Ah, so a fictional creature! 
At this point I’d be okay with fiscal sanity.
On average, sure, democrats do wish to spend as much as republicans so there really isn’t a choicde (before the current administration I woulda said slightly more but the budget for the war is certainly W’s fault.)
But the two most socialist actions taken in the past half century were in Republican administrations (the other being Wage/Price controls under Nixon.) Like I said in another thread, I don’t lean socialist but if people want to vote in West European-style controlled economy let them VOTE it it. None of this stealth socialism.
The libertarians certainly like to think so. And they’ve been trying to become nationally relevant since 1971. It’s taking longer than they thought.
I can’t foresee rural voters giving up social conservatism any time soon. The only thing that could really shake up platforms would be, I don’t know, a financial armageddon. Lowering taxes doesn’t really help when you don’t have a job.
That’s because too many Libertarians come across as extremists (i.e. privatizing National Parks, getting rid of all Government services and land except for the military and what’s required to make laws, etc.) Some go too far in terms of tax hatred. People like (and, arguably, need or think they need) their services. The thing is, be honest about paying for it. Make it clear what the price is, what cuts have to be made. Don’t add new services or agencies unless there is a clear, strong and pressing reason to add them, not a merely transient political one.
What needs to happen is for someone to take an opportunity to redefine an existing party, say, after a party badly loses an election, and direct said party towards a more productive and responsible political path.
Libertarian-leaning Republicans, if the GOP loses big this November, here’s your chance. I sincerely hope you take it!
There already is one. But power brokers don’t want these people; they want people who will pass legislation that favors them.
I agree with this. In my generation (late 20s), it’s very common to see people who are fiscally conservative and extremely socially liberal. Ideally, the Libertarian Party should be catering to this group, but they seem to be too commanded by the zealots, people who insist that any tax is coercive and who have radical ideas about dismantling government as we know it (e.g. fire departments, libraries, public schools). If the Libertarian Party could present themselves as an option to those of us who want to remove all the morality laws and sin taxes and stop the reckless spending, they’d become nationally relevant.
Right. To me, fiscal conservatism doesn’t have to have anything to do with what sorts of programs are espoused. It has to do with how they are paid for (and that they ARE paid for) and what the justification is.
For example, I think universal health care can be fiscally conservative, as in the opposite of prodigal or wasteful.
I just watched both McCain’s and Obama’s stump speeches in Ohio this morning. There are glaring differences between the two in methodology, delivery and substance.
- Obama talks about concrete plans to fix the economic woes. McCain spouts slogans and makes vague references to a “plan”. He apparently believes that the booing rabble means he’s accomplishing something.
- Obama talks about what HE is going to do. McCain continues to repeat lies about Obama’s tax plan that have been outed over and over again by fact checkers, and make more vague references to his “plan”.
- McCain continues to talk about how he was a POW :
: and how that somehow qualifies him to lead a country. Obama talks about working across party lines, slashing the fat out of needed programs, and a point by point solution to the economic crisis, starting on day one.
McCain is a fucking liar. He’s been proven to be a liar over and over again, yet continues to spout the same bullshit, apparently subscribing to the Rove/Swiftboater Doctrine that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. Happily, the reaction to the two speeches show that 52% of those who listened believe Obama will handle the crisis, while only 32% think McCain will. I may be off slightly on the numbers.
…sadly, McCain is showing just how incompetent he is. Unfortunately, I have to say that he is indeed , in the early stages of senile dementia. I cannot imagine him making it through 4 years of being president.:eek:
I doubt its any kind of dementia, its more likely simply being old and enduring a presidential campaign, which is a brutal regimen for a much younger man.
Your link is one of my personal favorite anecdotes about Truman, as a man, as a father, and as a public figure. (Manchester tells it vividly in his history of the US, 1933-1972) (or so.)
I wonder if anyone has put it directly to Bill, though, in just this form: “Sir, the guy you describe glowingly on national TV as an honorable man, a decent person, a great American patriot–what was your opinion when he said [and then give him the verbatim quote about Chelsea].” I’d love to see his response. Anyone care to do a little speechwriting for WJC here?
I think it’s that he really doesn’t have any ideas. He’s running for president, I think, for the same reason Hillary did: he believes he’s due.
There was no reaction from the Clintons? I know that there were some threats at Rush to back off, but nothing to McCain?
At least Margaret was a grown woman. (In the link I gave, she said she found it funny, and said it even sold tickets!)
Why does there have to be a reason other than racism? Any nonwhite will tell you that it wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest that 5% of the population is either openly or quietly racist.
Indeed, IMHO, many people who “love black people”, and would happily have voted for Colin Powell and gushed to their friends about how articulate he is, won’t vote for Obama because he’s got a foreign-sounding name and he might be a terrorist, etc.
I’m quietly hopeful, but hardly quietly confident.
No, there isn’t. The Libertarian Party as currently constituted is just a halfway house for politically overwrought Republicans.
I think Libertarian ideals are great (although I disagree with much of what they’d privatize - healthcare, emergency services, etc.). The Libertarian Party doesn’t represent Libertarianism; it represents the wing of the Republican Party which has been marginalized by neoconservatism.
Look at the presidential candidates it fields: Bob Barr has always been a vocal proponent of restricting abortion, and personally authored the DOMA. Plus, if Wikipedia is to be believed, he proposed a Pentagon ban on the practice of Wicca in the military (WTF?). Ron Paul and Harry Browne’s policy positions have been pretty much the same- lots of “smaller government”, very little emphasis on the personal freedom bit.
Andre Marrou appears to have been a genuine Libertarian.
The people who are openly and quietly racist aren’t telling pollsters they’re going to vote for Obama, they’re either saying they’re voting for McCain or that they’re undecided. Pretty much, McCain has to hope that huge numbers of “undecideds” swing his way, plus a few who have been telling pollsters they’re voting for Obama. Show me a case of the “Bradley Effect” being true in the past ten years. And even if 5% of the population swings from Obama to McCain once in the privacy of the booth, erasing Obama’s 10 point lead, I’d still pick Obama as the winner on the strength of the electoral map favoring him and on his ground game.
If the polls remain where they are going into the election, and McCain wins, we might as well conclude that nobody knows anything about polling. I think that’s extremely unlikely to happen.
cough 2004 cough
I don’t think prior experience with the Bradley effect plays into it - Obama isn’t being labeled as black, he’s being labeled as an Arab/Muslim/terrorist/terrorist sympathizer, etc.
From everything I’ve been reading, the polls in aggregate were not that far off in 2004.
Ed
Well, you know, “Colin Powell”; sounds like he could be a mick.
I do agree with you about that. I just meant conceptually.