The Hillary Clinton campaign has sent out mailers criticizing Barack Obama for trying to have it both ways on the Second Amendment. The mailer reads as follows:
These are all valid criticisms of Barack Obama; I have made some of these very criticisms myself (here, and here). But the source of these criticisms (Hillary Clinton) […]
George W. Bush rewrites the Declaration of Independence:
“We need your message to reject this dictatorship of relativism and embrace a culture of justice and truth,” Bush said in brief remarks welcoming Benedict to the White House. “In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need […]
Are we really surprised that Bush says these things anymore??
And for the Holy Father, he is indeed a “Classical Liberal”, in ever sense of the words.
Comment by RegularRon — April 16, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
Doug: Did you steal this from my site? Because I talked about this exact same quote, highlighting the exact same words. (Not actually accusing you of stealing, just pointing out that this quote struck me every bit as much as it did you).
I don’t know why you’re shocked…he’s been saying this shit for years. It’s just that many of his critics are so elitist and condescending that they assume everything that comes out of his mouth is gibberish and that he doesn’t really believe the things he says because they believe he’s incapable of expressing himself. I long ago abandoned the idea that Bush doesn’t mean exactly what he says when he makes comments like this. It’s one of many reasons that I hate the fucking guy.
It’s also the reason that I believe that the problems with the Bush administration really haven’t had that much to do with Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or Gonzales…everything that’s been going on has been happening at Bush’s direction.
Comment by UCrawford — April 16, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Mark,
I did owe you a hat-tip for that one. My mistake.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — April 17, 2008 @ 6:11 am
No worries whatsoever. I wouldn’t have been surprised if you hadn’t even read what I wrote in the first place. The quote is just that bad.
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
There’s a reason we have a Bill of Rights:
Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.– Dean Steacy, Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Freedom of Speech might be an American value, but Americans don’t particularly value the practice in this era. Americans might engage in the practice unthinkingly when neccessary, however if asked to evaluate its worth or its necessity as part of the American society, most citizens would fail to connect the practice with the vitality of the Constitutional republic. furthermore, if asked, many citizens would agree that Freedom of Speech needs to be curtailed or regulated in certain cases.
so bottom line, Americans’ declining and oblivious attitudes towards Freedom of Speech is only one aspect of why *our citizens are in fact becoming socialists through and through.* and it’s no wonder that foreigners don’t value our concepts. all they have to do is regard our own attitudes towards the concepts.
Comment by oilnwater — April 11, 2008 @ 8:43 am
So has anyone else noticed that the phrase “Human Rights Commission” is now almost exactly the same thing as “Ministry of Love” or “Ministry of Truth.” And not just in Canada but also here in the US.
Oddly, I always thought human rights were something you had vis a vis the state rather than a right to not be offended by someone you’ve never met.
[…] (h/t The Liberty Papers) […]
Pingback by Which exactly are they protecting? | It looks obvious — April 11, 2008 @ 9:46 am
[…] (source: Jonathan Kay: “A disaster for Canada’s Human Rights Commission”) (hat tip: The Liberty Papers) […]
Pingback by Free speech is too damn American « Blunt Object — April 11, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
As if yesterday’s memo asserting unprecedented extra constitutional Executive authority weren’t bad enough, the Associated Press reports today that former Presidential adviser John Yoo also asserted that a key provision of the Bill of Rights could be ignored in the name of the War On Terror:
For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror […]
Number of times this will be discussed in the Presidential debates: 0.
Comment by Ben — April 3, 2008 @ 9:28 am
[…] that’s working out real well. At The Liberty Papers: Bill Of Rights ? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Bill Of Rights!. Doug Mataconis drops this nice little bomb, or should I say that former Presidential advisor John […]
Pingback by FreedomSight » Blog Archive » A Government of Laws — April 3, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
Well, we weren’t really using them anyways, right?
I bet not one person in ten could remember them if you asked people on the streets.
There was a recent diary on DKos from a high school teacher in govt and civics no less who tested his kids and found that 28% of them believed Bush’s frequent assertions that the President has nearly unfettered powers in a time of war and could overrule any laws necessary.
He apologized and grimly stated that he was going back to the beginning with them and starting over in order to counteract the propaganda.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for
lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
— Benjamin Franklin
Comment by MikeF — April 3, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
According to Hillary Clinton’s former boss Jerry Zeifman, she did that and more. Zeifman, who was the Judiciary Chief of Staff during the Watergate scandal, supervised a 27 year-old Hillary Rodham who was on the House Judiciary Committee. Apparently, Hillary believed that she had discovered a legal loophole which would deny President Richard Nixon his […]
I don’t believe Ziefman for one second when he says he fired Rodham. She worked for John Doar, who was Special Counsel to the Judiciary Committee for the impeachment investigation. Zeifman doesn’t even describe his goddamned job correctly: he was Chief Counsel to the Committee. Now, I could be wrong about whether Ziefman fired her, but nothing in any history that I have validates that, and he’d have to prove it to me.
Here’s a different point: we can rail about the “MSM” and something like this all day long, but here is a fact: David Brock described the four-corners of this story back in 1996, in his book “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham”. The *right* slagged him all they could when the book appeared, and they bear at least that much blame for watching this sink down the memory-hole.
To hell with all of them.
Comment by Billy Beck — April 3, 2008 @ 5:13 am
The science fiction novel,”LEDNORF’S DILEMMA,” details, perfectly, the cult mentality of the liberal Democrat leadership. Hillary is obsessed with power and ambition. And she is extremely angry. It is the dreadful combination put forth in that novel. It is indeed this mentality that allowed a liberal new-age church to collaborate with San Francisco’s corrupt leaders and thereby place the monstrous Jim Jones to rise in the California power structure. No book better shows the dark nature of the liberal agenda in our nation. It is rich in wisdom, and loaded with logic. As Dr. Charles McBrian (Masters and PhD, Harvard)says, LEDNORF’S DILEMMA is a masterpiece.
Comment by Clyde — April 5, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
The science fiction novel,”LEDNORF’S DILEMMA,” perfectly details the cult mentality of liberal Democrat leadership. Hillary is obsessed with power and ambition. And she is extremely angry. It is the dreadful combination put forth in that novel. It is indeed this mentality that allowed a liberal new-age church to collaborate with San Francisco’s corrupt leaders and then allow the montstrous Jim Jones to rise in the California power structure. No book better shows the dark nature of the liberal agenda in our nation. Rich in wisdom, and loaded with logic, LEDNORF’S DILEMMA is, as Dr. Charles McBrian (M.A. and PhD, Harvard) says, “a masterpiece.”
Comment by Clyde — April 5, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
ATLANTA (AP) The Georgia Supreme Court denied a new trial Monday for a death row inmate convicted of killing a Savannah police officer in 1989, even though several witnesses against him recanted their testimony.
Troy Davis, 39, was a day away from being put to death last July for the fatal shooting of 27-year-old Officer […]
Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.
That’s a misleading stat. The relevant stat would be the percentage of convictions based on eyewitness identification that were later overturned due to DNA testing.
Comment by Jeff Molby — March 17, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
I have more of a problem with recanted testimony than I do with perjured testimony in the first place.
Defense lawyers and investigators badgering the witnesses to recant, guilt trips levied on witnesses by them, and in at least one case (Culhane) false statements.
Let us remind these recanters that their original statements were perjury and “should be prosecuted” (yes, I know about the statute of limitations).
Comment by Bill — March 17, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
The relevant stat would be the percentage of convictions based on eyewitness identification that were later overturned due to DNA testing.
I don’t completely agree. A very small portion of convictions are amenable to DNA testing. The proper denominator would be the number of convictions that are subsequently tested where eyewitness identification played a role.
The problem with examining the cases tested by the innocence project is that there will be a sampling bias: people who are innocent are much more motivates to seek out avenues for exoneration, and the innocence project will select cases that where they have a higher probability of success to focus their limited resources.
The proper denominator would be the number of convictions that are subsequently tested where eyewitness identification played a role.
I would also include those convicts for whom DNA evidence was available, but never tested. If a convict isn’t pursuing all possible means for an acquital, it’s hard to assume he’s anything other than guilty.
Regardless, I think we can agree that the statistic cited is pure garbarge.
Comment by Jeff Molby — March 17, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
I don’t think the statistic is garbage;
If you look at a failure of a system, looking at the sources of error and their frequencies is quite useful.
If you read a report analyzing aircraft crashes, and the report stated that cracks in the pressure hull had contributed to 75% of crashes, I doubt you would be claiming that that statistic was somehow misleading and that the important question was how many planes flew with similar cracks safely.
If you read a report analyzing aircraft crashes, and the report stated that cracks in the pressure hull had contributed to 75% of crashes, I doubt you would be claiming that that statistic was somehow misleading and that the important question was how many planes flew with similar cracks safely.
It depends on the point you’re trying to make.
Read that sentence again:
Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.
Notice that the assertion is about “wrongful convictions” (herein referred to as “apple”), yet their supporting statistic is about “convictions overturned” (herein referred to as “orange”).
We can agree that there are some unknown number of wrongful convictions that never get overturned, right? Isn’t it quite possible that there are other unmentioned factors that bias the sample?
And even if there aren’t, the author goes on to assert that eyewitness testimony is “often unreliable.” He didn’t offer a shred of evidence to support that statement. The eyewitness testimony could be right 99.999% of the time for all we know, because he only examined the convictions that were overturned.
In the context that it was presented, the stat is useless at best.
Comment by Jeff Molby — March 18, 2008 @ 9:46 am
The only wrongful convictions we know of are ones that are overturned. Well, that’s not completely correct; there are cases like the one that’s the focus of Stephen’s post here.
These aren’t apples and oranges. The convictions overturned is a subset of a larger, unknown and unknowable set, all the wrongful convictions. The use of a small sample to come to conclusions concerning larger sets is the heart of “hypothesis testing” which is one of the most highly developed branches of statistics.
You could argue that they are making conclusions about all apples from a sample of golden delicious apples, and I would agree with you. But to claim that this is apples and oranges is a bit much.
With that being said, they are absolutely correct that eyewitness testimony can be quite unreliable. In fact some branches of eyewitness testimony are known to be often unreliable, such as identification of a stranger. There was a series of psychological experiments that demonstrated this; the researchers could consistently get witnesses to finger the wrong man as a person who committed a a simulated robbery merely through having a patsy in the crowd loudly and incorrectly describe one aspect of the thief’s appearance.
Now, again, you could argue that the statistics they present, on their own do not back up this claim. However, the unreliability of witnesses when describing novel people or situations is well known enough that it needs no confirmation anymore than a guy talking about airplane design need to justify his assertion that air pressure can be used to calculate altitude.
Jeff:
If you actually follow the link, you will see that TIP considers such factors as estimator variables, and system variables. TIP also has made observations about eyewitness misidentification based on the over 100 convictions they have helped overturn. If you look to the right side of the web page, you will find more outside information about the unreliability of the use of eyewitness identification: here’s an Iowa University Study and a website from one of the study’s authors Iowa State Psychology Professor Gary Wells
If you are skeptical about TIP’s sources, do an independent Google Scholar Search on the topic from 2000 to 2008. You will find that Dr. Wells’ articles are among the top scholarly articles cited by other peer reviewed scholarly articles found by Google Scholar.
On Table 1 of this study which interviewed 64 psychologists who had courtroom experience found in the May 2001 issue of American Psychologist, the very first of thirty variables listed in determining the reliability of an eyewitness is the stress level at the time of the event. The statement next to this variable reads as follows: “Very high levels of stress impair the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.”
This would explain why I could not remember exactly what this man looked like even though he was looking right at me less than 2 feet away; I was scared shitless (to use a scientific term).
The very first page of the same study states the following:
In 1996, the National Institute of Justice reported on 28 wrongful convictions, cases in which convicted felons were exonerated by DNA evidence […] Remarkably, all of these cases contained one or more false identifications.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. The body of research being done concerning eyewitness mistakes is growing. Read these studies as well as a few of your own and then tell me that eyewitness testimony is generally reliable enough to take someone’s freedom or someone’s life.
Comment by Stephen Littau — March 18, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Stephen,
This case, and the issue of eyewitness testimony, reminds me of two classes I took, one in college and one in law school, where the professor engaged in an experiment that showed just how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be.
It should be familiar to anyone who’s taken a criminal justice class of any kind.
In both cases, we witnessed what looked like a crime (theft in one case, attempted assault in the other) but was actually a ruse between the professor and a graduate assistant. After it happened, the professor asked the class to recount details about what they saw such as:
- The height of the person who had run into the room
- What color hair they had.
- How tall they were
- Whether they were fat or thin
- What was said
Stuff like that.
Without exception, everyone got at least one crucial detail about the incident completely wrong. And that was mere minutes after it happened.
I don’t practice a lot of criminal law, but even on the civil side it became obvious to me quite early on that when someone gets up on the stand in a courtroom and is asked to recount the details of an event that happened years in the past, they usually aren’t getting everything completely right.
In a civil case, it usually isn’t crucial because documents usually control.
In a criminal case, where someone’s freedom or life is on the line, basing a conviction solely on the testimony of witnesses, without corroborating physical evidence seems foolish.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — March 18, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
You could argue that they are making conclusions about all apples from a sample of golden delicious apples, and I would agree with you. But to claim that this is apples and oranges is a bit much.
Ok, you can reduce the scale of my analogy if you like, but my point is still valid. The subset is non-random* and therefore it is not logically possible to draw conclusions about the whole from that subset; if you want to make a hypothesis from the subset and use that as the basis for further experiments on the whole, knock yourself out. You can’t, however, make conclusions.
*Not only is it not random, it isn’t even mixed up a little. The subset is narrowly defined to only include a single class of cases.
Now, again, you could argue that the statistics they present, on their own do not back up this claim.
That’s what I was doing.
With that being said, they are absolutely correct that eyewitness testimony can be quite unreliable
If you actually follow the link, you will see that TIP considers such factors as estimator variables, and system variables. TIP also has made observations about eyewitness misidentification based on the over 100 convictions they have helped overturn.
I don’t necessarily take issue with their conclusion. I just take issue with the way that stat was presented. It struck me as MSM-style sensationalism.
Even if the stat did speak directly toward their conclusion, they still should have given it some context. “Played a role in more than 75%”? Ok, where does that fall in comparison to other factors? Presumably there are multiple factors in most wrongful convictions, so 75% might not even be good enough for 3rd place for all I know.
Comment by Jeff Molby — March 19, 2008 @ 1:25 am
[…] psychological bias in overturning any conviction. Stephen Littua at The Liberty Papers brings us one such example: ATLANTA (AP) The Georgia Supreme Court denied a new trial Monday for a death row inmate convicted […]
Pingback by The Crossed Pond » The Foolproof Death Penalty — March 19, 2008 @ 6:59 am
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
RSS 2.0 Feed
Stop talking like some elitist economist!
;-)
Comment by KipEsquire — May 5, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
If I qualify as an elitist economist, then we are in real trouble :)
Comment by Stephen Littau — May 5, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
I don’t know how many times I read over the post and never noticed the “she” was missing. Thanks for pointing that out.
Comment by Stephen Littau — May 5, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Both Hillary and Osama Hussein Obama are reflexively anti-gun. As a Jewess in the US, I would like to remind everyone that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk. And that America wasn’t won with a registered gun. That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!
Comment by Wendy Weinbaum — May 6, 2008 @ 10:25 am
Wendy, just wondering why you felt it important to give Obama’s name like that? You didn’t even bother putting his first name, Barack.
Comment by Aimee — May 6, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
Aimee,
I’m going to assume that it’s for the same reason that she chose to identify herself as Jewish immediately after she did it…because she somehow thinks that being a member of a group that’s been in conflict with Muslims and black people makes it okay for her to make racist comments about Muslims and black people (despite the fact that Obama’s not a Muslim).
By all means, feel free to correct me if there’s another reason for it, Wendy.
Comment by UCrawford — May 6, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
UCrawford, that was the impression I got, I was just curious.
Comment by Aimee — May 6, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
Even funnier the rifel on the envelope is a German made European high end model with the bolt on the left hand side. It also has double triggers which is only popular in Europe. Someone mirrored it because left handed style of that model was never made. Here is the dugg version along with comments.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Annie_Oakley_s_Gaffe_Clinton_mailer_shows_non_existent_gun
Comment by Norm Nelson — May 6, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
She learned to appreciate the necessity for self defense in Bosnia, I guess.
Comment by hydralisk — May 7, 2008 @ 12:25 am
Yeah, HRC must be stupid if she thinks she can fool Second Amendment voters into believing she would be a staunch defender of the right to bear arms if she were president. She really must assume we are all stupid or that willing to consider her as an alternative to the other statists running for office.
Comment by Andrew — May 7, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
I guess South Park had it right when they compares our electoral process to the choice between a giant duesh and a turd sandwich, dems want out guns and Mc Cain will give us 100 years in Iraq. I feel that it is time for a direct democratic republic: 501 senators elected by lottery put forth bills, once they pass the senate they go to the people for a vote with a panel of 101 judges seeing to it that they follow they are constitutional. What say you of this?
Comment by Jay — May 8, 2008 @ 5:29 am
“I feel that it is time for a direct democratic republic: 501 senators elected by lottery put forth bills, once they pass the senate they go to the people for a vote with a panel of 101 judges seeing to it that they follow they are constitutional. What say you of this?”
To which I say: tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. I no more trust a mob to tell me what I can and cannot do than I trust a couple of politicians. The beauty of the American Constitution, at least as envisioned by Madison, is that it is set up to protect individual rights against the tyranny of the majority…this turns that principle on its head.
Comment by Mark — May 8, 2008 @ 6:35 am