Topic: Primary Wars (Read 45817 times)

Classic · « **Reply #320 on:** May 12, 2008, 04:47:59 AM »

Kazz believes the incredible ignorance of your responses reveal that you responders come from the local high school, perhaps of the variety that look at their senior's driving permits with envy.

Thad · « **Reply #321 on:** May 12, 2008, 10:37:41 AM »

Bob Barr to run as Libertarian.

I'm not exactly sure how he qualifies as a Libertarian, given that he's anti-abortion (for other people; it was apparently okay for his wife in '83), pro-drug war, WROTE DOMA, helped lead the Clinton impeachment proceedings, and tried to ban Wiccans from serving in the military. In short, where the rule-of-thumb definition of a Libertarian is "fiscally conservative, socially liberal", this guy completely fails the latter test. He's been active in the ACLU the past few years and opposed Bush's privacy invasions, but that hardly makes up for decades of rabidly anti-libertarian policies.

He comes across as more of a Pat Buchanan figure; he seems to be basing his campaign largely around being anti-immigrant and isolationist. Which of course has never worked out that well for ol' Pat, except where butterfly ballots were involved.

So that leads me to wonder why the Libertarians would nominate this guy -- is it a big tent thing, a "we can allow for the fact that he disagrees with us on these things so long as he agrees with us on these others"? Is it that they think he'll get more press for his name recognition, even though that name recognition is overwhelmingly negative? Is it that a plurality of Libertarian voters are ignorant and don't actually know the policies of the people they're voting for? (Anecdotally, I can vouch for a guy I knew in college who supported the Libertarian candidate in '04 without knowing all the crazy shit he'd said in the past, like proposing that prisoners be confined to beds so their legs would atrophy.) Or is the Libertarian Party moving into full-on Reform Party territory and not having any clue WHAT the hell it actually stands for?

Given that I've been seeing a trend in the Republican Party moving more Libertarian (sup Guild), it could be that in the long term we're going to see the "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" crowd become the Republican base and the religious base search for a new party. It won't happen overnight, but I could see it happening over the next decade or two.

Zaratustra · « **Reply #322 on:** May 12, 2008, 05:42:42 PM »

Libertarianism is communism 2.0. It looks real pretty on paper, but try implementing it.

TA · « **Reply #323 on:** May 12, 2008, 06:20:20 PM »

Libertarianism requires, as its fundamental premise, a magical fairyland where raw capitalism unfettered by regulation or ethical behavior, with profitability and "market forces" as the sole measure of action, producing a happy corporate paradise instead of The Jungle. It's childlike naiveté made a political ideology.

Fredward · « **Reply #324 on:** May 12, 2008, 06:26:11 PM »

Quote from: TA on May 12, 2008, 06:20:20 PM

Libertarianism requires, as its fundamental premise, a magical fairyland where raw capitalism unfettered by regulation or ethical behavior, with profitability and "market forces" as the sole measure of action, producing a happy corporate paradise instead of Rapture. It's childlike naiveté made a political ideology.

Poh-tay-toe, poh-tah-toe.

I just realized, we no longer have an Ayn Rand icon.

Arc · « **Reply #325 on:** May 12, 2008, 07:02:44 PM »

Inputting : doityourself : without the spaces still pumps out a

Thad · « **Reply #326 on:** May 12, 2008, 11:26:23 PM »

...Did you guys just mistake me for someone who thinks unregulated capitalism is a viable economic system?

Kazz · « **Reply #327 on:** May 13, 2008, 07:05:26 AM »

What's good for a corporation is automatically good for the people, Thad.

DUH.

Thad · « **Reply #328 on:** May 13, 2008, 10:47:19 AM »

Well, duh, Kazz; corporations ARE people.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #329 on:** May 13, 2008, 01:24:12 PM »

Oh god and I've been eating them this entire time.

Arc · « **Reply #330 on:** May 14, 2008, 01:23:24 PM »

The squawk box is squawking that Edwards will endorse Obama in an hour.

There is even supposedly a link for which you can view his flight to Michigan.

Cute.

Shinra · « **Reply #331 on:** May 14, 2008, 03:23:26 PM »

So Hilary wins WV by nearly 30 points, and has since actually LOST superdelegates. Now John Edwards is endorsing Obama. If there was any doubt the race was over before...

Mongrel · « **Reply #332 on:** May 14, 2008, 03:36:51 PM »

I like how Eddie waited 4 months for the safe choice. Smooooooth.

Shinra · « **Reply #333 on:** May 14, 2008, 05:01:29 PM »

Pretty obvious he didn't want to hurt his chances at being selected as a VP.

Mongrel · « **Reply #334 on:** May 14, 2008, 05:14:41 PM »

I think that becomes the next interesting question: Who's it gonna be? We've heard the 'for Hillary' arguments, but what of other comers?

Kazz · « **Reply #335 on:** May 14, 2008, 05:35:33 PM »

Quote from: Shinra on May 14, 2008, 05:01:29 PM

Pretty obvious he didn't want to hurt his chances at being selected as a VP.

t mongrel: gore plz

Arc · « **Reply #336 on:** May 14, 2008, 05:38:52 PM »

Don't be surprised if Gore endorses in Florida.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #337 on:** May 14, 2008, 06:47:42 PM »

The names I've seen as VP have been Edwards, Hillary, and Bill Richardson. They each have areas that can cover up some of Obama's weaknesses.

Shinra · « **Reply #338 on:** May 14, 2008, 06:51:56 PM »

Hillary and Edwards aren't going to make a difference in this one. Here's the thing; Racists are racists. No matter who Obama is running alongside, anyone who was concerned about Obama's race before is still going to be concerned about Obama's race after. People in Kentucky and West Virginia aren't going to go nuts and cast their vote for Obama instead of Mccain because Hilary is running alongside him now.

Richardson on the other hand can score Obama the hispanic vote that used to be an entirely republican demographic, and one that is growing increasingly important in some of the biggest swing states in the country.

Arc · « **Reply #339 on:** May 14, 2008, 06:56:28 PM »

Webb & Sebelius are two names that continue to come up in the circles I haunt.

News:

Author Topic: Primary Wars (Read 45817 times)