The quote in the post title, which appears at 3:34 in that video, comes from a GQ Magazine article from last November titled "Is This the Sanest Man Running for President?"
There is nothing he will not answer, nothing he will not share.... Johnson is fundamentally incapable of bullshitting, which is one of the many, many things that make him so unusual for a presidential candidate. (When a reporter asked him, after he gushed about how great New Hampshire voters are, if he says the same thing in Michigan, he replied, "No, Michigan's the worst.") He finds presidential politicking of the sort we've grown accustomed to—slick, scripted, focus-grouped, how-does-the-hair-look—to be "absolutely phony."
Another thing you need to know: He was never supposed to be the fringe candidate, and his campaign is no lark. Before he officially declared, he visited thirty-eight states—on his own nickel—to get a sense of whether he'd be a viable candidate. He was the first GOP candidate to announce, in early April, and for about twenty seconds seemed like a contender. The wildly popular (still) two-term Republican governor from a state that is two-to-one Democrat. A guy who's confident that he knows how to manage the purse strings and balance a budget because he did it—eight years in a row—in New Mexico. His fiscal conservatism is unmatched by anyone in the race. And his socially liberal cred—the only pro-gay and pro-choice Republican candidate—is unmatched even by some Democrats. (Of course, while this could be an asset in the general election, it's a bitch of a liability in the GOP primary.)
Posts
121 comments:
Problem is, while Libertarians are good on fiscal Conservatism for a variety of motives, they are often found wanting on other things equally important to most Americans, such as foreign policy.
I'm just wondering if GQ is more interested in splitting the Conservative vote than profiling the guy.
Conservatism with a Libertarian ethic is the way to go; Libertarianism by itself views the world as if we're all atomized individuals and community is just an artificial construct.
"I'm just wondering if GQ is more interested in splitting the Conservative vote than profiling the guy."
Of course it is. Why even wonder?
I decided when Romney became the nominee that Johnson would get my vote.
I try to express my disgust with the mob boss Obama and the wanna-be mob boss Romney, both angling to control every aspect of life on the basis of bare-majority rule... but no words can describe it.
Gary Johnson will not win.
But maybe if enough people say they will vote for him, and then vote for him... well, at least you can say you didn't support the Bastards.
I'm just wondering if GQ is more interested in splitting the Conservative vote than profiling the guy.
Voters won't fall from the Conservative mainstream because there's an alternative; they'll fall because the mainstream choice SUCKS.
McCain in 2008. An empty candidate.
Romney in 2012. Another empty candidate.
And the Republican Party itself is still blustering about on God and marriage, like a child whining and stomping his foot on the ground when he society doesn't give him what he wants.
When will the Republican Party grow up?
If your goal is the "sanest man" label and the "can't not speak the truth" label, then go for it.
If your goal is to actually, you know, WIN the race, then you'll have to change your behavior to do it.
Clinton had Perot. Maybe Johnson will fill that role for Obama.
Tim said...
I'm just wondering if GQ is more interested in splitting the Conservative vote than profiling the guy.
Of course it is. Why even wonder?
You never know, every once in a while there is a Tony Snow or Brit Hume out there to pleasantly surprise us in a field dominated by slugs.
PS People knew who Ross Perot was. He also had his own fortune to throw into the race.
Besides, this time out, people understand they can't throw their vote away again.
"Besides, this time out, people understand they can't throw their vote away again."
Hmmm."God" is going to throw his vote away.
So much for preening ominousness, eh?
I especially like the contrived beard stroking.
Solidifies the illusion of thinking...
But he's probably just sitting on the toilet, pissed at himself for not replacing the roll from last time.
You assume God speaks with straight tongue.
A vote for anybody but Romney (or a non vote) is a vote for Obama. Please stop trying to take some BS high ground.
We have, like it or not, a two party system. While you work to change that, pick a side. Staying on the side being a pissy critic is weak.
The "throwing your vote away" idiocy is brought to you by the Dem/Repub duopoly. It's stale and incorrect.
edutcher et al..., six months or so ago (paraphrased):
Those libertarians and Ron Paul supporters are nothing but pot-smoking slackers! GTFO of our Republican Party, assholes!
edutcher at al, today:
OMG! The libertarians are gonna vote for Johnson and split the vote that would'da gone to Romney! And Obama will be re-elected! How terrible!
And then edutcher tries to blame GQ for this. Or maybe Johnson.
But the real blame lies right there with eductcher, and all the other Republicans who did their best to exclude and generally shit on libertarians.
Yes SteveR, we have a two party system but it's not in the Constitution and the 2 party system has devolved into the campaign slogan, "We suck, but we don't suck as much as the other party." It's idiots like you that the duopoly love. Unfortunately, there are a fucking lot of you bozos. Useful idiots!
"Tim said...
Libertarianism by itself views the world as if we're all atomized individuals and community is just an artificial construct."
Not true. It recognizes that the best method to foster community is to allow it to form without the rigidity government inherently brings to it.
God paraphrases so much I think he personifies the aim of Ann's post about lying.
A vote for Johnson is not a vote for Obama.
Instead, a vote for Johnson is a vote for a different, better, IMPROVED opposition than the opposition we have now.
The Republican right now aren't much of an opposition-- neither in principle nor effectiveness. Sure, there are a few good ones-- Issa, Paul Ryan, the Pauls-- but that's pretty much it. Republicans can do much better.
Besides, the Republicans can have the libertarian vote anytime they want: just ask for it! But they've acted for a very long time as if libertarians are not welcome in their only-medium-sized tent... and few libertarians like to find themselves tightly packed in the middle of a crowd.
"God said...
But the real blame lies right there with eductcher, and all the other Republicans who did their best to exclude and generally shit on libertarians."
Maybe some also belongs to libertarians who delight in offending everyone they come in contact with, for example by referring to Christianity as "worshipping their sky-god".
"Not true. It recognizes that the best method to foster community is to allow it to form without the rigidity government inherently brings to it."
Except, every time I discuss this with Libertarians, they essentially out themselves as anarchists.
Admittedly, my sample size is not exceedingly large, but when asked, Libertarians cannot concede to any government; better yet, highlighting the highly atomized view, they can't agree with themselves on what government should do.
Libertarians are cats in a dog's world.
The problem with being "the pot guy" is getting your voters to show up to vote.
Dude! We missed it!
"What do you mean I have to register?"
"Instead, a vote for Johnson is a vote for a different, better, IMPROVED opposition than the opposition we have now."
If he can't win, you're throwing your vote away. Especially if you live in a "battleground" state.
If you live in Texas, or California, you could vote for "God" and it would make no difference whatsoever.
But "God" knew that already.
God said...
A vote for Johnson is not a vote for Obama.
Instead, a vote for Johnson is a vote for a different, better, IMPROVED opposition than the opposition we have now.
Just like the 1% who voted for Bob Barr didn't take away votes from McCain.
Not to mention the 7 million "Conservatives" who stayed home rather than soil their delicate little patties voting for McCain.
So now we have to figure out how to get the economy back because of all the protest votes.
And Tim is right, to a certain extent. Some Libertarians (and remember Libertarianism started with disillusioned Liberals) do seem more interested in driving a wedge between them and Conservatives.
Tim,
You need to talk to moderate libertarians. Otherwise it's akin to judging conservatism by Mick. Unfortunately the biggest difficulty with libertarianism is recognizing its limits, and the belief it could be comprehensive is seductive.
Since libertarianism has been implemented in very few times and places its limits aren't well understood even by well meaning adherents.
"Maybe some also belongs to libertarians who delight in offending everyone they come in contact with, for example by referring to Christianity as "worshipping their sky-god"."
I know people of all political persuasions; Marxists, Fascists and Libertarians are the most offensive and off-putting, in that order.
They're followed by liberal Democrats (with a special disdain for liberal academics), conservative Republicans, moderate Republicans. Conservative Democrats seem to be the nicest, for whatever reason.
But I'm just one conservative Republican. Your results may vary.
And the Republican party is still blustering on about God and marriage, like a child whining and stomping his foot on the ground when society doesn't give him what he wants.
Interesting. One would think that the Almighty would care about overturning a millenium of custom which has propagated the species and established civilized society, but apparently one would be wrong.
Although, one of Your servants saw the destruction of modern society because of a genitalia-focused, God-dismissing philosophy quite clearly. One presumes the Divinity is familiar with Humane Vitae, no?
"Unfortunately the biggest difficulty with libertarianism is recognizing its limits, and the belief it could be comprehensive is seductive."
Which is why I endorse it as an ethic to inform conservatism.
And by conservatism, I mean classic liberalism, the kind articulated, fought, died and secured by our founding fathers.
"Since libertarianism has been implemented in very few times and places its limits aren't well understood even by well meaning adherents."
I'd like to see/read/hear of one example where it has been implemented on significant scale. Regardless, as a conservative (politically, that is...) I'm highly resistant to "new" ideas.
Edutcher, I love the way you exhort everyone to quit whining even as you're running up the hill as fast as your legs will carry you.
The Republican Party - Relentlessly ceding social, cultural, and economic ground to the Progressives since 1916.
"at least you can say you didn't support the Bastards. "
Vanity, thy name is libertarianism.
You worry about how you look to others, rather than what's best for the country.
ndspinelli: I never said it was good or right, just a fact of the present. Do you intend to do anything about it besides being a smart ass? No.
You can get on your duopoly horse all you want. Unless you are actively working to change the system, besides blog commenting, you are just as complicit. I make no pretension otherwise. What good does Gary Johnson do with 2% of the vote? Changes nothing about the duopoly. Perot got near 20% and what did it change? Nothing about the system.
"We suck, but we don't suck as much as the other party." It's idiots like you that the duopoly love. Unfortunately, there are a fucking lot of you bozos. Useful idiots!"
That analysis is fine as it goes, but it fails in a head on collision with reality.
Romney wasn't my candidate.
My candidate was Perry. No one could have predicted he'd turn into Gomer Pyle during the debates.
So he's done.
And now, being left with a real world choice of re-electing this ongoing disaster of a president who is cannibalizing my children's future, or Romney, who at least seems to appreciate what America means, the choice is far too clear, far too easy.
Lodging a protest vote because Romney doesn't neatly line up with all of my positions is just stupid.
Actually, it's worse than that - it's an exercise in vanity.
"I'd like to see/read/hear of one example where it has been implemented on significant scale."
Early America. We industrialized faster than anyone else in large part because our business interests did not have to placate other societal stakeholders whose main interest was maintaining their position.
"The Republican Party - Relentlessly ceding social, cultural, and economic ground to the Progressives since 1916."
You must have been in a coma during the Reagan years, and no one told you about them when you woke up.
The "throwing your vote away" idiocy is brought to you by the Dem/Repub duopoly. It's stale and incorrect
I live in California. My vote is worth a bucket of warm spit.
@Carol -
You worry about how you look to others
Actually, I meant "say" as in "say to yourself"... a personal moral accounting, not an announcement on the Village Green.
The Republican Party is held hostage by conservative Religious fanatics and the Democratic Party is held hostage by "Progressive" control-freaks who never heard of a Govt program that they didn't like.
If only the parties will full of people more like me life would be simpler.
Doesn't everyone think the same way?
Conservative Democrats seem to be the nicest, for whatever reason.
They're the ones paying the least attention.
"Early America. We industrialized faster than anyone else in large part because our business interests did not have to placate other societal stakeholders whose main interest was maintaining their position."
If the operational effect of "Libertarianism" restores the political relationship between free men and Government as intended upon the founding, then yes, I'm with you.
But the world has changed significantly since then; for just one example, our foreign policy then would be dangerously naive today. And that's where we begin to part ways.
That, and legalizing Meth.
"MadisonMan said...
The Republican Party is held hostage by conservative Religious fanatics and the Democratic Party is held hostage by "Progressive" control-freaks who never heard of a Govt program that they didn't like.
If only the parties will full of people more like me life would be simpler.
Doesn't everyone think the same way?"
No. Most people clearly lean one way or the other because they view your statements as meaningfully different. I lean right because (a) expressing religiosity doesn't make one a nut, and (b) there is virtually no policy ground at risk of overreach from the right comparable to the risk from the left.
People who lean left judge that differently. If only they paid more attention they'd agree with me.
"Libertarianism by itself views the world as if we're all atomized individuals and community is just an artificial construct."
Good job! Never let your ignorance keep you from making a definitive statement.
Even conservateen CPAC hearthrob is turning away from conservatism
Gay marriage? In favor. Obamacare? “It’s a good idea.” Who would he vote for (if he could) in November? “Probably Barack Obama.” His favorite TV shows? “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report.” His favorite magazine? The New Yorker. And, perhaps telling of all, Krohn is enrolling this fall at a college not exactly known for its conservatism: New York University.
Most of us grow out of conservatism after we turn 13. It just takes us some of us a little longer!
"They're the ones paying the least attention."
More than a little truth, there.
I do like they don't want to run my life or remake America; they just seem to want things to work out, and for people to be protected from the down-cycles of life, especially when it isn't there fault.
Too much market intervention and too much government results from that wish, but it doesn't make them bad people - just short-sighted out of too much sensitivity.
"A vote for Johnson is not a vote for Obama."
Unfortunately, it probably is.
That's not something I like. I'd rather see Johnson in office than either of the two candidates who actually might win. But unfortunately, reality doesn't bend to what I like or dislike.
Can we do something about that, please? I'd love for reality to match my wishes, all the time.
"Good job! Never let your ignorance keep you from making a definitive statement."
Right.
Because I never talk to Libertarians about Libertarianism.
Moron.
So fill in the blanks.
Where am I wrong.
Take your time.
And be sure to not give away anything other Libertarians aren't prepared to concede too.
Moron.
Just so we're clear.
"Tim said...But the world has changed significantly since then; for just one example, our foreign policy then would be dangerously naive today"
This is largely true, although even there a few steps toward libertarianism could be helpful. Libertarianism works within a society. It doesn't apply to external relations. Fundamentally it minimizes the effects of institutional evolution, and so it only works when it can be applied to all the competitors. That's not possible with external affairs.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
The "throwing your vote away" idiocy is brought to you by the Dem/Repub duopoly. It's stale and incorrect
I live in California. My vote is worth a bucket of warm spit.
I live in NJ, so it's the same. Zero will get 55 to 60% here. I continue to be astonished that I am represented in part by Scott Garrett (of course, also by Menendez and Lautenberg - Ewwww).
I'll probably vote the Libertarian line again.
If you think you're "winning" with Romney, well, you need to think some more.
Johnson is fundamentally incapable of bullshitting
Bullshit.
The Republican Party is held hostage by conservative Religious fanatics and the Democratic Party is held hostage by "Progressive" control-freaks who never heard of a Govt program that they didn't like.
If only the parties will full of people more like me life would be simpler.
Doesn't everyone think the same way?"
and yet you don't have to go to church but you do have to pay taxes. be rational.
New CNN poll: 52% approve of all/most Affordable Care Act provisions, 47% disapprove of all/most provisions Link
Wow, that was fast.
Actually you don't have to pay taxes, but most people choose to pay them.
Most of us grow out of conservatism after we turn 13.
That's understandable. When you used to having patents provide for your every need, many people become quite accustomed to dependency. If not Mom and Dad, Uncle Sam will do nicely ;-)
New CNN poll: 52% approve of all/most Affordable Care Act provisions, 47% disapprove of all/most provisions
This can't be true since I've been told over and over again that "no one read the bill."
Wow - The Repubs with Romney, Boehner, Cantor and McConnell as their current standard bearers are religious fanatics?
It must be getting tougher and tougher for you to rationalize when you reliably vote for the Democrat.
New CNN poll: 52% approve of all/most Affordable Care Act provisions, 47% disapprove of all/most provisions
A 47% disapproval rating on a CNN poll isn't exactly a ringing endorsement but YMMV.
Id rather take a social conservative with moderate economic views, who knows about the struggle of working families in america than some market fundamentalist who can be chummy with hollywood milionairs and billionairs because of his progressive social views!
Even conservateen CPAC heartthrob is turning away from conservatism.
If you weren't such a pathetic hack, garbage, I'd say Claire McCaskill's desperate plea that the Democrat convention stay out of Missouri and her refusal to even attend might be more of a "turning away" story than that of some little-known adolescent.
But you are.
Do you people know how to win for fucks sake? Just win, stop with the idea that a principled candidate exists somewhere in the ether for you to latch onto. If he just so happens to end up the nominee, great. I realize that Romney isn't he best of candidates, but he is well beyond qualified to than incompetent buffoon we have now in office. WIN!!! Deal with the small shit later. Just win.
I insist on beating Obama, and not wasting your vote, but since I'm in CA, I can vote for whoever I want. There are about 17 million of us Californians who's interests will be ignored by the vote here. We should all vote Libertarian. Sending that message is the most powerful thing we can do with our vote. I've never done it, but this may be my year. "Like a virgin, touched for the very first time."
I do like they don't want to run my life or remake America; they just seem to want things to work out
I think paying attention to politics makes you more partisan, and thus meaner. You start feeling things and you take a position, take a side.
I was a conservative Democrat when I was younger. My parents were Democrats, my grandparents. The last Democrat I voted for was John Edwards in the Senate race in North Carolina, 2000. Fucker lied to me.
My barber used to have Rush on the radio. And my thought was, "he's so mean!" Now I think he's funny. Maybe I'm more conservative now--I do think we become more conservative as we get older--but I also think a lot of it is just paying more attention.
Also I think a tremendous amount of liberalism is due to indoctrination in our schools and from the media (and Hollywood). And so becoming more conservative is not just a function of getting older, but escaping the liberal controls. You wake up and figure things out for yourself.
Republicans are the thinking party and Democrats are the feeling party. So as you age and your thinking clarifies, you either accept the liberal dogma or you drift right.
I'm voting for Johnson. I don't believe Romney and I wouldn't vote for Obama unless I was paid well or waterboarded. Mainly I don't believe Romney. If he wins I'll call it the lesser of two evils - again.
Libertarians have a lot of good points and if the republicans can lean closer that way in general I would be very happy. But to go too far in that direction is crazy. The last time I looked at one of the presidential candidates he was talking about how drivers licenses are unconstitutional. Ron Paul's foreign policy is nonexistent.
As for the presidential election, we have two real candidates. Pick one. If you go third party, you have essentially picked one, whether you let yourself believe it or not. (and as mentioned, if your state is not a swing state, vote for anyone you like because it makes no difference - it's like the primaries every year, the decision has been made long before I get a vote)
Garage said:
"Even conservateen CPAC hearthrob is turning away from conservatism"
Simple explanation--the kid's a nerd. It's tougher to score chicks in a buttondown and khakis. He needs some blue jeans, a ratty t-shirt, sandals, an iPod with the right tunes, a little lefty bullshit.
When he starts paying taxes, he'll recover.
Methadras said...
Do you people know how to win for fucks sake? Just win, stop with the idea that a principled candidate exists somewhere in the ether for you to latch onto. If he just so happens to end up the nominee, great. I realize that Romney isn't he best of candidates, but he is well beyond qualified to than incompetent buffoon we have now in office. WIN!!! Deal with the small shit later. Just win.
Win.
What we have here is a disagreement about what that word means. To me, Romney is not a win. He's marginally better than Zero on some things, and worse on others. I'm not going to make believe a vote for him makes a difference. Overall, it doesn't.
Until more people appreciate that, to pick a small example, the country would not veer into chaos and ruin if we didn't require drivers to be licensed we haven't got enough appreciation of the value of freedom to stop the bastards playing us.
No one can rule in defiance of the people. The people in ignorance and fear are the medium for the culture of corrupt power that is sprouting from the decaying corpse of the nation. I suppose a miracle could happen but never until a candidate can campaign not on what he will do but what he will never do or what he will undo.
I hope for this. And, now and then, I buy a lottery ticket for the same reason.
Speaking of libertarians, when Ron Paul was gaining steam, I wondered for a moment, what would be worse, President Ron Paul or a Second Term for Teh One?
I say, Obama would be worse. The havoc Paul would create by axing whole departments would eventually ignite economic growth, and his foreign policy of hands off tyrants is pretty much a wash with Obama's.
Also I think a tremendous amount of liberalism is due to indoctrination in our schools and from the media (and Hollywood).
I tend to believe its largely due to the creation of a dependent constituency. Conservatism is a tough sell because you have to convince people that self reliance is the preferred and principled route rather than counting on the government to provide for your day to day needs.
He's marginally better than Zero on some things, and worse on others.
You can always spot the libertarians by the quality of the reefer.
Joe Schmoe said...
Edutcher, I love the way you exhort everyone to quit whining even as you're running up the hill as fast as your legs will carry you.
The Republican Party - Relentlessly ceding social, cultural, and economic ground to the Progressives since 1916.
Like the way Reagan dismantled most of the New Deal.
And what would Schmoe do, bend over and spread 'em wide?
Man, the FUD is deep today.
garage mahal said...
New CNN poll: 52% approve of all/most Affordable Care Act provisions, 47% disapprove of all/most provisions Link
Wow, that was fast.
Rasmussen begs to differ.
Adults and registered voters, and it's been well-established that there are different elements of ObamaTax that appeal to a lot of people.
It's just they don't like the whole mess together.
Even conservateen CPAC hearthrob is turning away from conservatism
One kid, who probably wants to get laid by some Lefty girl. It's how a lot of guys ended up at antiwar demonstrations in the 60s.
One big mistake candidates for president make is assuming their [relatively] local appeal automatically translates to a national appeal. By and large, all politicians are surrounded by sycophants and, due to their already over-enlarged egos, think far too highly of themselves.
Candidates like Carter, Clinton, Bush II and Obama--that is unknowns who burst onto the national scene--are the exception, not the rule. Typically, presidential candidates spend a large amount of time and effort created a public persona. They take high profile non-legislative jobs in government, they do a huge amount of public speaking. In short, they spend their thirties and forties campaigning.
The major point being that by the time a person runs for president, they should already be a household name and the average voter knows basically who this person is, what they generally stand for and whether they like the person or not.
Romney has been doing this, so has Hilary Clinton, Chris Christie and a few others. (Obama was trying to do this and got pushed in early.) Gary Johnson emphatically didn't do any of this; quite the opposite--he declared he was running and then constantly whined and proverbially stamped his feet when nobody paid attention. His arrogance would be stunning if it wasn't so damn typical.
We should all vote Libertarian. Sending that message is the most powerful thing we can do with our vote
This. It can't be said enough for Romney voters. Why settle? How else will they ever listen to you? Send them a message!
Better, vote for Romney and send President Choom a message.
And a quick retirement.
Gary Johnson as the sanest presidential candidate? Normal people don’t run for congress, senate or president, a former Gingrich / GOPAC operative observed a few years ago. So the sanity is relative.
The photos of the speedo (only) clad Governor Johnson emerging from the water establish him as… different, for sure.
As for bullshit, the claim by almost any governor, so gullibly swallowed by national media, of any virtue in balancing the state budget is just that. Nearly all states are constitutionally required to balance the balance. Even Johnson’s successor as New Mexico governor, Bill Richardson, balanced the budget, though with far more creative use of smoke, mirrors and federal stimulus money than Johnson. Richardson touted the “accomplishment” during his 2008 presidential race and the touting was accepted. Balancing the state budget is doing the job. Big deal.
When Johnson ran for governor, he benefitted from a weak Republican field and a couple of major errors by Gov. Bruce King, the Democratic incumbent. During the campaign I provided Johnson’s first briefing about Mexico, a topic about which I knew a little and he knew next to nothing.
garage mahal said...
New CNN poll: 52% approve of all/most Affordable Care Act provisions, 47% disapprove of all/most provisions Link
Wow, that was fast.
What was fast? Your rush to prove what an idiot you are?
Red Team versus Blue Team
Good Cop and Bad Cop
Fools and apologists who would support Read Team - just one more chance! - are examples of the triumph of hope over experience.
It has been 24 years since Reagan - six presidential terms - of which half, 12 of those years were under the reign of the noble House of Bush - for six years beginning in 2001 Red Team held the legislative and executive powers - and what have you got? - and don't forget that the bushites dropped the Roberts turd on the lawn for Red Team fans to step on - and so on. The codependents, of course, excuse the abuse by inventing stories about how much worse it would be if Blue Team wins. Suckers.
Except for the hope of an uncertain and personal thrill when your team wins, a vote for Red Team has become not only a civic waste of time but a ego-driven act of pretend.
Ron Paul's foreign policy is nonexistent.
Paul has very clear foreign policy ideas. Maybe you're just too into blowing people up.
"I'm just wondering if GQ is more interested in splitting the Conservative vote than profiling the guy."
The GQ article in question was published last year when he was still running for the GOP nomination. So, splitting the conservative vote wasn't even on their radar.
The issue of GQ was last November's, and it described and had pictures from events from the prior summer.
The main problem I have with libertarians is that some people really NEED blowing up.
Someone else who thinks it's a tax.
Apparently, Pelosi Galore got the memo through telepathy.
When interviewed, she caught herself in mid-ta.
"God" said...
And the Republican Party itself is still blustering about on God and marriage...
I don't care what anybody says. You're a comic genius.
Candidates like Carter, Clinton, Bush II and Obama--that is unknowns who burst onto the national scene--are the exception, not the rule.
We seem to have had a surprising run of "exceptions," don't you think?
PS Amazing how so many Lefty trolls are beating the drum for Johnson.
Quelle coinkydink.
New CNN poll: 52% approve of all/most Affordable Care Act provisions, 47% disapprove of all/most provisions
If we love it so much, run on that shit.
And it's Obamacare!
The "Affordable Care Act" can go fuck itself. Who calls it that, seriously? Do people even know what that is?
Calling it Obamacare is fucking brilliant, because when he goes down, it goes down too. The two of them are cojoined like Siamese twins.
Several big reasons to vote Romney:
1) Repeal Obamacare
2) Pass Ryan bill
3) Cut government spending
4) Screw the public unions
5) Close Guantanamo (joke!)
6) Stop assassinations (joke!)
7) Stop spending money like a drunk sailer
8) Win that war on women (joke!)
9) Replace Ginsburg on the Supremes
10) Repeal regulations, cut red tape, shrink bureaucracy, unleash capitalism
Romney will do 1, 2, 3, nothing on 4, nothing on 5, might very well do 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The public union fight is a state fight but I don't see Romney bailing out California, New York or Illinois.
Even if Romney is a squishy Republican, or a RINO, he's not L'enfant Terrible of Socialism, now is he?
Doesn't Ron Paul favor an isolationist foreign policy? I know that appeals to many but it never stopped us from being dragged into two world wars.
We seem to have had a surprising run of "exceptions," don't you think?
Yes and not for the better.
"Problem is, while Libertarians are good on fiscal Conservatism for a variety of motives, they are often found wanting on other things equally important to most Americans, such as foreign policy."
Do you really think "most Americans" consider foreign policy "equally important" as "fiscal Conservatism?"
What makes you think most Americans even think much about foreign policy?
And what makes you think "most Americans" are concerned with "fiscal conservatism, (no upper case called for) or even think about the economy in that way, as opposed to what is more likely: they simply want an economy in which they can find jobs that will pay them living wages?
Saint Croix wants Romney elected so he can cut regulations and "unleash capitalism."
Capitalism is pretty well unleashed and has been for quite some time, and the result is the smoking ruins of our national (and global) economy that we see cratering around us...even while the perpetrators of this financial devastation continue in their savage course: untouched, unrestrained, unpunished.
Yes, the best possible outcome would be if Romney won, and everybody like me who's vote gets wasted by electoral college we're to vote Libertarian. Then Romney would a have clear mandate, so that he could avoid misunderstanding this election, which many of us fear he will if he wins.
Depends on what's meant by "fiscal conservatism." There's the Bob Dole "tax collector for the welfare state" type, that thinks balancing a high-spending budget is as good as balancing a low-spending one. Then there's the "limit government to its essential functions" type.
People who actually understand what makes real wages rise over time are the limited-government type of fiscal conservative.
Economically Ill-informed people generally are either the first type of fiscal conservative or not fiscally conservative at all.
Candidates like Carter, Clinton, Bush II and Obama--that is unknowns who burst onto the national scene--are the exception, not the rule.
Carter, Clinton and G.W. Bush were governors--hardly unknowns except among dunces who don't read.
I love love LOVE seeing the needlepoint hand motion made when threading a point professorially that must be stated just so. And I love love LOVE seeing the eye roll and expression of contempt when someone else is speaking, used on each other.
By love I mean hate.
A long time ago I photoshopped dictators and autocrats giving speeches with their finger pointed up. Animated them. I have a somewhat animal reaction. I want to break the finger. It's a thing they do that bugs me so I'd have a random animal come flying into the frame and bite off the finger leaving it gushing blood all over the place.
There was Fidel Castro first, Ahmadinejad, all the Arab guys who give fiery speeches always stick up their finger. I noticed among all the Americans I photoshopped this way, stupid, I know, come on, a dolphin, a hummingbird? polar bears? they don't listen to speeches but they all attack sticking up fingers, they just go for it automatically, well the Americans all turned out to be Democrats and I stopped doing it.
I go to the Food Network to escape politics altogether, it is refuge. So I am resentful when politics intrudes its unwelcome presence and forces me away. Twice. With lies. The vegetables were bought not grown in the garden and I don't give a shit what the WH is having or bullshitting about growing. (right over some kind leaching pool it turns out, sewer or something, metal deposits, wouldn't pass government standards. previous residents.) Then again, a second time with the same bullshit. Viewers are shown a woman, herself, who clearly never gardens, kneel down to garden-like level, child level, and now looking direct into the camera, sticks up her finger and says, "now children you must always ... " I don't know what really happened next. I clicked. Obviously some random animal came flying out of nowhere and bit off her finger. I'm certain of it.
Like the way Reagan dismantled most of the New Deal.
Tell me what part of the New Deal is dead. Cause everywhere I turn there is a government agency and reams of laws applying to all aspects of our society. You don't have a long view of history, do you?
And what would Schmoe do, bend over and spread 'em wide?
You've got that covered. Whatever bravado you think your displaying, you're mistaken. I'm not saying don't push for what you believe in, but your Pollyanna approach is representative of how we got in this mess in the first place. More of the same ain't gonna cut it.
People who actually understand what makes real wages rise over time are the limited-government type of fiscal conservative.
This is a damn fine example of economic ignorance.
And what makes you think "most Americans" are concerned with "fiscal conservatism". . .or even think about the economy in that way, as opposed to what is more likely: they simply want an economy in which they can find jobs that will pay them living wages?
But doing what, Robert? The manufacturing sector is gone and it's never coming back. And it's all well and good to talk about the dignity of work (which I believe in), but that cuts no ice with the teenage mom with - if lucky - a GED slaving behind the KFC counter for minimum wage.
In the musical Ragtime, the Henry Ford character sings:
Even people who ain't too clever
Can learn to tighten a nut forever;
Attach one cord
Or pull one lever!
But shoddy manufacturing, corporate inbreeding and unrealistic union demands killed off "Motor City." And we hear over and over again that we need low-wage immigrants to do those jobs Americans won't do. So what are these "most Americans" supposed to do? What sector will give them a job that provides for the common good and gives them employment security?
Romney will cut government spending?
Huh???! Where? How? When?
Are these future Romney marks... oops! I mean "voters"... high?
Take a look at the growth in inflation-adjusted per capita spending per by President.
Nixon-Ford spent most.
Reagan-- Mister "government is the problem" himself!-- grew spending by a larger amount than any Democrat!
Conservative superhero George W. Bush grew spending by as much as Reagan.
Conclusion: The idea that the Republican candidate will cut government spending is bullshit!
This doesn't say that Democrats are misers, nor angels, nor honest-- just that past experience indicates that Romney will not cut government spending... despite what he says during the campaign.
Carter, Clinton and G.W. Bush were governors--hardly unknowns except among dunces who don't read.
"[D]unces who don't read" make up the majority of the electorate. They probably make up the majority of primary voters as well.
Joe Schmoe said...
Like the way Reagan dismantled most of the New Deal.
Tell me what part of the New Deal is dead. Cause everywhere I turn there is a government agency and reams of laws applying to all aspects of our society. You don't have a long view of history, do you?
Cute, snark instead of answers.
Much of the New Deal regulation that held business back was repealed in the 80s. It's why the Lefties hate Reagan so much.
And what would Schmoe do, bend over and spread 'em wide?
You've got that covered. Whatever bravado you think your displaying, you're mistaken. I'm not saying don't push for what you believe in, but your Pollyanna approach is representative of how we got in this mess in the first place. More of the same ain't gonna cut it.
I see my question was rhetorical.
And re-electing President Choom won't help much, either.
We've got a very disgruntled Libertarian. They thought we'd all run to their guy and it's not happening.
Either that or,
The numbers coming out must that bad.
The FUD dispensing is over.
Now, they're throwing hissy fits.
Saint Croix said...
New CNN poll: 52% approve of all/most Affordable Care Act provisions, 47% disapprove of all/most provisions
If we love it so much, run on that shit.
And it's Obamacare!
No, ObamaTAX.
Capitalism is pretty well unleashed and has been for quite some time, and the result is the smoking ruins of our national (and global) economy that we see cratering around us.
Interesting because at least insofar as the EU, cratering it was hardly unrestrained capitalism as much as it was unrestrained spending. Greece which is hardly the poster child for capitalism is tettering on economic collapse because they proved true Thatcher's adage about socialism and running out of other people's money. Italy and Spain are close to following suit.
No, the economic cratering as you call it was brought on by too much loose credit and too many living way beyond their means.
And it's all well and good to talk about the dignity of work (which I believe in), but that cuts no ice with the teenage mom with - if lucky - a GED slaving behind the KFC counter for minimum wage.
One of the problems with our society is too many teenage moms with a GED.
Even Johnson’s successor as New Mexico governor, Bill Richardson
Wait, was Johnson governor back then? And tried to get drug laws repealed or something like that? I may have met him once, then.
The Devil has taken a personal day off today and God is covering for him.
Robert Cook said... you may have overlooked the fact that every bank regulatory agency was created by democrats and every bank that failed was a regulated bank. Then there was the great genius of the democrats that deemed its ok to have banks regulated and insured by the federal government offer loans to people whose incomes need not be verified, need not have a sufficient downpayment and that those loans could be packaged for sale backed up by the full faith and credit of the United States. Capitalism had nothing to do with this.
Colonel Angus said...
And it's all well and good to talk about the dignity of work (which I believe in), but that cuts no ice with the teenage mom with - if lucky - a GED slaving behind the KFC counter for minimum wage.
There weren't too many teenage moms prior to welfare.
Abolish welfare and once again there won't be too many teenage moms. Or have her be designated as the maid/cook and other services provider to a taxpayer.
Paul has very clear foreign policy ideas. Maybe you're just too into blowing people up.
Yes, I love blowing people up. That's all this difference of opinion on foreign policy is about. You are totally right.
It couldn't be that isolationism is putting your head in the sand and pretending we still live in a world where the only threats come from the sea or over land and that we can just leave the rest of the world alone and it will leave us alone.
Take a look at the growth in inflation-adjusted per capita spending per by President.
Considering Congress controls federal spending, your silly chart is meaningless.
Considering Congress controls federal spending ...
Ok, that's a true statement in principle, but it's actually an incredibly stupid assertion in light of how the government works in practice.
What I find interesting is that Ron Paul had a huge following with those in the military. I wonder do they agree with Paul's stance on foreign wars and our military bases around the world?
"LoafingOaf said...
Ron Paul's foreign policy is nonexistent.
Paul has very clear foreign policy ideas. Maybe you're just too into blowing people up."
Bill Clinton's foreign policy consisted of weekly meetings and yellow ribbons when the Serbs kidnapped some of our "kinder, gentler" military.
How did that work out? Who blew up what ? We seem to be on the same page with foreign policy now. Except for drones Libertarians should love the Obama foreign policy.
I think it will end like the Clinton foreign policy.
Bush was on the right track until he fell for nation building.
CA & NJ have a distinct purplish tinge nowadays. Of course it's a very very very long shot (especially for CA) that they might swing GOP. The odds (especially in CA) are overwhelmingly against it. But it's not inconceivable.
There have been quite a few electoral surprises in the last few years (e.g. in WI); I have a feeling we'll see more in this election. Polls are unreliable.
My own personal precept is, vote for the most libertarian (i.e. classical liberal) candidates (with a chance of winning) downticket. But don't eff around with a vote for the presidency when the stakes are so damn high. (And we know Obama's rounding up a vast army of lawyers, in preparation for a possible Bush/ Gore situation.)
In November, the #1 message I want to send is to Obama, the Dems and the MSM. In 2016, I'll see what message I want to send to Romney.
I have no problem with God voting for Johnson, because I have a feeling God was a 2008 Obama voter. So that's more a message to Obama than it is to Romney. Same goes for a lot of the Ronulan youth who decide to vote for Johnson. I wish they'd vote for Romney in this election-- with so damn much at stake, especially after the ACA ruling-- but I'm still appreciative of the fact that they're not under Obama's (or the MSM's) spell.
Edutcher, Reagan instituted tax cuts and increased defense spending. That's what grew the economy. Not bringing down New Deal laws.
To Reagan's credit, he opposed environmental and social entitlements that were being pushed by Democrats at the time. But he didn't unravel the entitlement state significantly.
Political parties love having uncritical, unthinking members like you. You keep cheerleading for whomever they tell you to, okay? As for blog posts, make them truthful, accurate, and much less banal. Since you seem to not have much else to do besides comment on every single blog post, I'm trying to help you out here.
"...Reagan instituted tax cuts and increased defense spending. That's what grew the economy."
I doubt increased military spending helped grow the economy, but if it did and if that's what it takes, there's something wrong with the economy. Also, before Reagan's 8 years were up, Reagan had also signed off on several tax increases, (as he had also done as governor of California).
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2154/reagans-forgotten-tax-record
"Robert Cook...you may have overlooked the fact that every bank regulatory agency was created by democrats and every bank that failed was a regulated bank. Then there was the great genius of the democrats that deemed its ok to have banks regulated and insured by the federal government offer loans to people whose incomes need not be verified, need not have a sufficient downpayment and that those loans could be packaged for sale backed up by the full faith and credit of the United States. Capitalism had nothing to do with this."
You do not mention that the key protective regulation pertaining to banks that had been implemented after the Great Depression--the Glass Steagall Act--was rendered null and void by our last Republican Democratic President, Bill Clinton, so the banks have been free these last dozen years to do pretty much as they have pleased. What remnants of regulations may remain have simply not been enforced. (See the recent questioning by the Senate Banking Committee of Jamie Dymond--who was not under oath--in which our intrepid "regulators" tried (un)manfully to outdo each other in their feats of strenuous obsequiousness before Dymond, each relishing his turn at licking Mr. Dymond's nether regions.)
The sub-prime mortgages had nothing to do with the banking collapse, but it had entirely to do with the banks' own heedless and criminal behavior. Unleashed form the regulatory whip, they have behaved as ravening jackals. It is the bankers and Wall Street financiers who are parasites on our wealth, and not, as many would have it, the other way around.
If you would look around you will find plenty of reportage that has covered it and is still covering it extensively.
"You do not mention that the key protective regulation pertaining to banks that had been implemented after the Great Depression--the Glass Steagall Act--"
This idiotic demonization of repealing the GSA has been debunked more time than Althouse has posts. The left merely looked in the rearview mirror for some piece of deregulation to perpwalk and this came up. The only theory this evidence proves is that lefties will believe anything that supports their narrative.
If my state is not competitive at the time of the election, I'll definitely vote for Johnson.
If you want to eliminate the spoiler effect, visit http://www.approvalvotingUSA.org. There are examples of how approval voting will help create more civil elections and eliminate the spoiler effect!
As if it wasn't bullshit to pretend that Obama couldn't change his position as a result of compromise and delegating the legislative process to, you know, the CONGRESS. Or that the ACA's coverage provisions couldn't have been crafted to be less onerous than MA's might have been.
But I guess being ignorant of the facts (and elementary assumptions) is a great excuse for not taking responsibility for the bullshit that Johnson peddles.
I just wanted to point out that Obama's speech from June 28th, which is excerpted at a couple points, expressly acknowledges his change in position and gives an explanation for it--including the assistance he mentioned was necessary to help those who can't afford to pay for mandated insurance. If the complaint is that people should never change a position on anything or be persuaded, fine (I think that's a demented viewpoint, but okay). If it's that Obama has somehow been anything less than candid about the change and given reasons for it, it's a deeply misleading ad.
"Lodging a protest vote because Romney doesn't neatly line up with all of my positions is just stupid.
Actually, it's worse than that - it's an exercise in vanity."
Roger that! Still, he's eunelectable because he won't admit/attack the phenomenon of evil (which does NOT = a reality of evil [you'll have to find the difference yourself]), which this USA regime and the ones in Europe and the Middle East embody.
Cook, I do assert that increased defense spending under Reagan helped grow the economy. The military buys all of its equipment, and I mean all, from private companies. If the Air Force buys some fighter jets, that's hundreds of millions of dollars going to a private entity like Northrop Grumman or Lockheed. That's a lot of good jobs, and also a lot of sales to secondary suppliers as well. It's a positive case study for trickle-down economics.
Reagan didn't increase defense spending to grow the economy. The fact that it did was a secondary benefit. I agree that an economy that consistently relies on increasing defense spending isn't a healthy one, or necessarily a benevolent one. But I'm not sad that Reagan did it to cause the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union.
"Libertarianism by itself views the world as if we're all atomized individuals and community is just an artificial construct."
Not to belabor the obvious but that is just an objective fact. You might not like it but the universe is constructed so that it can be no other way. Individuals have mass and take up space. The things they build do as well. But community in the sense you mean it outside of these objects is indeed the very definition of an artificial construct.
Generally the more you arrange things to comport with reality the better off you are... which is why socialism is always such an abysmal failure.
Post a Comment