tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54293059158432741512024-03-05T07:25:01.763-05:00Libertarians for ObamaPut aside your skepticism and read on.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-28309216003602476132008-11-09T22:12:00.002-05:002008-11-09T22:27:21.461-05:00Closing Things OutWe've had a good run: nine months, dozens of inbound links, over 100 posts, over 10,000 unique visitors and <a href="http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/10/weve-made-economist.html">a mention in The Economist</a>. But it's almost time for me to pack up this blog and move on. I'll leave it up for another week or so, in case anyone has any parting comments/questions/attacks. Consider this an open thread.<br /><br />Once again, congratulations President-Elect Barack Obama. I look forward to both supporting and opposing you over the next four years.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-10413088215144895522008-11-05T20:29:00.002-05:002008-11-05T21:34:27.876-05:00Congratulations Barack! I Now Enter the Loyal OppositionYou might think that I'm thrilled that the candidate I've supported so strongly - with my money, my volunteer efforts and many hours of blogging - has now won. I am, of course, but I'm not reveling in my excitement. Not for a minute. I supported Obama because he was the best candidate in the race (the best in the last several races, really). But Obama isn't perfect, and I never thought that he was.<br /><br />I encourage my fellow libertarians, no matter who they supported, to join me in the following:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Support the libertarian parts of Obama's agenda. </span><br />Ending the war, closing Guantanamo Bay and rolling back George Bush's curbs on civil liberties won't be easy. The same Republicans who called Obama a coward or a terrorist during the campaign will redouble their efforts when he starts to wind down the warfare state. He'll need all of the libertarian allies that he can get.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Stand up to him when he backslides. </span><br />Obama has made some bold pledges, including his promises to seek out and eliminate wasteful government spending and put caps on farm subsidies. Libertarians who supported him shouldn't let him get away with shying away from these promises.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Push him in a libertarian direction. </span><br />On several issues, Obama takes a liberal position that I don't think he passionately believes in. Consider gun control. Obama is in favor of some gun control, but it's never been a central part of his political philosophy. Now that he's done with a campaign in which he's seen the passion of the pro-gun community, maybe he can be convinced to move in our direction. Call me a starry-eyed optimist, but I believe that he's changeable on guns, military aid to Columbia, school vouchers and other issues. Let's help the change candidate do a little position changing.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Fight him on the issues where we disagree.</span><br />Obama believes in card check. I don't. I'm going to join with the Republicans on this one and fight him as hard as I can. Same for the Fairness Doctrine (though I doubt Obama will even try to bring that up).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Spread the word to other libertarians. </span><br />Obama is not our enemy. He's a smart man who believes in classical liberal values like tolerance, separation of church and state and the rights of the accused. He understands and appreciates the Constitution. Don't throw away a chance at a productive relationship by believing <a href="http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com">this crap</a> about him being a communist or a dictator in waiting.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bring libertarians in from the cold.</span><br />Bob Barr's candidacy was a complete failure. Same thing for down-ticket libertarians. I still like third parties, and I'm sure I will continue to vote for some third party candidates from time to time. But if anyone wants to make serious political change instead of just registering their dislike for the system they will engage more with a major political party. And I've got news for you, libertarians: The Republican Party is not your natural home. Look at the hatred that Republicans showered on Ron Paul. Watch the post-election fight for the soul of the Republican Party. If the libertarian faction takes over I'll eat my hat. No, the Republicans are descending into a Bible-thumping, war-mongering, xenophobic, populist party of the South. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is now swollen with young, libertarian-minded suburban professionals who've been driven from the Republican Party by Bush, Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin. In other words, the Democratic Party is now ripe for change in a libertarian direction.<br /><br />So the next stop in my political journey is the <a href="http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/">Democratic Freedom Caucus</a>, where I hope to work with like-minded libertarian Democrats to advance my ideals. Consider joining me.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-30170243200588651882008-11-02T21:16:00.004-05:002008-11-02T21:51:57.233-05:00Cheney Emerges from his Undisclosed Location to Endorse McCain<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zRRBWGdxv8M&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zRRBWGdxv8M&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />Obama already has an ad mocking the endorsement that you can see <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/02/cheney-stars-in-new-obama_n_140105.html">here</a>. <br /><br />And here's Obama's statement:<br /><br />"I'd like to congratulate Senator McCain on this endorsement because he really earned it. That endorsement didn't come easy. Senator McCain had to vote 90 per cent of the time with George Bush and Dick Cheney to get it. He served as Washington's biggest cheerleader for going to war in Iraq, and supports economic policies that are no different from the last eight years. So Senator McCain worked hard to get Dick Cheney's support."Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-11474421237551703172008-11-02T19:12:00.000-05:002008-11-02T19:13:07.358-05:00Election Eve Eve Fun<a href="http://www.palinaspresident.com">Palin as president.</a>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-10996443877745930302008-11-02T16:01:00.004-05:002008-11-02T18:13:20.526-05:00Reason Goes for ObamaEvery presidential election year Reason magazine takes the pulse of the libertarian world - academics, celebrities, Reason editors. Here are <a href="http://www.reason.com/news/show/129640.html">this year's results</a>:<br />Twelve votes for Obama (and two more deciding between Obama and someone else)<br />Ten for Bob Barr (and four considering Barr)<br />Ten for none of the above or didn't answer (and three considering that option)<br />Four for McCain (one possible McCain)<br />One Ralph Nader<br /><br />The Obama voters are Ronald Bailey, Bruce Bartlett, David Brin, Tim Cavanaugh, Steve Chapman, Craig Newmark, Steven Pinker, Ryan Sager, John Scalzi, RU Sirius, Doug Stanhope, David Weigel and possibly Peter Bagge and Julian Sanchez.<br /><br />Here are some of the best answers to Reason's questions:<br /><em></em><br /><em>Who are you voting for in November?</em> Barack Obama, because he most exemplifies Reason and Free Minds (sorry, the country is in no mood for Freer Markets). The contrast between his discernment and eclecticism and the Republican ticket’s impulsiveness and idiot populism is vastly more important than any differences in their adherence to libertarian first principles.<br />- Steven Pinker, Harvard professor and author<br /><br /><em>Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000?</em> I could tell that the neocons were mad in 2000 and that their allies were fanatics or thieves. It was blatant in 2004. Those who act shocked (shocked!) and betrayed today were fools then and are likely fools now.<br />- David Brin, science fiction author<br /><br /><em>Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000?</em> Gore in 2000; Kerry in 2004. In 2000 I suspected Bush might have the intellectual depth of a custard; in 2004, sadly, I knew it all too well.<br />-John Scalzi, science fiction author<br /><br /><em>What will you miss about the Bush administration?</em> Nothing. Worst president ever. The damage his administration has done to this country is mind-boggling.<br />- Peter Bagge, Reason contributing editor<br /><br /><em>What will you miss about the Bush administration?</em> Their perfect purity of purpose. I have looked for a single example of their acting in the best interests of the American people, the republic, or even decent conservatism. There are no examples, whatsoever. Such perfection belies the "Standard Model" that they were merely venal morons. Such uniformity of accomplishment smacks of deliberate intelligence.<br />- Brin<br /><br /><em>What will you miss about the Bush administration?</em> The idea that $438 billion is a big budget deficit.<br />- Jacob Sullum, Reason editor<br /><br /><em>Is this the most important election in your lifetime?</em> I'm not convinced that many elections in the United States are that important, but the tragicomedy of American life is that we have a generally representative government, which is a damning comment on us.<br />-Nick Gillespie, editor of Reason Online<br /><br /><em>Is this the most important election in your lifetime?</em> This election probably is the most important. Obama appears to be against wars of aggression, while McCain is clearly a war-monger. More generally, Obama is clearly deliberative and thoughtful and—while he won't often reach the same conclusions as I or other libertarians would reach—he's preferable to McCain, who relies on "gut feelings" and is as intellectually non-curious as George W. Bush.<br />- Rob Campia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project<br /><br /><em>Leaving George W. Bush out of consideration, what former U.S. president would you most like to have waterboarded?</em> None of them. The sooner we stop coming up with lists of people to waterboard, the better.<br />- Drew Carey, host of The Price is RightMarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-89206413345480132002008-10-31T18:15:00.002-04:002008-11-02T18:20:38.039-05:00Sarah Palin's Bad Halloween JokeIt was a joke, right? This governor of an American state - and candidate for federal office - didn't just seriously <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-fears-med.html">say that the press is threatening her First Amendment rights</a> by criticizing her? She's talking about the same First Amendment that promises that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..." Is this what a McCain/Palin administration would be like? I don't like all of Barack Obama's positions, but at least he knows what the Constitution says (he was a professor of Constitutional law, after all).Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-91915827704816399462008-10-27T22:31:00.004-04:002008-11-01T13:27:57.552-04:00We've Made the EconomistMy favorite weekly magazine usually comes on Saturdays, but this week it was late. So it wasn't until today that I opened up <a href="http://www.economist.com/">The Economist</a> and read "<a href="http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12470555">The Rise of the Obamacons</a>":<br /><br />"The biggest brigade in the Obamacon army consists of libertarians, furious with Mr. Bush's big-government conservatism, worried about his commitment to an open-ended 'war on terrorism,' and disgusted by his cavalier way with civil rights. <span style="font-weight: bold;">There are two competing 'libertarians for Obama' web sites.</span> Cafe Press is even offering a 'libertarian for Obama' lawn sign for $19.95. Larry Hunter, who helped to devise Newt Gingrich's Contract with America in 1994, thinks that Mr. Obama can free America from the grip of the 'zombies' who now run the Republican Party." [My bold, of course]<br /><br />Here's the other <a href="http://www.libertariansforobama.org/">Libertarians for Obama</a> site (my friendly rival, I suppose). He got the better web address (www.libertariansforobama.com) but he hasn't updated his site since June, so I'll take the liberty of considering this site the leading libertarians for Obama destination on the web.<br /><br />Thanks, The Economist.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Update:</span> The Economist - probably the world's most widely read magazine with libertarian sympathies - has <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?source=most_commented&story_id=12516666">endorsed Obama</a>. From the endorsement: "<em>The Economist</em> does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence ... Voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead." Past Economist endorsements: Dole in 1996, Bush in 2000 and this from 2004: "With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd." (Thanks for the tip, <a href="http://electionprediction.blogspot.com/">Hrafn</a>)Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-33667998654687724582008-10-26T22:38:00.004-04:002008-11-02T18:21:22.188-05:00The Next WarU.S. special forces <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/27/syria-helicopter-attack">attacked a village in Syria</a> yesterday, killing eight people.<br /><br />Here's John McCain's <a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/FDEB03A7-30B0-4ECE-8E34-4C7EA83F11D8.htm">view of Syria</a>. If you don't feel like reading, here's a summary: Syria and Iran are responsible for all of the bad things happening in Iraq right now, and "t<span class="issues_maintext">he answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior."</span>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-48304239452166489902008-10-26T20:12:00.006-04:002008-11-01T12:42:52.895-04:00Cross-Party Endorsements<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0QbX2Ma8Jh4P0XukfW2CYvNUJC3OQO2u_D1gI79J24SpPTj736VsRe1FlJGcWBfaCBg5wGffMV69pvaaWO4ga7H2hrkWy1w7QIjHcd9F5DhYL49GtPb7KTjEBAMVyGhtWgGMOCs8_Hv2S/s1600-h/logo.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 167px; height: 166px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0QbX2Ma8Jh4P0XukfW2CYvNUJC3OQO2u_D1gI79J24SpPTj736VsRe1FlJGcWBfaCBg5wGffMV69pvaaWO4ga7H2hrkWy1w7QIjHcd9F5DhYL49GtPb7KTjEBAMVyGhtWgGMOCs8_Hv2S/s320/logo.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5261635391189547186" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.republicansforobama.org/">Republicans for Obama</a> is a grass-roots effort, but it's a good looking site. It has video, blogs, Republicans for Obama <a href="http://www.cafepress.com/rfobama">T-shirts</a> and an inspiring quote ("Senator Obama is the one candidate who can unite the American majority that wants to move forward and improve the long-term economic well-being and independence of our nation."). It also has a good <a href="http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3341">list of prominent Republicans who have endorsed Obama. </a>The list includes four former governors, three former congressmen, one sitting congressman, Colin Powell, Francis Fukuyama, Scott McClellan, Christopher Buckley and Ken Adelman.<br /><br />Contrast this with Wikipedia's list of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCain_Democrat">Democrats who have endorsed John McCain</a>. Other than Joe Lieberman (who doesn't really count, since he is no longer a Democrat), there isn't a single name on the list that I had ever heard before. Wikipedia's editors could only find 14 Democrats for the list, including four state legislators, the former mayor of Concord, N.H. (population 40,000) and the president of a local chapter of the National Organization for Women, one of several bitter Hillary Clinton supporters on the list.<br /><br /><br />Why are these lists significant? Because McCain's last, desperate campaign strategy is to paint Obama as so far to the left that he'll drag the country toward socialism. But Obama has always been a politician of the center, who has worked with Republicans and respected their opinions. McCain is the one who wants to wrench America towards the fringe. And Obama has the endorsements to prove it.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-91872416773731196062008-10-22T20:15:00.004-04:002008-10-22T21:02:45.214-04:00Who is a Libertarian, ReduxIn the <a href="http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/10/libertarian-obama-gear.html#comments">comments section</a> of a recent post, a poster named Brian suggested that I was not a real libertarian, ipso facto, because I support Barack Obama. Brian's definition of a libertarian seemed pretty good to me: "A libertarian is a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty, smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom." Here's why a vote for Obama squares with that:<br /><br />Upholds the principals of individual liberty: Advantage, Obama. Here are some of the principals of individual liberty which Obama supports and<a href="http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/tp/John-McCain-Civil-Liberties.htm"> John McCain does not</a>: a ban on torture, gay rights, separation of church and state, privacy and free speech. Obama isn't perfect in this category (he's against gay marriage and has given qualified support to warrantless wiretapping), but I have faith that his heart is in the right place overall.<br /><br />Wants smaller government: Advantage, Obama. McCain talks a good game on this front. And I certainly appreciate his work against earmarks and other wasteful spending. But, as <a href="http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1215">Bleeding Heartland</a> points out, the cost of earmarks in 2007 was about $17 billion. The cost of the Iraq war, which McCain wants to both continue and expand, is about $165 billion. And earmarks don't breed new government programs that <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/09/domestic-wiretapping-firs_n_133226.html">destroy our civil liberties</a>.<br /><br />Supports lower taxes: Advantage, McCain. Obama wants to <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031268,CST-NWS-tax30.article">lower taxes</a> for everyone making less than $200,000 and raise taxes for those making over $250,000. McCain wants to lower taxes for the rich, and lower them less than Obama for the middle class. A hybrid plan would be nice, but if these are the only two choices, McCain's is better from a libertarian perspective (even though it's worse for me personally). But beware: One of McCain's top advisers recently said that, if elected, <a href="http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/09/top-mccain-advisor-says-his-candidate.html">McCain plans to raise taxes</a> too.<br /><br />Wants more personal freedom: Advantage, Obama. Only one major candidate is pro-choice, <a href="http://obama.senate.gov/press/060627-obama_statement_29/">against a ban on flag burning</a> and wants to <a href="http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/search/label/Drugs">soften drug laws</a> and <a href="http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2007/oct/03/obama_comes_out_against_mandator">reduce the use of mandatory minimum sentences</a>.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-83327589074452431512008-10-22T20:13:00.002-04:002008-10-22T20:14:30.234-04:00Shocker: Al Qaida Hates Peace and Loves WarWhy else would they be <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iFK9c9KTpdbjhYyuWIlZyAuyqeJgD93VA3B80">supporting John McCain</a>?Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-49175355740183543042008-10-19T20:21:00.003-04:002008-10-19T22:10:47.226-04:00The State Sponsors of Terrorism List is a JokeMore silliness from George Bush's war on terrorism this past week: Bush has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/world/asia/27nuke.html">removed North Korea</a> from the State Department's State Sponsors of Terrorism list. Being on <a href="http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82736.htm">the list</a> activates a number of sanctions, including prohibitions against U.S. citizens doing business with the target country.<br /><br />Now, North Korea is clearly an unpredictable, insane, evil place that's armed to the teeth. But state sponsor of terrorism? What terrorism was North Korea sponsoring? And what did it do to get off the list?<br /><br />As the Council on Foreign Relations <a href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/9364/">notes</a>: "North Korea has not been associated with any acts of terrorism since 1987, when it was linked to the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight."<br /><br />Oh, so it just took a while for them to prove that they're no longer sponsoring terrorism, right? Wrong. North Korea was removed from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list because it stopped reprocessing nuclear fuel. But what does that have to do with sponsoring terrorism? Nothing.<br /><br />It turns out that the State Sponsors of Terrorism list has nothing to do with terrorism.<br /><br />Now that North Korea is off the list, it contains only four countries: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.<br /><br />Cuba??? Again, awful government. But terrorism sponsor?<br /><br />Even though Cuba hasn't actually sponsored any terrorist acts since the fall of the USSR in 1992, the <a href="http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/82736.htm">State Department justifies</a> its inclusion because "Cuba continued to publicly oppose the U.S.-led Coalition prosecuting the War on Terror. To U.S. knowledge, Cuba did not attempt to track, block, or seize terrorist assets."<br /><br />So a country gets on the list because it isn't sufficiently enthusiastic about Bush's war on terrorism? Even if it hasn't sponsored any terrorism itself? What terrorist assets does the U.S. seriously expect Cuba to track, block or seize, anyway? The Al Qaida training camps in Havana?<br /><br />So if Cuba is one of the world's four biggest state sponsors of terrorism, who didn't make the list? Afghanistan, for one. That's right - the country that sheltered Osama bin Laden for years has never been considered a state sponsor of terrorism, not even during Al Qaida's heyday in the 1990s.<br /><br />Also not on the list: Venezuela and Colombia, which sponsor left-wing and right-wing (respectively) paramilitaries fighting in Colombia's civil war. And Russia, which supports paramilitary thugs in Chechnya, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Of course Saudi Arabia and Pakistan never made the list, even though each of them have supported Al Qaida far more than all of the four countries on the list combined.<br /><br />But Cuba made the list because it isn't sufficiently supportive of the effort to catch bin Laden. And North Korea gets removed not because it stopped sponsoring terrorism 21 years ago, but because of a nuclear deal that has nothing to do with terrorism.<br /><br />Iraq used to be on the list too because, under Saddam Hussein, it sheltered the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, a group fighting to overthrow the government of Iran (something the U.S. has also <a href="http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501i.asp">tried to do</a>). The State Department removed Iraq from the list in 2003, after the U.S. invasion. The only problem? The Mujahedin-e-Khalq is still in Iraq, still fighting to overthrow the government of Iran. Wikipedia has a good <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojahedin-e-Khalq">history of the organization</a>. Iraq was also temporarily removed from the list between 1982 and 1990 so that the U.S. could sell it weapons to use in its war against Iran. (Remember <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/">this</a>?)<br /><br />I'm not enough of a libertarian purist to say that the government shouldn't impose sanctions against countries that have sponsored terrorism against us. But if there's going to be a State Sponsors of Terrorism list, shouldn't it, you know, be composed only of countries that have sponsored terrorism recently? Let's hope that this is just more of the same war on terrorism foolishness that Barack Obama will put an end to in a few months.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-86789437606894504592008-10-19T19:49:00.000-04:002008-10-19T22:42:48.041-04:00The Only Flag in Palin's Office?"The only flag at my office is an Israeli flag," Sarah Palin told Israeli President Shimon Perez, according to the (now-defunct) <a href="http://www.nysun.com/national/palin-only-flag-in-my-office-is-israeli/86671">New York Sun</a>. "I want you to know and I want Israelis to know that I am a friend."<br /><br />Remember all the fuss about Barack Obama <a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1779544,00.html">not wearing a flag pin</a>? Seems a bit silly compared to the governor of an American state having a foreign flag in her office instead of an American flag. Even if Palin misspoke and she meant that the Israeli flag is the only foreign flag in her office, what is she doing with foreign flags in her office? And if she's going to start putting up foreign flags, is she seriously saying that Israel (a country she has never visited) is more important to Alaska than Canada, where she wants to build a giant natural gas pipeline? Or Russia, a country from which Palin claimed to receive trade missions, but <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies--1.html">apparently never did</a>?<br /><br />Maybe her support for Israel has something to do with <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palestinian-attack-in-isr_n_123297.html">her church's view</a> that terrorist attacks against Israel are a good thing, because they are the beginning of the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/04/palins-evangelical-faith-drives-pro-israel-view/">final battle between good and evil</a> that will result in the slaughter of the Jews and the return of Jesus.<br /><br />(Via <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/">Andrew Sullivan</a>)Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-63056259078499950052008-10-14T21:20:00.004-04:002008-10-14T22:43:46.393-04:00Bruce Ramsey and More Libertarians Supporting ObamaEvery year, Liberty magazine prints several endorsements, one for each candidate that libertarians might be interested in voting for. This year there are endorsements for <a href="http://www.libertyunbound.com/article.php?id=25">John McCain</a> ("I don’t like him. Actually, I detest him," but he'll lower taxes, argues Stephen Cox), <a href="http://www.libertyunbound.com/article.php?id=23">Bob Barr</a> and <a href="http://www.libertyunbound.com/article.php?id=26">None of the Above</a> (No endorsement for Chuck Baldwin. Go figure.).<br /><br /><a href="http://mises.org/articles.aspx?AuthorId=918">Bruce Ramsey</a> wrote the Barack Obama endorsement. Here's an excerpt:<br /><p class="body">"McCain was for starting a war with Iraq. Obama was against it. When the occupation went bad, Obama talked about taking soldiers out. McCain talked about bringing them in. McCain, having been a prisoner, was sensitive to the issue of torture, and that is to his credit. But a vote for McCain is a validation of Bush on war and the other things, financial, legal, and cultural, that come with war. And on this issue, McCain is worse than Bush. Military service has defined McCain’s heritage and his life. His moral touchstone is honor. He’s got war written all over him. </p> <p class="body">"That is why some libertarians will cast their vote this year for the nominee of a party that libertarians do not usually support."</p>Read the whole thing at <a href="http://www.libertyunbound.com/article.php?id=24">Liberty Unbound</a>. What was interesting to me about the endorsement was all of the references that Ramsey made to other libertarians who have written in favor of Obama. I knew about <a href="http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/04/camille-paglia-why-feminists-should.html">Camile Paglia</a>, <a href="http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/03/two-more-unlikely-endorsements.html">Scott Flanders</a> and <a href="http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/03/david-friedman-on-obama.html">David Friedman</a>.<br /><br />But Ramsey also points out that libertarian blogger Megan McArdle has said she'll "probably vote for Obama." And he goes the extra step of calling up Brink Lindsey and Gene Healy, who both tepidly support Obama (at least to the extent that he is better than McCain and the other options).<br /><br />Lindsey: "My sense of fundamental democratic accountability says that when the party in power messes up royally, it should be thrown out on its ear. For Republicans to be rewarded with another term in the White House after eight years of Bush seems really wrong to me."<br /><br />I'm adding <a href="http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/">McArdle </a>and <a href="http://genehealy.com/">Healy </a>to my blogroll. Unfortunately, Lindsey's blog hasn't been updated for almost a year, when he had this interesting post about <a href="http://www.brinklindsey.com/?p=139">why he doesn't support Ron Paul</a>.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-8907994077879401162008-10-12T22:34:00.001-04:002008-10-12T22:57:18.657-04:00Wayne Allyn Root and Sarah PalinLibertarian Party vice presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root continues to embarrass himself by fluffing Sarah Palin - supposedly his opponent - most recently in a <a href="http://www.fsrn.org/content/election-unspun-oct-10-libertarian-vp-candidate-wayne-allyn-root-sarah-palin-and-bailouts/34">Pacifica Radio interview</a>. I listened to the 8 minute interview so you don't have to. The highlights:<br /><br />Root describes Palin as "a female actress portraying me."<br />He brags about never having held any elective office, and how this qualifies him to be vice president.<br />He blames the economic crisis on "community activist groups." Please, Wayne, name names.<br />He claims that Barack Obama has been in government his whole life. I guess he's forgetting about his community organizing years. And his time as a constitutional lawyer. And the constitutional law professor days.<br />But that experience doesn't count, I guess, because according to Root "The enemy of this country is lawyers."<br /><br />If that's not enough Root silliness for you, on <a href="http://www.rootforamerica.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry081003-082044">his blog</a> Root claims that Palin won the vice presidential debate, despite overwhelming <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/debate.poll/">voter sentiment to the contrary</a>. Why does Root think that his favorite vice presidential candidate cleaned up?<br /><br />"Palin lacks the U.S. Senate pedigree, law degree, or the D.C. Beltway credentials of Biden, but she has Reaganesque-like (sic) charm, charisma and middle American values. She also has something that even a brash New Yorker like me appreciates- CHUTZPAH. Sarah, in an “aw shucks” kind of way, is more confident of a speaker and debater than any 5-term United States Senator. Like Reagan, she knows how to connect to her audience- soccer moms and NASCAR dads (or as she calls them “Joe Six Pack”)."<br /><br />I'll just let that speak for itself.<br /><br />But since we're on the subject of Palin's popularity, check out this video of hockey fans in Pennsylvania <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2008/10/sarah-palin-boo.html">booing her mercilessly</a>.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-56597789905058879392008-10-06T23:08:00.002-04:002008-10-06T23:31:34.306-04:00Libertarian Obama GearCheck out the new page art: the new "libertarians for Obama" yard sign that the campaign created. For a mere $41.99 (ugh) you can order one <a href="http://signs.cafepress.com/item/libertarians-for-obama-banner/303223258">here </a>and have it up in your yard by election day (via <a href="http://www.carrietomko.blogspot.com/">Carrie Tomko</a>). Even with the high price, I have a feeling that these are selling a lot better than the official "<a href="http://blackmenformccain.com/2008/08/12/mccain-campaign-adds-t-shirt-democracy-at-work/">African Americans for McCain</a>" T-shirts.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.democraticstuff.com/Supporter-Buttons-s/7528.htm">Democratic Stuff</a> sells all sorts of Obama T-shirts and buttons, including "Bee Keepers for Obama," "Beer Brewers for Obama" and "Moustaches for Obama." Much better than these <a href="http://wonkette.com/400529/texas-gop-racists-make-wacky-racist-buttons">racist anti-Obama buttons</a> from the Republican Party of Texas.<br /><br />Here's an email I wrote to Democratic Stuff a few weeks ago. I'm still waiting for a response.<br /><br />To Whom It May Concern:<br /><br />I have been a Barack Obama supporter for over a year now, but only today did I discover your site. I'm already a big fan, and I am considering purchasing either a Vegetarians for Obama or Oil Tycoons for Obama button (or possibly Hipsters for Obama, but I'm not sure if I qualify). What I really want, though, is a Libertarians for Obama button, which I did not see on your site. You may not be aware that, according to polling firm Rasmussen, four percent of Americans are libertarians (believers in limited government and personal freedom) and this group supports Barack Obama over John McCain, 53% to 38% (source: <a href="http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/07/libertarians-prefer-obama.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>http://libertarianobama.<wbr>blogspot.com/2008/07/<wbr>libertarians-prefer-obama.html</a>). I'm sure that I'm not the only libertarian who would love to demonstrate his support for Obama with a button. A Statue of Liberty image would be appropriate, but a Liberty Bell, picture of Thomas Jefferson or "Don't Tread on Me" picture would also be a good fit. Please let me know what you think of my proposal.<br /><br />-Mark<br />Libertarian for Obama<br /><br />P.S. If you start selling Libertarians for Obama buttons, I would be happy to include a link from my Libertarians for Obama blog (<a href="http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">libertarianobama.blogspot.com</a>).Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-64423506237038772202008-10-05T22:02:00.003-04:002008-10-11T12:34:38.437-04:00From the CommentsI get a lot of great comments on this blog, and usually I try to answer them in the comments sectoin. But since I've been out of town recently, I thought I'd post a few of the good ones here.<br /><br />- "Laughing Libertarian" points out that conservative writer Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley and author of Thank You for Smoking, says he is likely to <a href="http://www.unitedliberty.org/579/christopher-buckley-a-conservative-for-obama">vote for Barack Obama</a>. Buckley said that his main reason for supporting Obama was John McCain's similarity to George W. Bush.<br />- <span dir="ltr">Pam Pescosolido, past chair of the </span>Tulare County (Calif.) Libertarian Party posted a letter she has written explaining her endorsement of Obama. While Libertarian Republican blogger <a href="http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2008/10/south-carolina-libertarians-think-sarah.html">Eric Dondero</a> claims that libertarians will rally to McCain because of his "libertarian" vice presidential pick, Pescosolido disagrees. "Palin believes that the Bible is the literal word of God; that creationism is “the truth” and evolution just some cockamamie scam; and she would be willing to try to force that belief onto everyone else through whatever means," Pescosolido writes. Full letter <a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5429305915843274151&postID=2140348966453872903">here</a>.<br />- An anonymous commenter claims that "Obama would be the most anti-gun President of all time." I've heard this line before, but I'm not sure where the idea comes from. Obama isn't as solid on guns as I'd like him to be, but he's one of the few nationally prominent Democrats to assert that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. He's said that he doesn't want to license or register handguns - and he certainly doesn't want to <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/05/obama-im-not-going-to-take-your-guns-away/">take them away</a>. Obama does support gun ownership restrictions such as requiring manufacturers to include child safety locks with guns, but this is pretty mainstream stuff. For more on Obama's positions on guns, check out this independent <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm">watchdog site</a>.<br /><br />This past week I've been on vacation in North Carolina. A week ago, I didn't really believe all of the poll numbers showing that Obama has <a href="http://www.pollster.com/polls/nc/08-nc-pres-ge-mvo.php">pulled even</a> in the Tar Heel State. But judging by the number of Obama yard signs and bumper stickers that I saw down there, I'm no longer quite so sure that North Carolina is out of reach.<br /><br />P.S. - Keep the correspondence coming. If you don't want to leave a comment, email me at libertariansforobama@gmail.com.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-64668031988359211852008-09-25T20:09:00.003-04:002008-09-25T21:12:13.133-04:00Countries John McCain Doesn't Like<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnxjiy_1VIhSUYdonoRCPnlfYoGuHrqmcy3zwc0WYZg02UYR7yzPGwL3_IToCKXYmvqTQCgpIBRzEJNRQesTwA2Cjp134i5m-04mFvy8ACMHt3NDVyEATAlBxZJy4Uye51K2YBUPf0pUEL/s1600-h/world_map_gif.gif"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnxjiy_1VIhSUYdonoRCPnlfYoGuHrqmcy3zwc0WYZg02UYR7yzPGwL3_IToCKXYmvqTQCgpIBRzEJNRQesTwA2Cjp134i5m-04mFvy8ACMHt3NDVyEATAlBxZJy4Uye51K2YBUPf0pUEL/s400/world_map_gif.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5250115620112331538" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />In alphabetical order:<br /><a href="http://www.theage.com.au/world/mccain-leaves-spanish-guessing-20080919-4k75.html">Bolivia </a>- McCain won't talk to Bolivia's president, calls him "very similar" to Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro, leaders McCain has repeatedly vilified.<br /><a href="http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-speaks-truth-to-power-about-cuba.html">Cuba </a>- Unlike in 2000, the John McCain of 2008 wants to strengthen the embargo on Cuba. Barack Obama wants to ease it.<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg">Iran</a> - "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"<br /><a href="http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/04/mccain_claims_h.php">Lebanon </a>- McCain says he will "drive Hezbollah out of Lebanon." Hezbollah is part of the democratically-elected government of Lebanon.<br /><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2007/09/29/mccain_calls_for_more_sanctions_on_myanmar/">Myanmar </a>- McCain wants more sanctions.<br /><a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/26/mccain_breaks_with_bush_over_n.html">North Korea</a> - McCain thinks George W. Bush is too soft on North Korea.<br /><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s2370:">Palestine </a>- McCain co-sponsored a bill to take a harder line on the Palestinians.<br /><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12121191/">Russia </a>- Russia deserves "harsh treatment," McCain says.<br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18/bizarre-mccain-remarks-ap_n_127346.html">Spain </a>- McCain would not meet with the president of Spain, a member of the NATO alliance, because he opposed the Iraq war.<br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090801664.html">Sudan </a>- McCain wants to invade.<br /><a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/FDEB03A7-30B0-4ECE-8E34-4C7EA83F11D8.htm">Syria </a>- McCain blames Syria for the violence in Iraq, wants to depose its leader and urges Israel not to make peace with Syria.<br /><a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/09/news/uzbek.php">Uzbekistan </a>- McCain wants sanctions.<br /><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182437,00.html">Venezuela </a>- McCain wants to isolate Venezuela, and calls Venezuelans "wackos."<br /><a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/McCainReport/Read.aspx?guid=9013326e-24c2-4bc5-88a7-afdaac2a094c">Zimbabwe </a>- McCain wants sanctions.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-18656920500231882842008-09-23T19:59:00.002-04:002008-09-23T20:07:34.200-04:00The Welfare State of AlaskaA <a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12252731">letter </a>in this week's issue of the <a href="http://www.economist.com/">Economist</a> dovetails nicely with my thinking about Sarah Palin's <a href="http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/09/welfare-state-of-wasilla.html">experience as mayor of Wasilla</a>. The letter:<br /><p>SIR – Alaska is very different from the rest of the United States, and this difference affects the fitness of Mrs Palin to be vice-president. Fundamentally, Alaska is a pre-modern welfare state, where the economy is almost purely extractive (with the exception of defense and tourism). If you don’t kill it, dig it or cut it down you don’t get it. From that perspective “bridges to nowhere” are simply further extractions, or tokens for transfer payments from the rest of us, as are the annual payments to residents from North Slope oil revenues.</p> <p>Not surprisingly Alaska is largely an innovation-free zone. It is also the only world that Mrs Palin has known. Along with her chronological and career inexperience this background renders her unprepared to lead the country. </p> <p>Michael Golay<br />Professor of nuclear science and engineering<br />Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br />Cambridge, Massachusetts </p>[When Golay says that Alaska is "the only world that Mrs. Palin has known" he is, of course, leaving out the <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjGaAjQoUCE3VQ4N3M852LEdOVtwD9307GG00">six-or-so years</a> that Palin spent getting her BA at four different colleges in Hawaii and Idaho]Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-31647224227313729892008-09-22T19:30:00.005-04:002008-09-22T20:56:48.287-04:00Palin Spokesman has an Unguarded Moment<a href="http://content.usatoday.com/community/tags/topic.aspx?req=tag&tag=Ben%20Porritt">Ben Porritt</a>, a spokesman for Sarah Palin, told a group of college students at his alma mater over the weekend that he didn't think that it was a big deal that Barack Obama used the phrase "lipstick on a pig" when comparing the policies of John McCain and George W. Bush. He "felt Obama was just using an expression," according to a story in the <a href="http://www.pjstar.com/homepage/x1662899533/BU-grads-share-glimpse-of-campaign-trail">Peoria Journal Star</a>. But then he told the rest of the Palin media team about Obama's comment, and they "flipped out," he said, flogging it for days. Somehow I doubt this guy has a bright future in media relations.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-48729335470510629582008-09-22T19:19:00.003-04:002008-09-22T19:27:24.031-04:00Obama Promises to Cut Federal Spending<span id="article"><span style="font-family:Verdana,Sans-serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;color:black;"><span id="article"><span id="intelliTXT"> "I am not a Democrat who believes that we can or should defend every government program just because it's there," Barack Obama said today at a rally in Green Bay, according to the <a href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080922/D93BUL0O0.html">Associated Press</a>.<br /><br />These words aren't, by themselves, a big deal. Democrats have been extolling the virtues of small government and the free market for years, just as Republicans like to talk about how much they respect personal freedom. But nice words don't mean much when they're contradicted - as soon as the election is over - by big spending Democrats and Big Brother Republicans.<br /><br />But Obama didn't just offer words today. He spelled out specific federal expenditures that he plans to cut, including cutting $40 billion in spending on contractors. I don't remember John Kerry or Al Gore ever doing that.<br /><br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-8555492614398768732008-09-17T20:21:00.008-04:002008-09-17T21:48:46.585-04:00Former National Review Publisher Wick Allison Endorses Obama<a href="http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E">Wick Allison</a>, current editor-in-chief of D (Dallas) Magazine (via <a href="http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/17/122651/224/442/601632">Daily Kos</a>):<div class="intro"> <blockquote> <p>In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher [...]</p> <p>[T]oday it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.</p> <p>Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth ...<br /></p></blockquote><blockquote> <p>I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.</p> <p>Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.</p> <p>“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.</p>[Read Allison's whole <a href="http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E">endorsement </a>to find out why he thinks Obama has conservative "instincts and predispositions."]<br /></blockquote></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-21403489664538729032008-09-17T20:21:00.004-04:002008-09-17T21:23:12.660-04:00Happy Constitution DayThat's right, 221 years ago today the Founding Fathers ratified the <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html">U.S. Constitution</a>. So I think today's a pretty good day to share my three favorite passages from the Constitution (not counting the Bill of Rights. That wasn't ratified until Dec. 15 - <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/12/15/bill-of-rights-day/">Bill of Rights Day</a>).<br /><br />"The Congress shall have Power To ... declare War"<br /><br />The Constitution doesn't have anything to say about vague Congressional use-of-force resolutions that leave all of the war decisions in the hands of the president.<br /><br />"... no Appropriation of Money to that Use (to raise and support Armies) shall be for a longer Term than two Years"<br /><br />The implication here is that the Framers didn't intend for the federal government to maintain a permanent standing army. By contrast, there is a specific provision for the creation of a standing navy. Navies and state militias are useful for repelling invasions. Armies are better suited for invading other counties or putting down domestic opposition.<br /><br />"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."<br /><br />Last I checked, the United States hasn't been invaded or had a rebellion lately (9-11 was an attack, not an invasion). So why no <a href="http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/06/habeas-corpus.html">habeas corpus</a> rights for Guantanamo prisoners?<br /><br />"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States"<br /><br />The president isn't the "commander in chief." The president is the "commander in chief of the army and navy." Big difference. Can we please stop using the title "commander in chief" without the "army and navy" qualifier? The president commands the military, not every aspect of the country. The presidency isn't a democratically elected dictatorship, it's a job with specific responsibilities. And no, those responsibilities aren't <a href="http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/do-bush-defenders-place-any-limits-on_22.html">whatever the president says they are</a>.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-1017371705912393782008-09-16T21:10:00.002-04:002008-09-16T22:14:56.977-04:00Who is a Libertarian?Here are some recent quotes from the comments section:<br /><br />"IF they are Obamatards, and think they are libertarians, they have no clue what a libertarian really is."<br /><br />"I'm sorry, but anyone who supports Barack Obama cannot be a true libertarian."<br /><br />"Any Libertarian voting for Obama is not very Libertarian or hasn't looked closely enough at him."<br /><br />These commenters raise an interesting question: What does it mean to be a "real" or "true" libertarian? What's a good comprehensive definition of "libertarian?" Can one meet this definition and also support Barack Obama? Are there any specific policy positions that, by themselves, disqualify one from being a libertarian?<br /><br />Merriam-Webster <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libertarian">defines </a>"libertarian" as:<br />1. An advocate of the doctrine of free will.<br />2a A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action<br />2b A member of a political party advocating libertarian principles.<br /><br />Definitions 1 and 2a are pretty vague and all inclusive. 2b doesn't really apply to what I'm talking about.<br /><br />My personal definition would be: A person who opposes war and tyranny and wants less government, an economy based on the principals of the free market, personal freedom and civil liberties. I think that Obama meets this definition (though I don't call him a libertarian). I know that many of my readers disagree.<br /><br />I've also seen various people call themselves libertarians while supporting either aggressive war, detention without trial, a crackdown on immigrants, the war on drugs or high tariffs.<br /><br />So who gets to claim the label? Or is it un-libertarian to try to be so exclusive?Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5429305915843274151.post-20149145758581485142008-09-12T20:53:00.004-04:002008-09-14T18:15:15.306-04:00Top McCain Advisor Says His Candidate Will Raise Taxes<a href="http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/the_mccain_tax_increasescontin.html">Time </a>has the story. If this is true - and I don't doubt it, since no Republican president in recent memory has actually cut spending - what do the libertarians supporting McCain have left? Since Obama clinched the nomination, it's been an endless chorus of "Obama will raise taxes! Obama will raise taxes!! Obama will raise taxes!!!" He probably will (by a modest amount), but if McCain will do the same, just like George H.W. Bush did, what do small government types still see in McCain? Do they actually believe the small government rhetoric? "This time, the Republican will be different. This time, the Republican's small government promises are for real. This time ..."<br /><br />Update: Alan Greenspan's <a href="http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/14/greenspan_does_not_back_mccain_tax_plan.html">not a fan</a> of McCain's tax plan. And, as <a href="http://don-thelibertariandemocrat.blogspot.com/">Don the Libertarian Democrat</a> points out, the <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411750">Tax Policy Center</a> refutes the myth that Obama will raise taxes across the board, and McCain will balance the budget.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13534096073937573676noreply@blogger.com12