Libertarian Endorses Bush

[publius]

I haven't forgotten, Ieyasu. I agree Bush would probably be better in that area, though I doubt he'd appoint anyone who disagreed with him about the mean looking weapons ban.

I'm also very concerned that in a couple of days, John Kerry could have the power to unilaterally declare a citizen an enemy combatant and lock him up indefinitely on secret evidence. Strikes me as changing the form of our government, invalidating habeas corpus, and assaulting parts of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments to the Constitution.

I doubt Bush will appoint people who disagree with him on that.

I'm concerned about the political class taking over political speech in this country through things like McCain Feingold, but how likely is it that Bush is going to appoint someone who goes around saying that a law he signed is unconstitutional? Wouldn't that be kind of embarassing?

At some point, enough is enough. For me, we've past that point.

 

[Ieyasu]

I'm concerned about the political class taking over political speech in this country through things like McCain Feingold, but how likely is it that Bush is going to appoint someone who goes around saying that a law he signed is unconstitutional? Wouldn't that be kind of embarassing?

I think it's highly likely. Bush has said he'd try to appoint justices like Thomas and Scalia. Guess who opposed McCainiac-Feingold I know you know this, but this is for the benefit of others. These are the four justices who opposed the decision:

Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia

Bush has said there were parts of the Act he didn't like. I doubt he'd use anything in McCain Feingold as a judicial litmus test.

Again, I know you know this Publius, but for others who may be wavering, the next prez may be able to appoint F-O-U-R new justices to the Court. That is a chance I do not want to take with Kerry. Is it 100% certain that Bush will appoint the "right" justices? Of course not, however I think the chances are likely enough, that as much as I thoroughly detest many of Bush's policies, the future direction of the Court is far, far too important to pass-up a fighting, and perhaps [edited to add] ONCE IN A LIFETIME chance!

 

[publius]

A good point, well made.

The extra baggage is just too stinky for me to want to ride along.

Continuing to reward these people will result in more of the same. It's amazing to me that people who see that the danger of appeasing a dictator is that he will just grow more powerful seem oblivious that the danger of appeasing statists is exactly the same.

In 10 or 20 years, how much worse will the lesser of two evils have gotten, if we already have to accept McCain Feingold and the mean looking weapons ban and all the other things I've mentioned?

A series of tactical retreats is not the path to victory.

 

[Ieyasu]

A series of tactical retreats is not the path to victory.

I look at this not so much as a retreat, but rather delaying an attack on one front because the opportunity to attack on another is so appealing, and it's an opening that may not present itself again anytime soon. Or to use another imperfect analogy -- taking a punch to deliver a bigger one.

Continuing to reward these people will result in more of the same.

I agree. What is being attempted in California is a "Political Human Sacrifice." A top-rated Southern California radio program is asking its listeners to punish the Republican Party for waffling on illegal immigration by sacrificing a selected California congressman — politically speaking.

I understand your frustration and I guess you feel you've already taken too many punches. I'm willing to take a few more for a chance to strike back.

 

[publius]

Well, good luck with that.

 

[Ieyasu]

Thanks, but I don't think I'll have a chance to see how that strategy pans out.

I see Bush losing by 1% of the popular vote.

 

[publius]

Really? I see Bush winning. Despite my comment about looking over the numbers and thinking about issues, it seems to me that elections are decided based on likability as perceived through a TV camera.

Nixon may be an exception, but other than that...

Ford: not particularly likable, Carter: big ol' grin. Carter wins.

Carter: big ol grin disappeared at some point, Reagan: very likable. Reagan wins.

Reagain: looking better after 4 years in office and being shot, Mondale: cold fish. Landslide.

Bush: not all that likable, Dukakis: utterly ridiculous even before the tank. Bush wins.

Bush: still not all that likable, Clinton: likable in a sleazy way. Clinton wins.

Clinton: still likable and sleazy, Dole: Dour on TV, though very funny if you give him a chance. Clinton wins again.

Bush: the TV cameras only loved Reagan more, Gore: an animated mannequin. Bush wins.

Bush: I wasn't sure the English language was going to survive the debates, but he's still likable on TV, Kerry: a mannequin without the animation.

We'll know in a couple of days, or maybe a couple of months. <shudder>

Unfortunately, there are no likable Libertarians.

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

The issues will finally surface

John Kerry, if elected, will not accomplish anything if the senate and congress are controlled by Republicans. His administration would face four years of political gridlock, with no hope of re-election come 2008. If anything, a Bush loss will be a step in the right direction come 2008. That is if the media reports Badnarik as the spoiler and brings the LP to light. What we may have is a republican party searching for ways to reform itself in order to gain the presidency again and face Hillary.

Could we have a LP member running on the Republican ticket in 2008?

Im voting Badnarik for president, and Republican the rest of the ballot.

 

[publius]

I voted for Porter Goss several times, didn't vote for him other times. It never mattered, I live in a safe R district.

I wrote to the new guy about the DC gun ban. Here's his reply:

Dear Publius (well, he used my real name),

Thanks for contacting me about a recent vote in the House of Representatives to repeal the ban on firearms ownership in the Nation's capital. I voted against this legislation, H.R. 3193.

This legislation was opposed by the mayor, Congressional delegate, police chief, city council, and school board of Washington, DC. I have always believed in states rights and self-determination. While Washington DC is not a state, it has been largely self-governed through its elected mayor and city council for nearly four decades. I believe that my vote is consistent with my views of federalism and the rights that are reserved by the people and the states.

Thanks again for writing on this issue.

Needless to say, we don't exactly see eye to eye on the rights of the people as they concern firearms.

The Congress clearly has the power:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States

 

[Ieyasu]

Really? I see Bush winning. Despite my comment about looking over the numbers and thinking about issues, it seems to me that elections are decided based on likability as perceived through a TV camera.

I'd substitute likeability for presidential. (I'd say likeability is a component of that.)

The reason for my pessimism is that as someone else said, the media is trying to do all it can to drag Kerry across the finish line. I don't think Bush can beat that. Further I think the polls show Bush in trouble. He can't break the 50% barrier (among the polls that fared well during Bush/Gore [eg. Harris]). Historically it's a miserable sign for an incumbent who can't break the 50% mark.

Unfortunately, there are no likable Libertarians.

Man, I know I should just keep my mouth shut, but I am frustrated! Libertarianism as a separate party is hopeless for all time and forever. Just the fact that we've had "Social Security" in its present form for so many years with barely a peep from the morons who meekly pay into it, tells me everything I need to know about where this society is ultimately heading.

Although I have a farely large libertarian streak, I'll hope the Repub party will change from within (lucky pot shots here and there). There will never be a majority of people in this country who truly want to live free.

Anyways, I just hope you're right with your presidential prognostication!

 

[publius]

Libertarianism as a separate party is hopeless for all time and forever.

True, and the reason I left a with that reply.

So is socialism, I'd add, but the Socialist Party has done pretty well at getting their ideas stolen by the old parties. And, I might add, so are we. Long before it was acceptable in Republican circles, Libertarians were talking about things like vouchers, emissions markets, privatizing socialist security, contracting out govt services, etc.

OK, so maybe Milton Friedman is singlehandedly responsible for our best ideas, but we were still the only safe place to talk about them and promote them. And so it remains, actually. I just saw W's man Gillespie on Meet the Left emphatically explaining over and over that the President was NOT talking about privatizing Socialist Security. It seems the P word is still a dirty word, but W is actually trying to sneak a bit of our idea into the program.

Anyways, I just hope you're right with your presidential prognostication!

The number one reason to be of good cheer:
We live in the greatest country in the world, and that will be true in 4 years and in 8 no matter who is elected. No other country can grow Texans like we do!