(WSB Radio) Opening arguments begin today in the trial of an Atlanta police officer charged in connection with killing of Kathryn Johnston.
Arthur Tesler is the only cop to go on trial for the shooting of the 92 year old woman in her Atlanta home.
Tesler did not fire a shot during the November 2006 […]
I found this little gem on reason.tv. On April 16, 2008 a group called Ad Hoc National Network to Stop Evictions and Foreclosures held a protest in Washington D.C.
What were they protesting? As the name of the organization suggests, Ad Hoc was advocating a freeze on all evictions in the U.S. Many of the […]
When I learned that Bob Barr was going to be a guest on Hannity and Comes, I was excited to see a rare opportunity for a Libertarian candidate to explain the Libertarian philosophy to an audience which is largely unfamiliar with what the Libertarian Party is all about: personal liberty. To my dismay, Barr […]
Stephen,
You’re right, but the other side of the coin is that one doesn’t talk to Sean Hannity with the expectation that you’ll have a conversation with an actual intellectual.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — April 14, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Ahhh you’re wrong….such a response would be disastrous if not downright foolish.
His answer was perfect because it was constitutional and left the power to the states.
He didn’t have to answer the question of right and wrong because he focused on the question of who has the power to decide. It shuts Hannity down.
Comment by Chris Kachouroff — April 14, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
I agree with Doug and Chris. It wasn’t an opportunity for a principled education. Hannity would have fired back with some sweet-sounding non-sequitirs and his audience would have lapped it up.
Barr got some good PR out of the interview. If you want to know where he truly stands on the nuances, keep an eye on his low-profile interviews.
Comment by Jeff Molby — April 14, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
Got to agree with Doug, Chris, and Jeff on the smaller point…there’s a place and time for a nuanced discussion of politics and the War on Drugs. Hannity & Colmes isn’t it…that would have blown up in his face because Hannity would have gone into blowhard mode and shouted Barr down. He made a smart move by ducking the question because it didn’t allow Hannity to go on the attack.
That said, I completely agree that merely legalizing at the federal level shouldn’t be the end goal for libertarians, but since the states are the ones taking the more progressive approach to drugs anyway I think that repealing federal anti-drug laws should be all the federal government attempts to address. If we want complete legalization of drugs, we should work as individuals at the state level to achieve that…not have the feds dictate it to the states.
Comment by UCrawford — April 14, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
Stephen,
Where does Bob Barr really stand on the war on drugs?
He works for the Marijuana Policy Project and he’s publicly spoken out for quite some time now against the War on Drugs…there’s really no reason at this point to believe that Barr hasn’t changed his views on drugs from his time in Congress.
Comment by UCrawford — April 14, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Barr’s answer was a conservative answer NOT a Libertarian answer. The reason is simple. Barr is no Libertarian. He is a Rightwing social conservative who opposes libertarian ideas. As such he is not worthy of the LP nomination. And people ought to ask why it is that some libertarians are promoting him.
Comment by WRR — April 14, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
Crawford,
Hannity would “go into blowhard mode” ?
When is he not in blowhard mode ?
Let’s face it, William F. Buckley he ain’t.
Besides that, the only question that the former construction worker cared about was how Barr could dare run for President if it might cause John McCain — the same John McCain who Hannity was blasting daily on the air only two months ago, by the way, — to lose votes in November.
This is why I don’t bother with talk radio anymore.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — April 15, 2008 @ 3:52 am
Doug,
When is he not in blowhard mode?
Whenever he’s asking questions, trying to figure out where to attack…he can’t bloviate as effectively until his guest actually takes a solid position on something. That’s why you give responses that are evasive enough to keep him asking questions.
Fuck Hannity anyway…his show sucks. And I haven’t bothered with talk radio since the early ’90s, when Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern were still somewhat interesting.
Comment by UCrawford — April 15, 2008 @ 5:35 am
Doug and other Folks at Liberty Papers like to bash Ron Paul’s “rambling answers” but, viewed in hindsight, he was far superior to Barr. He was not only more precise but, more importantly, was not so evasive and had a deeper understanding of liberty Doug and company also made fun of Paul’s “quirky” emphasis on the Fed. It turns out that he was very much ahead of the curve on the Fed issue which is very much in the news. Will they ever admit it or do they want Barr to pretend that the Fed doesn’t exist?
I hope that Paul will reenter the race. As the economy heads toward recession, who else is there?
Comment by Dodsworth — April 15, 2008 @ 5:38 am
WRR,
Barr’s answer was a conservative answer NOT a Libertarian answer.
He was appearing on a conservative show, run by a conservative host who’s hostile to libertarians, while trying to win over conservative voters…he’s trying to bridge the gap between libertarians and conservatives, he’s not supposed to start preaching to the choir. That’s what a politician running a serious campaign is supposed to do. You’d prefer that he start rambling about the Fed and how we never needed to fight the Civil War?
And his actions outside of the talk circuit indicate he is plenty libertarian these days.
Comment by UCrawford — April 15, 2008 @ 5:41 am
Dodsworth,
Will they ever admit it or do they want Barr to pretend that the Fed doesn’t exist?
The Fed is not an issue most mainstream voters care about, abolishing the Fed is not a solution most mainstream voters are interested in, therefore it’s not an issue that anyone who wants the libertarian candidate to do well wants Bob Barr to focus on. No matter who were to get elected, the Fed’s not going away, the gold standard’s not coming back anytime soon and it’s a waste of time discussing either of those things in regards to the presidential race.
Comment by UCrawford — April 15, 2008 @ 5:49 am
…Slamming head against wall repeatedly….
I’m getting sick of fever swamp commenters, both the libertarian-ish Paulestinian version here, as well as the far left version that I’ve been putting up with at my own site and Megan McArdle’s site. Not to mention the conservative version I’ve been putting up with at McArdle’s site. At some point I need to realize that it’s not even worth debating these people. You’re better off just ignoring (or deleting) their comments and moving along. Otherwise, you’re just having a conversation with a wall.
Mark,
Preaching to the choir, brother…
Comment by UCrawford — April 15, 2008 @ 6:56 am
I know, UCrawford. I just needed to vent. It’s the left-wing fever swamp that’s been the worst, actually. For them, hatred of libertarians is an outright religion. It’s not the entire left-wing, of course - I’ve got some great relationships with a bunch of leftie blogs. It’s just the fever swamp I can’t stand.
Mark:
At some point I need to realize that it’s not even worth debating these people. You’re better off just ignoring (or deleting) their comments and moving along. Otherwise, you’re just having a conversation with a wall.
So far, I think the discussion in this thread has been quite productive. I don’t really know what to make of Congressman Barr at this point so I really appreciate hearing the arguments on both sides. To be honest, I haven’t followed his career or post-career very closely (but I will look into his work on the marijuana policy project when I have some time). I do however, remember John Stossel interviewing him when he was in congress defending the war on (some) drugs.
Did Barr really have a change of heart about his ant-libertarian record (some of which Alan Colmes pointed out) after leaving congress? If so that’s great, I would love to hear more about how and why he changed (some of which he explained in the interview).
I do find it disheartening though seeing people like Mike Gravel, who is clearly not a libertarian, join the LP for opportunistic reasons. The LP is the third largest political party and has ballot access in nearly every state. I could imagine a scenario where others like Ralph Nader would join the LP as a vehicle to further non-libertarian agendas.
I don’t think that Bob Barr is one of these people but if he wants to promote the LP agenda, he needs to stand up to people like Sean Hannity (as I believe any of the other candidates seeking the LP nomination would have).
Comment by Stephen Littau — April 15, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Stephen:
I was just blowing off steam at the Paulestinian interlocuter. Nothing directed at you or at the thread more generally, which I agree is good.
Barr belongs back in the Rupugnant Party. He, as the Libertarian presidential nominee would be an insult to the entire libertarian movement. Here, when pushed, he states he wouldn’t vote to legalize hard drugs. We don’t need Libertarians who pussyfoot around issues they are afraid the majority of moronic voters will not approve. Libertarianism is still in the educational phase. So educate those who can be reached by explaining we’re about liberty, then point out the real world horrors these drug laws cause. None of the masses will learn anything with sell-outs like Barr speaking for us.
Comment by marlow — April 16, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
If I’m going to vote it will probably be for Bob Barr. He isn’t perfect. Neither was Ron Paul. Bob Barr went on a crusade against Wiccans awhile back. However in this society that is a badge of honor.
Mike Gravel is seeking a party to use for his run for presidency and has an inability to defend his rigid belief system. He goes on a Bill O’Reilly like tirade like some of his supporters when faced with facts and reality, hurling abusive accusations to hide his ignorance.
Comment by uhm — April 17, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
Bob Barr went on a crusade against Wiccans? What’s that about?
Comment by Stephen Littau — April 17, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
As I recall bob Barr was incensed that the military was allowing Wiccan service-members to practice their religion on base.
Essentially, he tried to get the millitary to ban the religion.
Even though I think Barr’s conversion to libertarianism is authentic, it’s worth pointing out something else that got his name in the papers back in the day.
He was legendary for his crusade to name pretty much the entire DC/NoVa region after Ronald Reagan. At one point, IIRC, he was responsible for withholding funds from the DC Metro until they changed the name of National Airport on their system maps to Ronald Reagan National Airport. But my memory might be wrong on that account- it may have been someone else, although I’m pretty sure it was Barr.
I would tend to think that today’s Bob Barr largely regrets some of those crusades, but I might just be overly optimistic.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/burn_aw2.htm
http://www.rickross.com/reference/wicca/wicca5.html
Comment by uhm — April 17, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
In my most recent post, I listed the names of the top 5 “porkers” in the House and the Senate according to CAGW’s 2008 edition of the Pig Book. I also listed the amount of pork the three leading candidates for president supported and named the ten members of the House which supported no pork […]
Other movements would do well to read this entry.
Comment by Justin Bowen — April 11, 2008 @ 11:21 am
I do think that in budgetary matters, relativity is relevant (i.e., pork is puny compared to defense, interest-on-debt and entitlement spending).
Beyond that, what libertarians are combatting is a mindset. And in that sense, “size matters not.”
Comment by KipEsquire — April 11, 2008 @ 11:28 am
I didn’t mean to imply that a battle should be avoided specifically because it was small. As I alluded to with this statement,
Yes, all problems must be attacked incrementally, but we need to focus on the right increments. If we’re to be successful in the long run, we need to teach people why government intervention, in and of itself, is bad.
there are small battles that need to be fought.
How do I tell the difference? I’ve been trying to put my finger on that for awhile and I still don’t quite have it, so bear with me while I ramble a bit. Hopefully someone can summarize it succinctly for me.
It comes down to the difference between a systemic abuses and human error/vice. Unless you’re some flavor of an anarchist, you’ll have to admit that there will always be some sort of government structure. You’ll have to further admit that the government(s) will have to be staffed with humans, a significant number of whom will inevitably be immoral and/or incompetent.
Thus, even the most ideal libertarian universe will have waste and abuses. We must always work to limit them, but we have to recognize that that is a separate battle. Even if you magically eliminated the portion of waste and abuse that comes from individual humans, you will still have rampant waste and abuse that comes from a system based on a flawed ideology.
That’s why I focus on the waste and abuses that stem from ideology. I accumulate small and large abuses (many of which I learn about here) and use them to create a narrative that will educate my mainstream peers about why our ideology is better than the status quo.
There cannot be any meaningful gains until they begin to accept our ideology and focusing on waste that stems from basic human nature does not help to accomplish that.
Comment by Jeff Molby — April 11, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
For the record, Barr is a conservative who supports the war on drugs. He has only moved slightly on the issue medicinal marijuana not on legalizing drugs. He is also a social conservative on abortion, gay rights, and prayer in state schools. Barr is NO libertarian and if the LP goes for Barr then I am forever finished with the party. It will have become one of the forces rotting libertarianism from within.
Comment by WRR — April 11, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
“Big government did not happen overnight, nor will any progress toward smaller government.”
This is precisely what a whole lot of Ron Paul supporters still don’t seem to realize, and hence, the lack of appeal.
Comment by TAO — April 12, 2008 @ 5:31 am
[…] like to direct some attention to this post by Stephen Littua at The Liberty Papers regarding the relative importance of pork barrel spending. The post was spurred by the […]
Pingback by The Crossed Pond » Does Pork Matter? — April 12, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
Bars in Minnesota are finding interesting and creative ways to get around the state smoking ban:
What started as a quirky idea to get around the statewide smoking ban appears to be spreading like wildfire.
Dozens of bars are expected to stage “theater nights” this weekend in which patrons are dubbed actors. The law, which went into […]
The companies would do well to clean up the side-effects of second hand smoke. That is the only reason I know of that many people would oppose smoking itself.
However, it’s correct that it’s also not the companies moral responsibility (fiscally, maybe) to pursue smokeless products, etc.
And sadly, people will be fooled into thinking they are winning a fight against the evil corporations that force smoking upon people, rather than waking up one day to realize they became apologists for the Nanny State.
If/When more politicians showed their true colors concerning nationwide smoking bans, I will staunchly advocate smokers coming up with non-smoker bans of their own.
When I get my bartender’s license, I will probably get to know quite an amount of people who love the idea of non-smoker bans!
Comment by Nitroadict — February 27, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
“You told me you were single!!!”
“No, babe, that was just my character.”
Comment by monkeyboy — February 28, 2008 @ 7:18 am
monkeyboy,
Good one :)
Nitroadict,
Second-hand smoke is a smoke-screen used by people too incompetent to come up with an actual excuse for their statist views. I hate smoke and being in a smoky place, be it a bar or my aunt’s house, for too long makes me sick. Without having to take away anyone’s cigarettes, I have found a way to stay healthy: avoid those places. The people who use second-hand smoke arguments don’t care about second-hand smoke; they just are against tobacco, plain and simple.
When I get my bartender’s license, I will probably get to know quite an amount of people who love the idea of non-smoker bans!
Great idea! That is the way to make money off of individual preferences. Now if only you didn’t have to get some license to do so….
Comment by trumpetbob15 — February 28, 2008 @ 9:35 am
It’s a bit of a generalization to say people who use second-hand smoking arguments are all simply just against tobacco, but obviously valid in some cases.
I try and raise awareness whenever I hear a friend or aquantince mention the smoking bans, and overall it seems to me less of defaulting to that argument out of Statist intentions rather than just out of good intentioned ignorance of the importance of the State’s power over themselves thereof. At least, that’s mostly the cases that I’ve come across.
But anyways, yes. If the State wants to enforce smoking bans in public, I see no reason why certain establishment’s can’t counter it with a good old “eye for an eye” non-smoker ban for their bar/restaurant/whatever.
Alas, like me becoming a bartender, this would probably involve paperwork in getting a license, and inevitably, red tape. I wonder how long the theater loophole will last :) before the Mr. Bureaucracy kicks down the door and busts the kids for just trying to have a good time?
Comment by Nitroadict — February 28, 2008 @ 10:17 am
trumpetbob,
I wouldn’t say it’s that they’re simply anti-tobacco. It’s that they think their “right” to avoid smoke in certain establishments is more important than the private property rights of the owners of those establishments.
They simply believe that they’re justified in telling other people what they can and can’t do on their property.
That is why people like you or I, who are educated on property rights yet hate being around smoke simply avoid those establishments instead of trying to go crying to the nanny state to tell them what to do.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — February 28, 2008 @ 11:45 am
I wouldn’t say it’s that they’re simply anti-tobacco. It’s that they think their “right” to avoid smoke in certain establishments is more important than the private property rights of the owners of those establishments.
It’s both. Some of them are selfish like you say and others are trying to save the people they’re coercing. Some are doing both.
Comment by Jeff Molby — February 28, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
Last week I wrote a post about how Barack Obama was trying to have it both ways on the Second Amendment. Ken Blackwell at Townhall.com, however, believes that Obama’s doublespeak about the Second Amendment (among some of Obama’s other statements) reveals a disturbing pattern in his attitudes about individual rights and a host of other […]
What kind of “right” do you have, when the government can completely rob you of 100% of the exercise of that right, anytime they decide they have a good reason?
That’s pretty much how the Fourth Amendment works: If the legislature decides, and the courts agree, that a search is “reasonable,” then you have no right to refuse.
Heller will be a two-part decision:
(1) “individual right” versus “state power”?
(2) If “individual right,” then what standard of review?
It would not surprise me at all if the Court found the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right, but then imposed a weak “reasonableness” standard of review. They are certainly not going to impose an onerous strict scrutiny standard comparable to the First Amendment. No way.
Comment by KipEsquire — February 21, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Hate to break it to you, Stephen, but the words “Compelling State Interest” have been causing this kind of doublethink long before Obama hit the scene.
Personally, I’m waiting for Hillary to propose MiniPlenty and MiniLuv.
You have a point there Quincy. There’s plenty of doublespeak to go around. As Obama gains traction, we need to make sure he doesn’t get a pass though.
Comment by Stephen Littau — February 21, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
I never really trusted obama seeing as how despite his grandiloquence he never seemed to display a consistent message to me. And to think poor Doug voted for this sort of fast-talking politician…. I’m almost rooting for Hillary just to teach the country a lesson- then I remember if she is our President and we have an undivided Democratic government, it will be too late for America the Beautiful.
Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
NA,
I don’t regret my vote in the primary because I think Hillary would be even worse.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 21, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
Stephen,
How dare you criticize the savior of our souls, the man who has made us all proud to be Americans for the first time in our lives !
Don’t you realize that if we have hope and we want change, then we can bring that change and restore the hope of the nation ? But it will only happen if we hope for change
:)
Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 21, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
I know; leave it to me to leave a turd in the punch bowl :)
Back to the talking points:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Comment by Stephen Littau — February 21, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
NA, Doug’s vote for Obama was a strategic vote to stop Hillary. I agree, she is worse. If my primary would have been an open primary, I would have done the same thing.
Comment by Stephen Littau — February 21, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
NA,
I’m almost rooting for Hillary just to teach the country a lesson
Me too, actually. I’d never consider voting for her because I don’t play that whole “spoiler” game, but since she represents pretty much the exact opposite of my beliefs and because I think her presidency would be a complete disaster (since she’s incapable of working with people) if I can’t have a libertarian-leaning president get elected I’d much rather see the worst, most incompetent statist get elected because I think she’d turn the entire country against her and discredit most of the programs she pushes with her, shall we say, “diplomatically-challenged” personality.
Watching the worst example of statism go down in flames while in office may actually be the best possible thing for the pro-freedom movement in the long run…it lets people know exactly what the consequences of the statist ideology are.
Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
I know Doug, I was just saying it’s too bad that one must “Block” a candidate as opposed to voting for one.
And this is bothering me:
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6109957
Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
Stephen,
Doug’s vote for Obama was a strategic vote to stop Hillary.
A vote for the least worst candidate is still a vote for a bad candidate. And putting the more palatable version of bad policy into office only hides the consequences of that bad policy.
Voting for someone you don’t think is a good candidate in order to deny someone you think might be a worse candidate a chance at office is horrible strategy. Say Obama does get elected…his policy platform isn’t markedly different from Hillary’s and he’s got a knack for winning people over. Do you really want a statist who can do a better job of selling his policies to get into office?
Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
I would have abstained from voting in Doug’s position, as protesting all options is better than the guilt I would personally have for voting Obama. But it was a primary, and to each his own. I’m not here to pass judgement. It seems that to often on this site people attack the contributors. That is ludicrous, you all do a fine job.
Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
U.C.
Hillary as President would be like Nixon or LBJ redux.
Obama as President is likely to be more along the lines of Jimmy Carter.
Given the choice, I’ll suffer under the second one for a few years.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 21, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Doug,
I don’t regret my vote in the primary because I think Hillary would be even worse.
Well, actually that means you should regret your vote in the primary. A vote for Obama is merely a vote for a friendlier, more incremental (and therefore longer-lasting) form of statism.
Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Doug,
Hillary as President would be like Nixon or LBJ redux.
Nixon got forced out of office in disgrace (and replaced by a decent guy with Ford) and almost ended up in prison. LBJ was essentially forced out of office after his first full term because he was such a disaster. We should be so lucky.
Obama as President is likely to be more along the lines of Jimmy Carter.
Obama’s a lot more competent and charismatic than Carter ever was. I could actually see him being more of an FDR.
Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
Watching the worst example of statism go down in flames while in office may actually be the best possible thing for the pro-freedom movement in the long run…
If that were true, conservatives would have learned something from Bush’s presidency and leapt into Paul’s open arms, despite his flaws. Instead, they overwhelmingly voted for more statism because they still haven’t recognized the root cause. Like a battered wife, they excuse the faults and tell themselves it’ll somehow be different next time.
Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Another FDR and we might as well be the USSA.
“When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.”
Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
“Like a battered wife, they excuse the faults and tell themselves it’ll somehow be different next time.”
such a great analogy! I think conservatives are too under the thumb of talk-radio types to defect to libertarianism, I listened to the Savage radio and the man wouldn’t touch the topic of libertarianism. I also had the same experience with Sean Hannity etc. Only Tucker Carlson seems to be comfortable with Libertarianism at all.
Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
NA,
It seems that too often on this site people attack the contributors. That is ludicrous, you all do a fine job.
Thanks, much appreciated. But even the people who get angry and attack us can have some valid reasons for doing so at times so I try not to judge them too harshly if they’re willing to rationally discuss their reasons for doing so :) Even uncivil discourse can be beneficial sometimes.
[quote]Like a battered wife, they excuse the faults and tell themselves it’ll somehow be different next time.[/quote]
such a great analogy! I think conservatives are too under the thumb of talk-radio types to defect to libertarianism, I listened to the Savage radio and the man wouldn’t touch the topic of libertarianism. I also had the same experience with Sean Hannity etc. Only Tucker Carlson seems to be comfortable with Libertarianism at all.
Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
NA,
I think conservatives are too under the thumb of talk-radio types to defect to libertarianism
I don’t know about that. I’ve got some friends who are extremely conservative and politically active and often we’re able to find common ground on the preferred solutions for most issues even though we disagree on the issues themselves. Most of them understand that although I don’t agree with their religion or morality I have no interest in stripping them of their right to practice their faith, and they’re usually willing to concede that it’s wrong when people of their faith try to force me to accept their ways through the rule of law. If you engage them, conservatives are like anyone else…they’re willing to compromise and find a win-win solution if you show them that solution’s in their self-interest as well. Most people really aren’t monsters.
Jeff,
If that were true, conservatives would have learned something from Bush’s presidency and leapt into Paul’s open arms, despite his flaws.
No offense, but if Ron Paul had run a serious campaign I think that they would have. How the official campaign conducted their business was nothing short of a joke and most of his successes were in spite of his personal efforts, not because of them. The spontaneous grassroots efforts that Paul had nothing to do with are what kept him in the race.
Jeff,
If that were true, conservatives would have learned something from Bush’s presidency and leapt into Paul’s open arms, despite his flaws. Instead, they overwhelmingly voted for more statism because they still haven’t recognized the root cause.
Good point. I still will never understand why people actually fall for the politicians’ ruse that the solution to failed government policies is more intrusive government policies.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — February 21, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
No, even the best-case scenario would have been a begrudging nomination a la McCain. We only stood a chance because the pro-war conservatives were divided amongst a handful of candidates.
Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
I still will never understand why people actually fall for the politicians’ ruse that the solution to failed government policies is more intrusive government policies.
Upbringing. Everyone alive was raised in a very statist society, so they assume the status quo exists for a good reason and they don’t care enough to dig deeper. Since they accept government intervention as a given, they relentlessly seek the magical amount.
Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
Jeff,
Okay, that was pretty good :) If only they’d do one about taxation and authoritarianism instead of just smoking.
“they”? It’s up to us. That’s the kind of creative approach to voter education that might just work. The garden-variety stuff obviously hasn’t worked.
Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
No, even the best-case scenario would have been a begrudging nomination a la McCain.
A begrudging nomination is still a win. Because of his campaign staff’s neglect of almost every single aspect of running a serious national campaign (from infrastructure to press relations) Ron Paul took himself out of the running. If he’d been more like Tancredo or Huckabee on the issues nobody would have even noticed him.
He had the best issues by far and there was a market for them among conservatives but he did such a poor job of selling them to mainstream voters that most of the people I knew who were voting still had no idea who he was come election time. That’s not a matter of people rejecting his ideas, that’s a matter of people having never heard of the guy because he did such a terrible job of campaigning outside of the Internet.
Comment by UCrawford — February 21, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
Jeff,
“they”? It’s up to us. That’s the kind of creative approach to voter education that might just work.
My singing and dancing suck and my camerawork is extremely shaky and lacks a dramatic eye. :)
most of the people I knew who were voting still had no idea who he was come election time.
That doesn’t speak well of your efforts. =P
He had the best issues by far and there was a market for them among conservatives but he did such a poor job of selling them to mainstream voters
I realize they botched an incredible opportunity. Believe me, I do.
I’m only trying to disprove your premise in paragraph 2 at 3:40. If mainstream voters had truly learned any sort of lesson, Paul’s autopilot campaign still would have worked. If people had truly learned a lesson from Bush, the “fringe” label would have been an asset to Paul. People would have been clamoring to hear more about the guy with the weird ideas.
That wasn’t the case. They simply weren’t looking to challenge any of their assumptions. A better communicator might have been able to talk them into it, but that’s a different story. They were just looking for a more competent statist.
Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Jeff,
That doesn’t speak well of your efforts.
I convinced three people who’d never heard of the guy to vote for him. From what I saw the only people that most Paul supporters talked to were other people who were already Paul supporters =P
I’m only trying to disprove your premise in paragraph 2 at 3:40. If mainstream voters had truly learned any sort of lesson, Paul’s autopilot campaign still would have worked.
Seriously I’ll tell you exactly what my mom (a politician herself) told me when the gubernatorial candidate I worked for (who was also very cheap with his advertising bucks) lost his election. People don’t vote for someone they don’t know, regardless of how good his issues are.
The majority of people didn’t vote for Ron Paul because the majority of people didn’t know who the hell he was. Had he hired a real press coordinator, someone who could have coached him and helped him stay focused in the debates (when he often jumped from tangent to tangent) and spent some money on decent and frequent TV advertising I think he actually would have made this a race…his issues were so much better than his opponents’. But he didn’t, so most people didn’t think it was worth their time to hear what he had to say.
That’s not a knock on the more sane grassroots, by the way…frankly, I thought they did an absolutely remarkable job of keeping his campaign alive. It’s almost unheard of with so little direction from up top.
UC,
“I don’t know about that. I’ve got some friends who are extremely conservative and politically active and often we’re able to find common ground on the preferred solutions for most issues even though we disagree on the issues themselves. Most of them understand that although I don’t agree with their religion or morality I have no interest in stripping them of their right to practice their faith, and they’re usually willing to concede that it’s wrong when people of their faith try to force me to accept their ways through the rule of law. If you engage them, conservatives are like anyone else…they’re willing to compromise and find a win-win solution if you show them that solution’s in their self-interest as well. Most people really aren’t monsters.”
I was a conservative myself, but I defected to the small-l libertarian ideology of the founding fathers. My point is that conservatives are unwilling to desert the Republican mainstream and that the Conservative Elites (pundits) are encouraging loyalty to the same neoconservative ideology that has been choking the Republican party for so long. I would love to say “I am a proud Republican, a Conservative/Libertarian” but I cannot due to the terrible direction of the party. I myself have spoken with many
“mainstream” conservatives and they agree with me on many things, (it helps that I share their faith) but regardless of whatever personal discourse the bulk of the Conservatives will not leave the ranks and join whatever Libertarian movement of the day there is (Ron Paul ‘08 is a good example). That’s what I see.
Comment by NA — February 21, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
NA,
My point is that conservatives are unwilling to desert the Republican mainstream and that the Conservative Elites (pundits) are encouraging loyalty to the same neoconservative ideology that has been choking the Republican party for so long.
Why not? You did it. So did I (raised in a very conservative household). Most of the time when I encounter intelligent people who identify as strictly conservative it’s only because nobody’s given them an effective explanation of libertarianism. They often think that if you believe in drug legalization or gay marriage or whatever else, it must be because you’re a crazy gay nutjob who does drugs. Once they realize that you can be both personally conservative and politically liberal on social issues they’re often willing to give libertarianism a serious look…and buy in once they realize it’s in their own best interests.
It’s all about the sales pitch. It’s always about the sales pitch.
the bulk of the Conservatives will not leave the ranks and join whatever Libertarian movement of the day there is (Ron Paul ‘08 is a good example).
They won’t break ranks for a guy they don’t think is a serious candidate. And, with apologies to Jeff, because of how he ran his campaign Ron Paul was never really a serious candidate. But they broke ranks on Reagan, and they really broke ranks on Goldwater. Again, all about the sales pitch (and, to a degree, the salesman).
The majority of people didn’t vote for Ron Paul because the majority of people didn’t know who the hell he was.
Right, but 17% of the voters did have a basic understanding of his candidacy. That’s faaar more than the also-rans and those are the influential 17% anyways. That 17% knew damn well that Paul was a man advocating real change. If they wanted real change, they would have picked him up and carried him to the nomination. Instead, they dismissed him as a loon for challenging things that everyone accepted as a given.
Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Jeff,
Right, but 17% of the voters did have a basic understanding of his candidacy.
They may have had a basic understanding of his issues, but they also saw him as someone whose most vocal supporters were usually “truthers” and crazy people. Often they seemed to like him personally when he appeared on things like Leno, or Bill Maher, but he didn’t do enough of that which is mainly a factor of how poorly his campaign did in selling their candidate to the press…his most concentrated appearances in the mainstream press that I saw was when he was having to defend himself against charges that he was a racist because of the newsletters. Beyond that, I rarely saw the guy. And since I was actually paying attention to the race, I’m assuming the average voter saw even less of him.
Instead, they dismissed him as a loon for challenging things that everyone accepted as a given.
They dismissed him as a loon because his most visible and vocal supporters were either crazy people or outsiders, he never developed much a presence for himself outside of the Internet, and because except for Iraq he never focused on any issues that resounded with voters. People on the Internet may care about fiat currencies and the gold standard…the other 99.9% of the electorate doesn’t give a shit. He was dismissed as a loon because he wasn’t talking about issues that the voters he was trying to appeal to cared about.
Again, all about the sales pitch.
And, with apologies to Jeff, because of how he ran his campaign Ron Paul was never really a serious candidate. But they broke ranks on Reagan, and they really broke ranks on Goldwater.
You’re still confusing two issues. We know a good campaigner can always win regardless of issues. We know Paul wasn’t a good campaigner. That’s not disputed.
Your assertion was that a bad statist administration would open the eyes of the masses. If that were the case, Paul could have won by simply showing up at the debates. Water-cooler talk alone would have propelled him to the nomination. That didn’t happen because people didn’t want real change.
Yes, a Reagan could have sold them on it anyways, but that’s a different matter. If there was a real shift in the public consciousness, even a campaigner as bad as Paul could have beaten that pathetic field of statists.
Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
They may have had a basic understanding of his issues, but they also saw him as someone whose most vocal supporters were usually “truthers” and crazy people.
So did I. I had to work with some pretty ridiculous people talking about pretty ridiculous things. But there’s a difference between me Joe Sixpack: I wanted real change, so I looked past it.
Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
Jeff,
Your assertion was that a bad statist administration would open the eyes of the masses.
Despite his (to me) quite obvious stupidity, George W. Bush is an excellent campaigner, and he’s got some people skills and can be charming when he wants to be (developed, I suspect, as a survival skill because he’s been a fuck-up at pretty much everything in his life). He’s also an accomplished liar and a Republican candidate who ran on a libertarian platform in 2000, got a pass on his big-government ways in 2004 because of the war, and still pays some lip service to the idea of small government (even if he’s never practiced it).
Hillary isn’t any of those things.
She is (with apologies to any women on this thread) a miserable spiteful bitch who completely fucked up the only major project she’s ever been put in charge of (her husband’s health care plan) mainly because she’s incapable of working with other people and she has few (if any) personal skills to compensate for it. She was a large part of the reason the Dems got booted in ‘94. And she’s a Democrat who doesn’t pay any lip service at all to the idea of small government. Simply put, while Bush was a horrible statist, he just wasn’t horrible enough…Hillary is.
Simply put, while Bush was a horrible statist, he just wasn’t horrible enough…Hillary is.
If she somehow manages to win the nomination, I’d love to place a bet on that.
Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Jeff,
So did I. I had to work with some pretty ridiculous people talking about pretty ridiculous things. But there’s a difference between me Joe Sixpack: I wanted real change, so I looked past it.
It’s no trick to sell your ideas to someone who’s already looking to buy. The trick is convincing the disinterested voter that you’re selling something he wants. And that’s where the problem children that the Paul campaign never really got a handle on ended up working against you. Most of those guys are very likely people who weren’t talking civilly to anyone but other like-minded Paul supporters, and when they’re your primary salesmen you’re going to have trouble.
But that was really Ron Paul’s fault and not the volunteers’. At some point every political candidate out there has got to take ownership of his message and his campaign to keep everybody focused (because it is, after all, his message that he’s trying to sell). Ron Paul never really seemed to do that…he just thought that by letting things run spontaneously as they had from the grassroots it would all work out. The end result of that was that the campaign did a lot of drifting and the candidate let his opponents define him before he defined himself and it cost him the mainstream voters.
Jeff,
If she somehow manages to win the nomination, I’d love to place a bet on that.
Done…$20 says that if she’s elected President the Republicans will win Congressional seats back in 2010 and she’ll be out after one term.
Moot point, of course, because she’s not going to win.
P.S. You’re forgetting about the flip-side of freedom; Hillary pays lip service to the pro-freedom portion of the Democratic platform.
You’re counting on the base of the Democratic party to give an honest analysis of their own leader. Fat chance. They’ll just keep telling themselves that a Republican would have been even worse.
You don’t hear any Republicans thinking they would have been better off with Bush or Kerry, do you? You and I both know it’s probably true, but they’re too wedded to their team.
There won’t be any shift in the mainstream thinking until people start to realize the two-party system is a symptom of a structural flaw in our elections, not some inherent truth.
Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
It’s no trick to sell your ideas to someone who’s already looking to buy.
That’s exactly my point, though. Even after 7 years of Dubya, Republicans still weren’t looking to buy real change. Hillary would be no different. She’d just spur another round of superficial change.
Done…$20 says that if she’s elected President the Republicans will win Congressional seats back in 2010 and she’ll be out after one term.
No, I’m sure you’re right about that part. My point is that those Republican victors will all be statists too. The faces and jerseys will continue to change, but policy won’t.
Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Jeff,
You’re counting on the base of the Democratic party to give an honest analysis of their own leader. Fat chance. They’ll just keep telling themselves that a Republican would have been even worse.
Their base is a lot smaller than you’re giving it credit for. The only reason the Dems have Congress now is because Bush and the GOP Congress did such a horrible job when they had complete control that the moderates finally gave up on them…before 2006 the Democrats weren’t even an afterthought. Give the Dems two years in charge with Hillary at the controls and the centrists will desert them en masse.
Pre-1994 the Democrats controlled Congress for what, 40 years? Post-94 the Republicans controlled it for 12. Based on how things are shaping up in Iraq and the economy I see an even shorter tenure for the party currently in charge if they get one of their own in the White House.
Jeff,
My point is that those Republican victors will all be statists too
Then it looks like you’ve got some work to do to insure that the representatives and senators your area sends aren’t a part of the problem. :)
Yup, we’re on it.
Comment by Jeff Molby — February 21, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
Stephen,
I am suprised at, what I consider, to be a shortsighted argument. The issue, as with any, is not black and white, and thus I do not regard Obama to be contradicting, or doublespeaking…
The 2nd amendment gives right to bear arms. It does not elaborate as to what type of arms, and I’m sure we all agree that we wouldn’t want our communities ridden with nuclear arms. Thus, there is that middle compromise that lies in the gray where most issues end up in, more or less (except on the edge of Ocam’s razor). I believe, based on subjective principle and objective logic, that one must support laws banning/regulating “arms”, while also being even more careful to maintain and uphold the 2nd amendment, as is with any issue against the constitution.
Comment by Chris Matera — February 21, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
Chris,
It does not elaborate as to what type of arms, and I’m sure we all agree that we wouldn’t want our communities ridden with nuclear arms.
Why not? If Iran and North Korea haven’t yet been able to build a functional nuclear weapon what makes you think your neighbors are going to be able to pull it off? Do your neighbors have billions of dollars to spend on a nuclear deterrent for home defense? Do you live in a neighborhood that features a lot of buildings capable of meeting nuclear containment protocols or are your neighbors just immune to radiation? Do your neighbors have their own silos, delivery systems, and a working expertise in servicing nuclear technology to keep their warheads functional?
God, I hate that stupid argument…it’s like people for gun control think that the suburbs are filled with multi-billionaire psychopaths who are just waiting to grab surplus MX missiles. It’s not reality.
As for real weapons arguments, I’m fine with people owning pretty much any kind of weapon they want. It’s not like everyone is going to go out and buy themselves a gross of Daisy-Cutters and MOABs…because what would be the point? The more powerful the weapon the more it costs, the more difficult it is to use and the less useful it is for home or personal defense. And people who would have the means to acquire a super-weapon and the competence to use it generally aren’t stupid or crazy enough to want to buy one.
“Hey Bob…look at this thermobaric bomb I’ve got sitting in my garage.”
“That’s great, Fred, what are you going to do with it?”
“Ummmm…pretty much leave it sitting in my garage to scare off burglars.”
I believe, based on subjective principle and objective logic, that one must support laws banning/regulating “arms”, while also being even more careful to maintain and uphold the 2nd amendment, as is with any issue against the constitution.
If you were trying to make an argument based on logic you wouldn’t have used the “nuke” argument. You’d have gone with something realistic like a bazooka or a tank or landmines or a sniper rifle capable of shooting through an armored limo…none of which I have a problem with anyone owning.
And people who would have the means to acquire a super-weapon and the competence to use it generally aren’t stupid or crazy enough to want to buy one.
Not to mention that anyone with the financial wherewithal and the desire to find something like that will find it, illegal or not.
International law didn’t stop North Korea from getting a nuke. British law hasn’t removed guns from their society. American law can’t stop someone here from getting an illegal firearm or illegal drugs.
What makes one think that laws are going to stop a determined person of ample means from getting a hold of anything they want?
Comment by Brad Warbiany — February 21, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
[…] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptLast week I wrote a post about how Barack Obama was trying to have it both ways on the Second Amendment. Ken Blackwell at Townhall.com, however, believes that Obama’s doublespeak about the Second Amendment (among some of Obama’s other … Read the rest of this great post here Posted by […]
Pingback by Presidential election 2008 |Republicans Vs. Democrats » More on Obama’s Doublespeak — February 22, 2008 @ 2:07 am
Why get all excited? In the upcoming presidential election, we have a choice between Fidel Castro or
Hugo Chavez, masquerading as obama and mccain. Either way, we will end up with Communist rule. How soon
it is completed, depends on which dictator gets elected. As they say, “it is all over, but the shouting”.
Comment by jammer — February 22, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
Brad,
What makes one think that laws are going to stop a determined person of ample means from getting a hold of anything they want?
And, of course, there’s always the incorrect assumption by gun-control enthusiasts that criminals would actually obey the laws…which they wouldn’t, since disregard for the law is the key part of the job description. All gun/weapons control laws usually end up doing is disarming the victims.
Comment by UCrawford — February 22, 2008 @
RSS 2.0 Feed
wow.
The guy with the pink sunglasses almost sounds like he’s speaking directly against Hayek.
Comment by John V — May 7, 2008 @ 1:56 pm