Ross Douthat summarizes my main reason for fearing what now looks like a near-certain Obama victory. And it has nothing to with with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, or any of Obama's other personal foibles or past associations. It certainly isn't based on any great love for John McCain, who I have many reservations about. For what it's worth, I like the idea of a black president, believe that Obama is an admirable person in many ways, and have doubts about McCain's temperament similar to those expressed by George Will. Nonetheless, I fear that the conjunction of an Obama victory, a strongly Democratic Congress, and a major economic crisis will produce a massive and difficult to reverse expansion of government:
[W]hile success is never final, some successes are more final than others. The election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932 gave birth to an administrative state that has never been rolled back, and seems unlikely be rolled back in my lifetime. So that was a pretty final victory, as political victories go. Or again, while Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 had less enduring consequences than FDR's, at the very least it put its stamp on thirty years of American history in a way that, say, the election of Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush did not. And the convergence of an economic crisis and complete Democratic control of Washington should alarm even those conservatives eager to wash their hands of the GOP. The best reason for even the most disaffected right-winger to root for a McCain victory is simple: To the extent that much of the progressive agenda is a program in search of a crisis to justify its implementation, an election that delivers a liberal candidate who's adored by the media to White House, gives him huge majorities in both houses of Congress, and presents him with a worldwide state of emergency in which to govern, has the potential to be not just another loss for conservatives, but a once-in-a-generation defeat.
We know from past history that economic crises are a major opportunity for expansion of government power. Robert Higgs' book Crisis and Leviathan is a good discussion of the basic dynamics. We also know that divided government tends to impede the growth of the state, while united government facilitates it. The combination of united government and a major economic crisis is likely to lead to a great expansion of government, just as it did on several previous occasions such as the 1930s. It only remains to add that Obama - and most of the rest of the Democratic Party - tend to be very pro-government ideologically. As far as I can tell, Obama proposes major expansions of government regulation and spending on almost every big domestic issue, and doesn't propose to retract government in any significant way, except on military intervention in Iraq. Obama's record in the Senate (where he was the 10th most liberal senator) and in the Illinois state legislature (where he was more liberal than 73% of his fellow Democrats) shows him to be a big government liberal, not a relative moderate like Bill Clinton during his presidency.
I say this not so much to rally support for McCain (whose candidacy I think is nearly dead anyway), as to outline my fears about what is likely to happen over the next four years. I understand, of course, that none of this is a problem for those who want a major expansion of government power or are at least indifferent to it. But I do think it should be of concern to those libertarians or small government conservatives who welcome an Obama victory. It should also matter to moderates and liberals who recognize that massive expansions of government power in a time of crisis provide major opportunities for abuses of power and interest group power grabs at the expense of the general public - both of which happened on a large scale during the Great Depression.
Obviously, nothing is certain. It could be that Obama's agenda will be derailed by a massive political blunder on his part or by some unexpected event. It could be that the Republicans will somehow come back strong in the 2010 midterm elections. It could be that the economy will recover very quickly, curtailing Obama's window of opportunity. I'm not certain that a major expansion of government will actually occur if Obama wins. But I do think it's a strong possibility - certainly a greater than even chance.
UPDATE: University of San Diego lawprof Michael Rappaport, who was previously inclined to conclude that an Obama victory was the lesser of the available evils, is now seems to be changing his mind because of concerns similar to those expressed in this post. He writes:
With the financial crisis we are facing, an Obama Presidency combined with a strongly Democratic Congress would be much worse than the situation we were previously facing. Thus, it makes more sense to avoid it, even if it means electing McCain and all the damage that will do.
To put the point differently, before the financial crisis, there was a realistic chance that electing Obama and a Democratic Congress would be Jimmy Carter in 1976 or Bill Clinton in 2000 [correction: presumably he means 1992 - IS] — presidencies that soon led to Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. But with the financial crisis, there is a much greater chance that electing Obama and the congressional Democrats will be like electing FDR in 1932. Obama could use the emergency to transform the country in a very bad way. And, given the crisis and Obama's political skills, it is quite possible that the country would reelect him, even if he does badly — which, after all, is what happened when FDR was reelected during the New Deal in 1936. (In 1936, the unemployment rate was still 17 percent.)
I haven't made up my mind yet. After all, McCain really is awful. But that is the way I am leaning.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Richard Epstein on Obama:
- Fear Itself, Con't:
- Exploiting Crises to Expand Government and Curtail Civil and Economic Liberties:
- Fear Itself.
- Why I'm Concerned About an Obama Victory:
Didn't that already happen this week?
Since McCain voted for the same pork-laden monstrosity that Obama did, I'd be curious to know why you believe his decisions as president would be any different.
It might not be much different. But that doesn't mean it won't be just as bad. Notice that GWB's policies were also facilitated by a combination of united government and crisis (9/11, Enron, etc.).
I fear there would be an equally big expansion of government even if McCain were to win (which we won't). It is not just his ridiculous plan that the government buy home mortgages at better than market value. In every department, from foreign policy to economics to a crackdown on victimless crimes, libertarians have nothing to gain if McCain wins.
I think all libertarians should either vote for Barr, or support Obama.
Didn't that already happen this week?
Since McCain voted for the same pork-laden monstrosity that Obama did, I'd be curious to know why you believe his decisions as president would be any different.
I have no desire to defend McCain. However, he is more pro-market than Obama on a variety of important issues, including trade, health care, economic regulation, and spending. Moreover, whatever his personal views, he will find it more difficult to get his programs passed by Congress because it will be controlled by the opposing party.
Speaking as liberal who does want government much more involved in regulating the economy, I can say that neither I nor anyone I know favors such government involvement for its own sake. We favor it because we think it will be best for the country.
That extra government involvement in the economy does NOT extend to, say, extra government power over civil liberties. As anyone reading the comments here should know, I've strongly opposed Bush's overreaching on that score, I've strongly criticized Obama when he went along with it (notably on telecom immunity), and I'll be just as strongly critical if he continues Bush's policies in those areas.
I often wish liberals and conservatives could have productive conversations about these issues, but it's hard to know how to begin when I can make no connection between conservative philosophy as it is explained and as it is practiced.
It would appear that the free market is not working out so well. It works well for Freddy Mac but not Joe 6-Pack. There are few tax loop holes for labor but plenty for investment.
Yes, and that is why I think on many of these economic issues, there will ultimately not much to choose between Obama and McCain.
So we should look at issues where the president has more direct power. Foreign policy. The war. Federal raids on medical marijuana.
And it is not just the issues. Obama might have positions I strongly disagree with, but anyone who has followed his career closely or read his books will see that he posesses undoubted intelligence, a good temperament and above all an ability to see both sides of a question (more than McCain does, anyway). Also, as he has demonstrated with his stand on several issues, he prefers a ‘nudge’ to outright force in influencing behavior (see this post of mine). That’s much more than one can say about McCain, who epitomizes authoritarianism. I mean, the guy once tried to ban mixed martial arts because he thought it was gross.
I fail to see why any libertarian would support McCain
Why do so many Republicans rail endlessly against the size of government when it's a small program to help ordinary citizens struggling against misfortune not of their own making, while showing no concern whatsoever for the size of government when (1) the government is jailing people for smoking the same herbs that Queen Victoria used to alleviate menstrual cramps, and (2) the government spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined, some of it on weapons that have no practical use and some of it on the idiotic foreign military entanglements that even the president's own father had the sense to avoid?
And even if that has been the case in the past, can we really assume that it would hold true for a John McCain presidency. I would submit that, apart from taxes, there isn't much of a difference between McCain and Barack Obama on economics.
And you, Ilya, are convinced of this because:
1. You harbor a secret, desperate desire to believe it.
2. Some guy named Axelrod paid you to say this, and he seemed really nice.
3. The polls! The polls!
4. You've seen the actual figures on Democratic voter fraud.
5. You receive special messages from the constellation Andromeda.
6. All of the above.
Conservative/libertarians who believe in limited government (not to be confused by conservatives who believe in "National Greatness," "Compassionate Conservatism" and the like) do not believe that the state's highest and best use is to make sure no one is starving, homeless, etc. Use of the state in that manner is stealing money from an innocent Peter to pay Paul. That is, plainly and simply, immoral.
However, since government must exist (man's social nature abhors a governmentless vacuum — sorry anarchists), it's only task must be to prevent violence and theft among it's citizens, and to protect its citizens from violence and theft by outsiders (as well as not to be violent and thieving itself.) When it is impossible to collect resources voluntarily from its citizens for sufficient protection, it must, unfortunately, employ theft (i.e. taxes) for this limited purpose only. Unfortunately, that is how the world works, blame God, not me.
Collecting any more than what is neeeded for that protection is theft that is greater than what is called for. Of course, the amount needed is something that can be honestly disagreed with...
Your conception of a libertarian/conservative is the George Bush/William Kristol type, who believe in using more than is needed for protecting against invasion, violence, etc. Unfortunately, such types constitute a clear majority of the American people, including yourself....
May be different approach for a global economy needed?
May be Obama will actually be beneficial to US economy?
may be the hatred the contemporary republican party plants into some ( republican loyalist) US citizens is more dangerous to the survival of the republic?
Weimar anyone?
In other words, you're not evil; you're morons.
This is unconvincing. Whatever you believe you know about McCain's embrace of the free market, when it came down to it last week he did exactly the same thing that Obama did. Maybe he felt bad afterwards or something whereas Obama did not. Either way, doesn't matter.
And while having single party control of congress and the white house does usually further a party's agenda, I don't see any reason to believe that congress will become any more stingy and restrained if McCain is elected. And, since McCain has demonstrated last week that he is functionally the same as Obama when it comes to embracing massive governmental boondoggles, there is no reason to believe that Obama would be worse. In other words, if your assumption is that a democratic congress will want to spend money like a drunken sailor, there's no reason to believe that McCain would be any less willing to go along for the ride.
I've followed Obama's career closely and read both his books twice, and I see absolutely no signs of the first-rate intellect, good temperament, and bipartisan spirit that he's allegedly possessed of. He's nothing more than a latter-day John Kerry who made his bones race-hustling rather than exaggerating war hero credentials, and who can give a pretty speech.
Argue, cite, reason, thrust, parry all you like.
Take it to the bank.
"Conservatives" favor corporations and the owners of capital, who are regarded as the most productive sector of the economy, and so must be pampered at the expense of th rest of us.
"Liberals" favor the same, but not as much, with some left over for the rest of us. (And for those of who would argue it's only a matter of degree, I will reply that the difference between bad and worse is usually wider than between good and better.)
What is really bad is that the current crop of "conservatives" in charge really don't believe in government as a force for good or ill. Their vision of government is simply as a tool used to enrich and reward their supporters. Remember FEMA's performance during and after Katrina? No-bid contracts for supplies? The K Street project?
Sorry, Mr. Somin, but "conservatives" have used libertatian thought simply as a distraction to cover their real agenda. Other themes have served, too- remember "compassonate conservatism", the "gay marriage" threat, etc.
At a McCain rally earlier today, some wingut in the audience said "I'm scared of Barack Obama... he's an Arab terrorist..."
Sen. McCain to his great credit interrupted and said "No, no ma'am, he's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements."
I wonder if the level of discourse in the Volokh Conspiracy would be elevated is some of the more hateful and idiotic comments were deleted.
As for divided government holding down the size of government, I don't believe it. For proof, look at the bailout bill. To get bipartisan support, more and more spending had to be added to the bill. And it was largely Republicans who were in the way (not that that's not a bad thing).
Some of my friends have begun to think I've lost my mind, because I'm also coming around to Democratic tax policy in preference to Republican. If there is no "shrink government" party, and government is going to grow under either Democrats or Republicans, why cut taxes? Is government debt now a good thing?
I'm not sure which candidate I dislike less.
what doesn't work is neoconservative big-government nationalism. That doesn't work. Further, I think the notion that waging a massive, money-burning war with little return but 'keeping our pride', while at the same time complaining that we can't raise taxes, is quite idiotic. One either thinks this war is worth the extra taxes you pay, or it isn't. What is left of the Republican ranks needs to make its mind up. Sadly, I think the social conservatives will choose war. In a way, this is a strain of redistribution of wealth.
No, it couldn't.
Thanks for playing.
MarkField: We favor it because we think it will be best for the country.
Why? Where's the evidence? Government involvement in the economy in the form of mandatory bad loans is a major factor - though certainly not the only one - in the financial crisis of the moment. Government involvement tends to reduce allocative efficiency, produce moral hazards, and keep severely flawed firms/industries afloat until they implode.
I am a conservative and I am voting for Obama.
I think what you fail to take account of is the role Republicans in Congress will play under McCain and Obama. Today, we are effectively governed by two parties with identical ideologies - and that is reflected in the similarity in approaches to the current crisis between McCain and Obama, the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and ultimately in the House as well (at least as far as leadership and those they can influence).
Under President McCain we will get Big Government proposals (like his ridiculous mortgage proposal) that the Republicans in Congress will feel compelled to support and it will be further diluted towards the left by the Democrats with their own goodies as price of passage. The result is going to be something like the current $700B bailout bill - in fact if you like that bill, then McCain Presidency + Reid/Pelosi in charge of Congress is a good outcome for you.
Alternatively, under President Obama, the Republicans will have to assume the role of opposition. I realize that they may be in a veto and filibusterer-proof minorities, but at least my conservative views will be argued and advocated, something I do not believe will happen under President McCain. Finally, when Obama, Reid and Pelosi will pass their Big Government programs w/o Republican support, when they will inevitably fail, it will be all on their heads.
Ultimately, the choice in this election is how many voices you want to be addressing policy issues over the next 4 or 8 years. Under President McCain it will be one voice - the Big Government voice, made up of the current Republican compassionate big government conservatism plus the Democrat "Government is the solution to everything" voice, or under President Obama, a dominant Big Government voice coming from Democrats, challenged by a genuine conservative minority.
As a conservative, I want my positions argued rather than swept under the rug "to get something done." Voting Obama is the only clear choice for a conservative who wants to have his voice heard.
My instant reaction was to think back to Hamilton's Federalist No. 9. Two sides to the same faction? Hmmm
Congress, despite what we as observers think, is probably not riddled with deep, seething partisanship. I'm willing to bet that if you were to poll all 535 Congressmen as to whether either candidate was patently unqualified to be POTUS, few would say that yes, the guy from across the aisle is unqualified. Those in that small minority are typically the fringy Cynthia McKinney types, too.
However, in deed, it's hard to get bipartisan support for bills. If I'm right re: the above, that's because Congress is "playing politics" with legislation.
And that's a problem. That leads to nonsense like Nancy Pelosi's screed before the first bailout vote; to ridiculous layers of line-item pork stuck into various, otherwise important bills; etc. And what's worse is that the President's limited political capital will require that he spend it where he believes it most important, and in doing so fail to have it available when most important (e.g. getting a bailout bill through the House in a timely fashion and without it ballooning).
In short, I think the inverse of your given is true: If you think a certain Presidential candidate will enact good policies -- not better policies than his primary opponent, but good ones in his own right -- you should prefer unified government. If you think otherwise, it's not clear that a divided government will yield better results than a unified one.
Judging from the stock market drop in the past few days, what makes you so confident that the market has been doing a good job with allocative efficiency the past few years?
Yeah I know I know, government intervention could always makes things worse. But right now we are obviously in a major clusterfuck. If you care about allocative inefficiency and moral hazards, you certainly can't be happy with our current state of affairs.
Of course a way out for the libertarian is to say that the government is the primary villain in our current story. So government-mandated bad loans were a major source of the problem? There are so many parties in this story -- people lending money to homeowners, people packaging mortgages to investors, banks using these securities as capital, insurance companies insuring losses on these securities, etc etc -- and they were all driven by the profit motive. And in fact, for the past several years, they have all been very profitable. Plus we've had a booming construction industry, more people becoming homeowners, and such homeowners watching their property values rise. Everyone was happy.
And then the floor collapsed.
Really, this just happened because the government forced someone to make loans that looked very profitable for several years? Basic economic theory says that the profit motive is strong enough to not need government assistance. If firms can make a quick buck, they don't need the government to bless them.
What about all the banks that made bad investments (that looked great in the short term)? Did the government mandate that? How?
Face it, our current situation is a challenge for the libertarian worldview. I'm not saying it's insurmountable, but just shrugging your shoulders and saying, "The government did it" is lazy and unconvincing.
Shouldn't you be out putting together a lynch mob or something?
Wow, Somin, you almost sound like someone who didn't vote (twice) for Bush, and who, at some point prior to one of his elections, expressed fear about his expansion of government power.
Is that the case?
No the GOP will still be blamed-blamed for watering the bills down or preventing full funding or the like.
I think one thing that worries me about Obama is that he will head off to regulate Wall Street, play the trade protectionist (If his anti free trade position is to be believed, although he has whistled and nuanced this position to the point that who knows what his position really is), and bring a new era of entitlement programs that once inacted will never go away.
I am pretty convinced he will have the votes to support some type of government provided healthcare that is going to be extremely expensive at a time when the economy is heading into the tank.
So, I am not convinced Obama is going to be good for the country when he has a democratic congress to rubber stamp him-and I am not as trusting as you are that Obama and the democrats will take the heat for the big screw ups, because the MSM always finds a way to blame the GOP whether they are in power or in the minority.
Oh, and I also am not too keen on the direction the courts might take-although the "most likely to retire" on the court likely are in the liberal wing so there may not be that big an ideological shift.
Exactly. One reason drunks keep drinking is, they wake up each morning with the shakes and liquor takes the shakes away. And tomorrow they'll be right back where they are this morning. Hung over drunks. The only way to get off booze is to suffer through a terrible week of withdrawal.
Since Reagan we conservatives have been told to vote for this or that shit-sandwich big government Republican because the Democrat will ruin the country. Enough. Not me. Not this time. Not after McCain Finegold, McCain Kennedy, McCain Lieberman. McCain isn't a Republican, he's the least repulsive Democrat still in the race-- but Republicans will take his blame.
I've voted for every Republican since Ford. This time I'm voting Obama. I'll take the shakes for 2 years, or 4, in the expectation that Carter II will bring the nation back to its senses.
As Churchill said, never accuse the opposition of evil when a simple explanation of stupidity will suffice.
Needless to say, I disagree with both your theory and your specific factual assertion. Since there's no way we can review all of economic history or all the debates which divide economists, I'll let it go at that. And I won't say you're a moron because I don't think you are. I just think you're wrong.
Thanks for elevating the discourse. Isn't there a lawn somewhere in your neighborhood you could be off mowing?
Which group voted against the bailout again? Remind me?
Agreed. However, while I'm hoping Obama will come out of the gates con brio, I have little hope we'll have anything other than another choice between "shit sandwiches" in the next cycle.
Are McCain and Obama really the best we can do?
Right now, in a perfect world we'd see the conjunction of a principled Republican Congress and a careful, intelligent, Democratic president. Yes, I am secretly pining for 1995 ...
There are a couple of reasons to vote for McCain:
1. A divided government, and
2. He has a track record of opposing spending; may be he is also better on free trade and taxes.
But I can't honestly muster any enthusiasm in supporting him, particularly after McCain-Feingold. He may not usher in the era of socialized medicine, but he will facilitate a bunch of bipartisan biggies (co-sponsored by "my friend Ted or Joe") including amnesty for illegal immigrants, carbon caps to stop global warming, regulating "big oil, pharma, finance, etc" since he has a disdain for business profit. Republicans can't fight him and there is a majority of Democrat party that will support him on these.
Obama will increase taxes on businesses and will prolong the economic hardship (or may surprise us and not do it, as he said he wouldn't during a recession). My opposition to Obama's cutting and running from Iraq - thus setting another Vietnam-like example for another generation - is an unlikely scenario, now that he can exit Iraq claiming victory.
There is another soft benefit (I heard a black man say this on a train) "when the world sees America elect a blackman they will believe more in the power of democracy; and we won't have to fight wars to convince people to embrace it" - paraphrased. If we don't elect Obama now, there won't be any convincing people that he really couldn't have "lowered the oceans and healed the planet". Things are going to be rough for a couple of years, and if McCain is elected, half the country would believe an Obama victory would have fixed everything in Jan 2009.
And finally, Obama seems to be the type that reacts swiftly to personal insults - as seen in his throwing Wright under the bus when the Rev dissed Obama - and Obama might truly consider a future terrorist attack on America under his presidency a personal insult to him and deal with it in a non-sissy way. This does not make me certain that he is better, so there is a huge element of HOPE involved, but it may not be worse than a McCain presidency!
Nobody harps too much on Jim Johnson. Obama himself should be very wary of Johnson and his friends. They're worse than Rezko, because at least Obama knew about Rezko.
I'm still trying to work out the odds I'll give on "Obama Impeached", but I'm looking at somewhere around 3:2 or even. Yes, that includes all the reasons why it wouldn't happen.
As much as the sound of his speaking voice drives me bat**** crazy, and as much as I dislike his choice of friends, I don't think that would be a good thing for the country.
I don't ask anyone to trust me on this. I'm clearly biased. Take a step back, though, and maybe you can see what I'm looking at. I dunno.
(1) The failure of a divided Congress (roughly MoveOn Democrats vs. Blue Dogs and Republicans) to pass any kind of energy legislation at all this summer, which, as it turned out, was a very lucky thing, as the oil bubble just popped and oil is back under $80 a barrel, without us being saddled by some whole new lawyer-designed upgefucked well-intentioned highly expensive "energy policy."
(2) The failure of the same divided Congress to micromanage the war in Iraq, which, too, was a lucky thing, as it gave the people who actually know what they're doing (Generals Petraeus and Odierno) time, while a bunch of clueless showboating lawyers were arguing, to actually, you know, win the war and render the argument moot.
(3) The failure of the Clinton White House when faced with a Republican Congress to enact Hillarycare, which staved off the collapse of quality American health care until (unfortunately) next year some time.
Dumb question, since the proposition ("divided government accomplishes less") is so self-evidently logical that a reasonable person would ask for empirical evidence before disbelieving it.
As to Obama being "an admirable person in many ways" the people of this country know nothing about Barack Obama yet you find him admirable. Which part is admirable, representing the people who sent him to Springfield by voting "present" 129 times so that he he could avoid taking a stand on anything? Or the past where he "stood tall against the Iraq War" when he wasn't in the US Congress. Its easy to oppose something when there is no risk of being right or wrong.
He is an "admirable person in many way" yet we do not have any idea what he did or said in college or even what his grades were like. He refuses to release transcripts or even his medical history. He is an "admirable person in many ways", so admirable that he sat in the pews for twenty years and listened to an anti-American white hating preacher spew his venom to the congregation and said or did nothing?
We know nothing about this man other than he is the perfect vessel for whatever his idolizers think they want him to be.
If you voted for GW Bush either time (or, especially, twice) you lack a little bit of credibility in the divided government argument. Or is this a divided government for you, unified, unaccountable, budget-busting, war-starting, liberty-reducing, torture-starting, financial-collapsin' government for me?
"Laying aside the rhetoric, both "conservatives" and "liberals" support expanded government- the only difference is who benefits from this expanion."
Wow, you laid it aside for a whole comma.
CB55,
"It would appear that the free market is not working out so well."
Yes, clearly too much freedom is our problem. What to do with the excess though? Hey, maybe we could trade it for some security! Oh wait...
So what about those of us who didn't vote for Bush last time? Or do things get too confusing when there's no ad hominem close at hand?
Wait.
Am I thinking of "liberals"?
No. It was something else. I saw them in a movie once. Now that I think about it, I don't think they were called "liberals."
The funny thing is that when I ask intelligent college/high school age Obama supporters why they support him they tend to give libertarianish reasons. Some actually use the word libertarian, and not in the Chomskyan funhouse-mirror sense either.
Architect, my ass. Turd blossom indeed.
It scares the holy crap out of me that so-called conservatives still think this. They said the same thing about Clinton, and if he'd have been able to keep his pants on Al Gore would be president now.
Obama? Obama's an empty suit that people are projecting their "hope" into. That means when somebody challenges him, his followers feel they're they're personally being attacked. Oy.
Glad you asked. To understand the magnitude of the spending increases proposed by Obama, here are a couple estimates:
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates that Obama has promised a total of $990 billion in new spending over his first four-year term.
The National Taxpayers Union calculated that Obama is proposing net spending increases of around $292 billion a year, or more than $1 trillion over four years.
However, I seriously doubt these estimates will come close to the actual spending increases we will see under Obama with a Democratic Congress. Obama is promising a massive new entitlement program for healthcare, which, if enacted, is likely to become the new black hole of the federal budget.
While Bush has allowed the budget to expand, earning him criticism from small government conservatives and libertarians, you should not be under any illusion about what the left intends. Like a card player, the left sees the Republicans bid on spending and fully intends to raise it.
Although I plan to vote for Obama (mostly because of his temperament and Sphinx-like political pragmatism), I'd be pleased as punch to vote for the Contract-with-America Republicans. Where did those guys go? I'd welcome a return. And I think the only way to get them back is to spank these hollow, base-motivating ideologues out of power.
Yeah, the democratic congress has and will likely be a disaster. But Republicans have only themselves to blame.
Would the above ever do anything to rein in ACORN or would it be open season for those who want to commit voter fraud?
Would the time be used to so entrench voter fraud into our system that it would be impossible for a Democrat to lose? Given all the voter fraud uncovered by ACORN just in the last few days, not to mention last 8-10 years, it seems to be a possibility.
Combine the total control of Government by the Democrats with their and Obama's extremely close relationship to ACORN and I get a very uncomfortable feeling.
If Obama wins, I vote for seccession."
You should contact Todd Palin and join the Alaska Independence Party. They're way ahead of you.
Yeah, Charlie, couldn't agree with you more. We just barely escaped having Hilary as our President. Oh, you weren't talking about Travelgate where she accused a totally innocent man of a crime so she could get her cousins into the White House travel business?
Yeah, it is much worse to try to get a guy who tassers his 10 year old step son, threatens to kill the Gov and others and for an absolute fact was caught drinking beer on duty in his squad car. Wouldn't want such an upstanding cop getting fired now, would we? I'd have fired to SOB boss and the Trooper but, I guess she couldn't directly fire the trooper.
Are you seriously suggesting this guy is a good cop?
Rare, rare grace.
Yep, me too. As a lifelong conservative of great principle and incredibly unbelievable commitment to the conservative cause, I find the only real choice for me is to vote straight Democratic party line until the Republicans come around to my way of thinking.
/s
A.S. Troturf
If Obama wins, I vote for seccession."
You should contact Todd Palin and join the Alaska Independence Party. They're way ahead of you.
Psalm 91,
Now, that's an idea!
Oh wait, it's really cold up there, isn't it?
Wonder if there is an Arizona Independence Party I could join? No, no. no, not the party that wants to give us back to Mexico, for Pete's sake, that's the Democratic Party.
Would the above ever do anything to rein in ACORN or would it be open season for those who want to commit voter fraud?
Would the time be used to so entrench voter fraud into our system that it would be impossible for a Democrat to lose? Given all the voter fraud uncovered by ACORN just in the last few days, not to mention last 8-10 years, it seems to be a possibility.
Combine the total control of Government by the Democrats with their and Obama's extremely close relationship to ACORN and I get a very uncomfortable feeling.
They need to put you, and the people who agree with you, together with all the people complaining about the Diebolt machines. Then, once all of you are rounded up, you can be placed in tinfoil rafts and set adrift far away from our shores where your insane theories can stop hurting what little faith people still have in our democracy.
Remember, after November, we still all have to live together and support (even if that includes *pointed* but hopefully respectful dissent) the person we, as a country, elect.
Is there even one factual shred of evidence for corruption of a Diebolt voting machine by either party?
On the other hand, have you completely missed the raids in Las Vegas and the findings in Ohio, not to mention all of the other voter registration abuse by ACORN this year and in the past years? Did you miss the ACORN folks who went to prison for voter fraud?
Are you aware that Obama has worked for ACORN when he was a "Community Activist" and represented them as a lawyer and taken big bucks from them (as a politician, don''t know about lawyer), and has steered big amounts of tax payer dollars their way?
You think it is conspiratorial to worry that with an Obama Presidency, Justice Department, Democratic Congress and worshipful MSM any number of abuses in our system could occur?
OK. Call me crazy, but I am worried.
The GOP has an opportunity with defeat to go back to the small government party and blame the big government shift on Bush. McCain fails to understand that there is no value to the Democrat-Lite GOP.
Gee, maybe some of the Daily Kossacs could stop by and give us some pointers.
Go here Loki13 and then tell me I'm crazy.
If this doesn't work, go to the NY Post and type in Voter "Fraud a GO Go and Recent.
You know, I have multiple degrees, wouldn't you think I could figure out this Link thing? I don't think I'm stupid, although those who disagree with me would probably differ, but gee whiz, I hate getting beat by a green four letter word.
McCain, on the other hand, is terrifyingly likely to start more wars. Regardless of how bad Obama is likely to be for this country, I cannot in good conscience inflict McCain on the rest of the world. So my options at this point are to vote D, to vote R but hope like hell that McCain pulls a Tippecanoe, or wash my hands of the whole deal and vote either third party or not at all.
I'm leaning strongly towards the last option. As a friend put it to me recently, "If the Republicans nominated Hitler and the Democrats nominated Stalin, would you really think it a matter of patriotic duty to choose between them?" I came to the conclusion that I would not.
For what it's worth, people who "like the idea" of a black, female, polish, whatever anything are the problem...
I completely understand your feelings. But, when the country shift left we can never get back to Ground Zero. It always stays further left.
Also, think 2 words, Supreme Court.
And, lastly, think of our Military. I am so damn glad my son is out of the Marine Corps, but he is on inactive reserve so he can get called back at any time.
But, I have to think of the other men and women who would be stuck with Obama. He said in the debates he wants to send US troops to Darfur. Wouldn't that be fun for them? Somalia worked out so great. Some of our liberal friends wanted US troops to go into Burma when the junta wouldn't let the aid in.
They don't mind sending troops into harms way if it makes them feel good about themselves.
They deserve better and McCain is better for them than Obama.
Brilliant.
See my post above. I disagree with you. I think a military man is far less likely to start a war. He knows the hell it is.
You are forgetting about all the opportunities to right all the wrongs in the world that an Obama won't be able to resist. Remember the debates and what Obama said.
And, perhaps even more worrisome in that regard than BHO himself are his supporters. For the short version of that, plug this into your browser:
dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/7/9500/75263
The National Taxpayers Union calculated that Obama is proposing net spending increases of around $292 billion a year, or more than $1 trillion over four years.
Prescription Drug Benefit: 1.2 trillion
Iraq War: 587 billion
So far, about even.
Even Obama realizes health care is DOA after we are done bailing out Wall Street.
He is an "admirable person in many way" yet we do not have any idea what he did or said in college or even what his grades were like. He refuses to release transcripts or even his medical history."
Yes, what is left of the world is waiting to find out what grades Obama got in college.
Mac:
I thought the Republicans ran Arizona state government. I suppose they would sell the state to Mexico if they got a good deal.
-The indefinite detention of US citizens
-Massive government debt spending
-Invading and occupying countries that do not pose a real threat to US security
I would love to see a truly libertarian Republican candidate in 2012, especially if it means the Democrats will need to triangulate towards some ideals of personal freedom and a more fundamental reading of the Bill of Rights.
I see no benefit to McCain winning this year. That only extends the time we have no ability to choose candidates that are classical liberals.
"You know, I have multiple degrees, wouldn't you think I could figure out this Link thing? I don't think I'm stupid, although those who disagree with me would probably differ, but gee whiz, I hate getting beat by a green four letter word."
Nah, Mac, you're good people and far from stupid. Copy the link location, highlight a word in your post, then click the link button and paste the location in the pop-up box. Use preview to make sure it works.
Yet it is Obama and Biden who have both said they would send our military into Sudan.
My guess is that Obama will be more likely to get us into a stupid war if for no other reason than to show he isn't weak in the knees over the prospect, but it is likely going to be a humanitarian mission war rather than a matter of threat.
McCain might get us into a war, but I haven't heard him say he intended to send our troops anywhere other than the current hot spots, Obama has.
Shows you what you know. We have a Democratic Governor, Janet Napolitano. She is the reason we are broke, again, for the second time since I moved here in 2001.
True there are more Republicans in the State House than Dem's, but Janet wields a mighty veto pen.
Also, Loki13, it might interest you to know that Janet vetoed a bill passed by the State house and senate to require, among other things, proof of citizenship to vote. Do you have any idea how many illegals we have in this state? Wonder why she vetoed it?
We, the people, had to pass a state wide referendum to get the law passed. It passes by an overwhelming majority. She can't veto a referendum.
And, yes, the Supreme Court upheld it, thank God.
As one who is crazy according to you, they still trust me to work the poles.
No one has been denied the right to vote. Not one. Some may have voted and not had their vote counted, at least, if they couldn't prove they were who they said they were and lived where they said they lived. A few of those, yes. But they had ample time and opportunity to get their information straightened out and have their vote count, if they wanted to and if they were legit.
It is nice being able to have confidence in our voting system in Arizona. Too bad for much of the rest of the country and the country as a whole.
Rare for me, certainly. Thanks.
In a divided government, each side gives the other side something it wants to get something they want. We wind up with both sides want, which is more than what one side wants.
To me, at least, the contrary assumption seems logical. United government means less government. At least the losers don't get to regulate.
It would make as much sense, if Bush ordered the DOJ to arrest Joe Biden on trumped-up charges of being a rapist, for RedState to post gloating headlines along the lines of "VAWA Act Sponsor Now A Violent Sex Offender Himself!"
Aren't these Kos types usually contemptuous of the Nixonian juriprudence of "It's not illegal if the president does it"? Or is it only US presidents they distrust, assuming that if the Kenyan govt is run by laughing-eyed, leopard-print-daishiki-wearing Morgan Freeman lookalikes then it can't be definition be corruptly abusing its power?
I am going to wait until tomorrow to try this. I will cuddle my little bit of hope that I can figure this out by following your directions for as long as I can before I try it and my hopes are dashed.
I can and have copied your directions so they will be there waiting for when I can screw up my courage to try one last time to beat that damn four letter green word.
Um, why is the boss an SOB?
I also agree that "Liberals" and "Conservatives" are both relatively the same, the difference being who gets the spoils.
I'm still waiting to see the mythical "free" market too.
On the other hand, when it comes to pork, the incentives for pragmatic logrolling seem much stronger. Sure, you went to Washington to cut waste - but hey, your State or district really needed that military base or bridge, and if the price was agreeing to a bridge or highway in some other State or district, hey, one more by itself is hardly going to matter with a federal budget of trillions, is it?
That's because you make the common mistake of believing conservative = Republican.
Democrats and the media are fond of excoriating G.W. Bush as being "far right-wing" and "radical conservative" but Bush is not at all conservative -- that's why his approval rating is so low.
McCain is a Republican, but he's even further from conservatism than Bush.
How about for letting a man who seems to be violent, certainly is disrespectful of his duties and obligations as a trooper keep his job? Or, do you want to be pulled over by a drunk, violent cop? Or, do you think cops who commit family violence are never going to tend to use excessive force in the performance of their duty?
I think the boss is a SOB for covering for this guy and inflicting him on the public at large. Just as I would criticize a Doctor who is supervising a dangerous, incompetent Doctor and continues to allow him to practice medicine instead of blowing the whistle.
The trooper carries a gun, for God's sake, and is empowered by the State to use it and it's his victim's word against his. Yeah, I think trust in law enforcement, just like trust in the medical profession is something we have a right to expect and I expect someone's superior would get rid of a nut case, esp. one who drinks on the job. We generally don't expect to find our cops committing a DUI while on duty. And, if he is that irresponsible, what do you want to bet there is a lot more stuff in his file that he has pulled and we don't know about?
Felt was charged with others with
He was convicted in 1980, receiving only a fine. He was pardoned by Reagan in 1981.
I would have sent this message by e-mail. But oh, wait, you don't list a valid e-mail address.
The Throat keeps getting Deeper.
Industrial strength irony there in that last quoted paragraph.
Amazing how well the letter sticks to the Axelrod talking points. Nice message discipline. Although if that strawman gets knocked down any more he'll never make it to the wizard to get his brain...
I've never understood how "liberals" can be so passionate about protecting their civil liberties while blithely ceding every other form of liberty as Congress uses, for instance, the Commerce Clause to expand the federal government and its power to control so much at the cost of, well, individual liberties.
I think you'll right. The American people can not and will not accept certain facts - the decline of the American Empire. Any one willing to lead the American people down that path has put a bullet into his own head. We are living on borrowed time (the quality of life has been in decline for years) and money.
It helps to be dishonest, pretending that a more powerful government of any type is in the best interest of anyone. But when you're at the top, who can argue? That's the struggle, you see. It's always going on, and if you can just pit classes against each other and then swoop in with the government teat, then you have it made.
Yeah, I'm writing in Ron Paul. He's the only non-candidate candidate that is talking any economic sense. Obama and McCain are economic idiots. We don't need that right now.
You can start laughing. The country is going down the tubes as we speak. Under George W. Bush.
Isn't he a Republican? Or are we not supposed to say that in polite company?
<blockquote>"Face it, our current situation is a challenge for the libertarian worldview."</blockquote>
I'm sorry to tell you this but you are absolutely wrong on this. The economic conditions are precisely what was expected according to Austrian economics.
The government lowered interest rates below market values for well over twenty years. The fingerprints of this have been visible on the economy for quite a long time. It was only a matter of time before this caused a bust.
Those fingerprints during the monetary inflation are low savings rate, trade deficit, over leverage, stock mania, commodity price increases, asset inflation, and overinvestment in long term goods, to name a few.
This is a classical monetary driven Austrian business cycle. Caused in this instance by price controls on interest rates. They have been set way below market values for quite some time.
The distortions are more serious than a mere problem with credit. I won't bore you with those details because I don't think you are really concerned about the truth.
The answer to this crisis is to stop interfering in the market. Of course, that isn't going to happen. Instead our politicians are at this very moment prescribing more of the exact same policies that caused the problem.
This is what they actually said:
From the same article:
Will you be "reassessing Palin" once again, considering that the troopergate report has been released, finding that she abused her authority? And how does Palin being on the ticket and the possibility that she could be President very soon (if McCain is elected and for some reason can't complete his term) influence/affect your thinking and decision to vote for McCain?
I ask in all seriousness.
As you say, that's never going to happen. So shouldn't we be talking about second-best options right now, instead of libertarian fantasy?
In the first place, about 12% of my fellow citizens are black. Many of them plainly *feel* like the rest of society looks down on them. Whether or not the feeling is justified, it is unarguably real, and it seems to cause great distress. Electing a black President seems likely to decrease this distress, so other things being equal I'm for it. I suppose there are some people who would be distressed by having a black President, but my sense is that they are relatively few.
Second, my experience is that white liberals often have a really hard time getting past race. Affirmative action policies for example seem largely driven by the need to relieve white liberal guilt, rather than a desire to benefit black people. I'm hoping that the election of a black President will reduce this feeling of guilt and allow us to think more rationally about affirmative action and other issues having a racial component. In short, I believe that electing a black President will tend to make race less important, rather than more important, in politics, and that is something worth having.
There's really nothing reprehensible about it at all. I'm sure you wouldn't say that it'd be reprehensible if I voted for a Jewish candidate for President because, in part, I thought it would be nice if we had a Jewish President. Perhaps stupid, though I'd argue that there's at least something to be said for the symbolic importance of breaking the white, Christian, Anglo-Saxon monopoly on the White House, but it certainly wouldn't be reprehensible.
Regarding Mr. Ibershof's letter, I suggest you contact him with any complaints.
Further, Education Week reports that
The ironies never end.
Obama's opponents just cannot imagine that just may be nothing odious occurred in the CAC in the mid-1990s, long before Ayers declared himself an "unrepetant terrorist" while he was promoting a bo