians, support fundamental liberal ideals but disagree with modern liberal thought, holding that economic freedom is more important than equality of opportunity, and that promoting the general welfare of society exceeds the legitimate role of government.”

    1. That is amazing. How did you do that? You somehow logged into the internet on some other planet.

      1. ie, libertarians oppose equality of opportunity and the nanny state promotes the general welfare of society! Who knew?

        1. Opportunity means outcome and society means government.

    2. And “general welfare” leads to an article about social welfare

    3. Liberalism in the United States is a broad political philosophy

      The main focus of modern liberalism in the United States

    4. Re: Res Publica Americana,

      […]”holding [libertarians] that economic freedom is more important than equality of opportunity[…]”

      Sure, not that they’re not mutually exclusive and that you can’t actually have equality of opportunity without economic freedom. The above is like saying that one holds the idea that knowing how to drive is more important than driving a car – duh.

      1. That is, I’m commenting on the Wiki entry, Res. It’s hilarious.

        1. Yeah, it made me stare, blink, stare, and refresh to make sure I wasn’t on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Lol, Wikipedia.

      2. economic freedom and equality of opportunity
        economic freedom and equality of opportunity
        goes together like a horse and carriage
        this I tell you brother
        you can’t have one without the other

        1. Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, but

      3. Perhaps the term ‘equality of opportunity’ should be examined closely.

        I doubt they mean everyone should have an equal shot. For them it means those who cant or wont try should have what they want handed to them after being confiscated from someone who can and did.

        1. Or the author of the preamble is a dumbass who neither owns a dictionary, nor understands economics. One of the two.

        2. A lot of people seem to have a hard time distinguishing equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

        3. So, you think Bill Gates’ kids and black kids growing up in the rougher neighborhoods of Detroit have an equal shot?

          1. Do you think Gates’ kids could ever achieve ICP status?

      4. Libertarians are OK with letting rich parents shower their kids with the advantages of wealth that kids of poor parents will never have access to. They’re also adamant defenders of the right to leave vast amounts of wealth to one’s children.

        That’s not necessarily wrong — and for the most part, I think any attempt to stop those practices is only going to make things worse — but you can’t crow about favoring equality of opportunity when you support that kind of inequity.

        1. Little known fact, when they studied the IQs of kids from privileged (I want to say certain SES strata) backgrounds, the ones with average or below average IQs had the same college dropout rate as kids from other strata with the same IQs. Advantages might insulate that privileged kid from certain consequences but I can speak from seeing some of my own family that advantage at birth or even in part of life means ALMOST NOTHING for the privileged.

          Being poor, of course, may be more of a hindrance than making poor choices and being from a rich family but there are tons of people I know who are from lower-middle and even poor (as in immigrant, boat people poor) backgrounds who have done just fine. It’s not the income but the cultural milieu. And perhaps some genetics, if we’re honest with ourselves, in certain cases.

        2. Libertarians might not necessarily be okay with those disadvantages. They might, however, think that giving poor people a leg up through private means is a better option. They might understand that the government cannot and should not try to affect “equal opportunity,” because their interference is often ineffectual and contrary to their reason for existence.

    5. Shorter more accurate definition;

      Liberalism – A term co-opted by nanny-state socialists and communists in the US to as part of their overall newspeak campaign to conceal their true intentions.

  37. Re: Tony,

    Unbiased assessments show that the Obama stimulus did exactly what it was designed to do in terms of job growth.

    Indeed, it did exactly what was designed to do.

    Which explains why the unemployment level went up – the stimulus was designed precisely to increase it, despite what they sold to little gullible you.

    1. And they are coming after your precious bodily fluids too.

      1. Fluids you have so willingly donated already.

  38. Terry Michaels: Wrong September 19, 2008 (7 out of 7!) and wrong now.

    I know libertarians. Some of my best friends are libertarians. And Terry Michaels, you are no libertarian.


  39. Fuck you guys.

    1. You better get out of here…. Booth is coming!

  40. Romney hasn’t won yet. Paul’s chances may be very slim, but he does have a chance still.

  41. Every time I get into one of these discussions about what the parties believes and where they started historically etc, I am reminded of the distopian future world of J. Neil Schulman’s The Rainbow Cadenza where the Libertarians and the Pragmatists are the two parties in contention for control of the One World Government which has almost unbridled power over every human activity.

  42. As a LEFT-Leaning Libertarian, I would definitely voting for Romney because

    ROMNEY is a centrist, claiming to be a Conservative, but is truly a left-leaning-centrist.

    OBAMA is a centrist, claiming to be a Progressive, but is truly a right-leaning…and ass sucking-centrist.

    However, I’m a SINGLE ISSUE VOTER. I’m afraid of more Sam Alitos on the Supreme court.

  43. Terry Michaels,

    Car-building? You gotta be kidding me. I am a son of Kenosha Wisconsin and those automotive abominations that rolled out of the AMC factories under the direction of the elder Romney should all be buried on the property his family.

  44. Thanks for the article. About 70% of Libertarians come from center independents or left of center.

    For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues, please see http://? , the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization …

  45. Like someone who voted against Reagan in the second election would be reliable.

    Romney or Obama? Does it really matter? I think Obama would be better. another four years of Obama would be so destructive that people would have no choice but to vote for Rand Paul next election. Romney won’t save anything, he is Obama Light and will only futher damage the reputation of GOP.

    1. From your mouth to God’s ear.

      GOP reputation??? Ha Ha Ha

      You mean Dick Cheney, Reagan trickle-down, Tricky-Dicky, Larry Craig, Sarah Pallen, GWB…That’s some reputation.

      1. Thats why i said FUTHER damage. I mean reputation that maintained Eisenhower, Reagan, Milton Friedman….

  46. Liberalism is dead. It died in 1968 at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. It also died because it achieved all of its goals (civil rights, abortion, et. al.). What we’re are left with now?and the only option open for the Democrats since then?is New Left, creeping, incremental Fabian Socialism utilizing the techniques of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci as the playbook. To say this is not pejorative, simply factual. Barack Obama is a mid-1980s college of liberal arts student of Marxism who is in love with and attempting to implement the writings of Fanon, Berger, Mulvey, and all the other “structuralists” who dominate the reading lists of virtually all soft-discipline courses (sociology, humanities, english, etc.) at almost every four-year university on the planet. Again, this isn’t a smear, just a reflection of reality. To the extent that the Obamanistas succeed, is how well they can seduce the middle class with mostly old school liberal rhetoric and economic inducements (see the Health Care Reform Act). No amount of faux liberal rhetoric, however, can change the fiscal reality that the top 10% of income earners already pay 70% of the taxes, 50% don’t pay anything, and we’re $15 trillion deep into being the next Greece. The truth is, socialists just like to keep the waters muddied with button-pushing emotional rhetoric that serves only to keep them in power and further their elitist, top-down, collectivist agenda.

    1. Believe it or not, I’m a Quant.

      When we analyze a problem, we look at ‘worst case scenario’.

      I know that it sounds like a “socialists that keep the waters muddied with button-pushing emotional rhetoric that serves only to keep them in power and further their elitist, top-down, collectivist agenda”

      However, consider your own “Worst Case Scenario”. If you are down and out in Beverly Hills would vote for a Liberal or a Conservative/Libertarian.

    2. I don’t know where you live, but here in Texas the poor ($463K) pay only 3.3%. Of course I get that by just the particular taxes that are convenient to prove your punk ass wrong, and I didn’t even have to include payroll taxes.

      That’s the sad thing — you actually have a very valid point, but stupidly managed to destroy your own feeble credibility by cherry-picking data that everyone knows misrepresents reality.

      No better than a fucking communist.

  47. Damn that greater than, less than:

    The poor (less than $18K) pay 12.2%,
    The middle class (between $31K and $51K) pay 8.5%,
    The rich (over $463K) pay 3.3%

  48. If GOP candidates, whose party actually pays impotent lip service to some of Terry Michaels’ libertarian goals, even though their elected officeholders always turn their back on campaign rhetoric and renege on the relevant promises, why is Michaels surprised that Democratic front-man Obama does the same thing? Why did he even fantasize that such a betrayal would NOT occur? Not meaning to insult, but seriously, shouldn’t we doubt such a person’s capacity for rational thought and good judgment?

    I would think that the lesson to be learned from disappointment with Obama is that the two-party machine is not and never going to offer libertarian-leaning voters anything of substance. Even if they vote for Libertarian candidates, there is no guarantee that those candidates will act in a libertarian way, should they attain office. But doesn’t it stand to reason that you’re more likely to get what you want if you stand up and ask for it, and if you abandon those who have never fulfilled their promises to provide it? I’m just sayin’.

  49. I wanted to add that, long ago, I, too came to libertarianism from the democrat side — directly, without flirting with the Republicans, as the the bad taste of the Nixon years was so strong that the artificial sweetener of Ronald Reagan could not erase it.

  50. why don’t we list out the things that can’t be called libertarian these days.. that way seems to be much faster

  51. I find it a bit disturbing that you say you will lose friends who are democrats if you exercise your right to vote for whomever you please. It implies that the minds of democrats are so closed that any difference in thought is met with rejection. It’s worrying. Perhaps those aren’t the kind of friends you want.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.