This is a very serious request, though I'm sure some of you will be inclined to take it as anything but.

I consider myself a centrist-libertarian. I've voted libertarian in every election since 1980, and will probably do so again. I'm not a hard-line libertarian, as I like to think that I am pragmatic enough to favor sensible things even when they don't fit the hard-core libertarian philosophy. For example I would favor a national health-care plan similar to what France has, where there is a free-market out from socialized medicine, and instead of eliminating all taxes I would favor the implementation of a consumption tax to replace or reduce other forms of taxation. In 2000 Bush said that he was going to reduce the size of the federal government and get us out of the nation-building business, and while I didn't vote for him I did prefer him to Gore on that basis, but he proceeded to spend 8 years proving that he had lied to me when he said that.

I'm inclined to believe that Barack Obama will most likely be the next president of the United States. I have spent the last few months trying to find something to like about him. Given that a lot of presumably intelligent people seem to think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread, or at least since JFK, I keep thinking there has to be something about him that would appeal to me. But I'm just not seeing it.

In reading/reviewing his books and his website, my reaction to his ideas is:
1. Many of them just aren't doable.
2. Most of the ones that are doable would in my estimation do far more harm than good.
3. The ideas that I find doable and unobjectionable don't seem to fit well with who he is, or has been, based on his track record in the Illinois legislature and US Senate. He seems to be trying to paint this picture of himself as a consensus-building centrist, but that's not who he has been at any prior point in his political career.

That being the case, life in the US under a President Obama appears to me to be a very bleak and unappealing picture. I'm pretty sure that if he is elected president I will want to leave the country, and will want to move my investments offshore as quickly as possible. My biggest fear is that before I can get myself safely away from here, he and the Pelosi-Reed congress will push through laws to make it more difficult or impossible for me to do so. I don't see anything about him to appeal to a libertarian.

And yet, he seems almost destined to be elected. Even worse to me, currrent polling seems to indicate that the strongest ticket would pair Obama with Johnny Edwards, and Edwards is probably the one guy who scares me more than Obama. Is there really anything good about him? If so, what is it? If not, are people just so angry with Bush (which sentiment I can certainly understand) that anything looks good by comparison?

For the record, I'm not fond of McCain either. I liked McCain when he was a maverick, but not since he kowtowed to the Bush/religious right element to get the republican nomination. I'm not sure he's truly Bush 3, but I certainly don't want that if he is. I did see a pro-McCain bumper sticker that said "Better Bush 3 than Carter 2." I certainly don't want Bush 3 or Carter 2, and I guess my fear is that Obama looks way too much like Carter 2 for my taste. Had Carter been reelected in 1980, I was prepared to leave the country then, and sometimes since I wish that I had done so. This is starting to be one of those times.

I would probably have voted for Hillary if she had gotten the nomination. I'd be much happier if right now we were getting ready for Bill 5, than either McCain 1 or Obama 1 (not the least because that means we'd have had Bill 3 and Bill 4 instead of W 1 and W 2).

Anyway, that's how I feel right now. Is there any reason why I should not be so pessimistic? Say something good about him if you can (not just "he's not Bush" either, I mean something good about him, not something bad about someone else).

This country is being flushed, and we're already circling the bowl. My hope is that once it has been brought to its knees ... its economy crushed ... its currency under hyperinflation and no longer the world standard ... its civil liberties trampled and abused .... its Constitution ignored by those who swear to uphold it ... its reputation around the world undermined and destroyed .... that WE THE PEOPLE rise up once again, and resinstate the American Revolution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights,Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
-- The Declaration of Independence

BTW -- on leaving the country for somewhere with more freedom ... good luck. Many prominent Libertarians have already done so, and found most of the modern world to be even worse than we are. Though at the rate we're plummeting, that could soon change. I encourage you to look into the Free State Project in New Hampshire if you're seriously interested in moving for Liberty.

I think a potential best case scenario is that in DC vs Heller (right to bear arms case) ... that the Supreme Court rules IN FAVOR of DC... in which case Montana will secede from the union. And if they do, I'm dead serious I'll effing move to Montana. I'm sure other people like the Free State Project would beeline out there too.

Start packing. Where are you going to move to?

RobertN Wrote:Start packing. Where are you going to move to?

This is great. I ask for something positive about Obama and this is what I get in response.

As for where I might move, that's for me to know.

We survived 4 years of Jimmy Carter... gas lines, stagflation, military decay, high interest rates, etc.

But Obama scares the hell out of me. I can see the US suffering a terrorist attack, and Obama not retaliating. "A war is not the answer" he will say.. (if his teleprompter works).

The Soviets walked all over Carter. I can see the Chinese stomping all over Obama, who won't do a thing to stop their continued economic and political influence expansion into Central/South America and Africa.

You have a great point. What DOES Obama stand for??? After all.. he promised us "change" and nobody has pinned him down on what he EXACTLY means. This guy is getting a "pass' on everything. The things he does say that make me feel better, like his speech before AIPAC, he contadicts the next day.

He is just a slimey Chicago politician.

WMD Owl Wrote:We survived 4 years of Jimmy Carter... gas lines, stagflation, military decay, high interest rates, etc.

Obama would have 10 times the power Carter had backed by a Congress that was just as left as him. This will be nothing like Carter's term. I'll be 1000 times worse.


GTS, you seem to think all people will just get ticked off and decide to stand up. I can assure you, that will not happen. The Democrats are turning this country into the haves (Politicians, people in politics, Hollywood) and Have Not's (Everyone else). They have mastered pitting one group against another. If we do find ourselves in a revolution, it'll make the Civil War look like a mere scuffle.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:Start packing. Where are you going to move to?

This is great. I ask for something positive about Obama and this is what I get in response.

As for where I might move, that's for me to know.

You expected more from him?

I don't think you'll find anyone here that'll be able to answer your question about Obama. FWIW, I'll cut and paste this post from another forum.

Quote:...I just do not understand many comments made over and over in these forms of arguments. One such argument that baffles me is why the socialism attack needs to be brought up. The policy of universal health care is an ideology commonly associated with this attack. What is wrong for providing for so many who can't provide for themselves? Health care should never be a privilege; it is basic human decency to "promote the general welfare." Look at the fine government health care programs that have been established all over the world. Patients get the same and most often better care than they ever received under whatever previous system was adopted by their governments. Barack's plan isn't a straight up universal health care program, that would overload policy makers, but it will build the foundation to build up to this necessary change. All people here have been personally affected by serious disease and anything that can be done to make getting through those types of ordeals easier, should be. This goes hand-in-hand with different medical research such as stem cells. My mom suffers from diabetes and I see her struggle with this day in and day out. I wish for a better world for her. If after reading you still associate socialism with Obama and others please explain to me the reasoning.
What are the other reasons to support this candidate? There are many and I probably won't get to everything in this space. I believe that through reengaging the world around us all the problems we face in today's America improve. Everything from the economy, to the oil industry, to the productivity of our nation can be improved by just opening up the international dialogue once again. Positive energy will always go farther than isolation tactics and hate. As wonderful and great a country this is we can't do it alone. Instead of being a nation which leads by fear and force we should lead by positive strength and example. President Bush has isolated us, while Senator McCain is a dear man and a great American he will continue to isolate us, but Barack has made it known that he will exercise the power of American diplomacy once again. What comes through about Senator Obama is his genuine care for the country. He is not the run of the mill politician. Many people have been strategically shaped by this administration to believe that all politicians are the same. He has done much already to show the American people a different way. He has refused to be weighed down and obligated to lobbyists and continues to refuse to spew hate and negativity towards his opponents. No one outside of the Obama campaign speaks for the Senator. He should not be held down for the comments of an outsider. Who knows what the motives are at hand that make people say what they say. There is more to say I am sure and I am not the perfect spokesman for the Senator but I will leave you with a few final thoughts. We need a strong leader for our country, not a flippant one with a heavy trigger. I am neither Democrat nor Republican, I am an American. No matter how cliche that sounds, it is exactly what more people need to identify their selves with these days. I think everyone would be best served to step away from the partisan shades in which they view politics through and examine who they believe would be the best to lead our country out of its difficulties and into a new era. I know for me, I only see one candidate with the vision that can write the wrongs. Here's to America becoming a better country in 09 than it was in 08...

Rebel Wrote:

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:Start packing. Where are you going to move to?

This is great. I ask for something positive about Obama and this is what I get in response.

As for where I might move, that's for me to know.

You expected more from him?

Apparently this RobertN fellow doesn't provide too many viable responses. I asked what he and his fellow Northeastern folks would do about getting rid of their wasteful and polluting fuel oil heating furnaces. To date, I don't know of any reply. This subject is a big source of cost for the rest of us, pollution in their area and NIMBYism with regard to solving their problem.

As to moving, that isn't going to solve the problem and I sincerely believe that perhaps the majority of us believe that. There has to be a light that casts the shadow. We must search for and find that light.

BTW, two of the biggest landowners in Montana are part of the problem of the class of (Politicians, people in politics, Hollywood) ... Ted Turner and Robert Redford. You'd have to battle these loons if you went there.

Stay, stand and work(not fight) within one or the other party. There is NO CHANCE for any boutique upstart organization(party) to have real effect.

Still the point!
Party still trumps person

Mike Rosen

August 13, 2004

With just 80 days to go before the election, it's time for my quadrennial column on party vs. person. I've been offering and updating this polemic for more than 20 years. For veteran voters, this may be review; for rookies, perhaps, a new concept.

A time-honored cliche heard every election year goes something like this: "I'm an independent thinker; I vote the person, not the party." This pronouncement is supposed to demonstrate open-mindedness and political sophistication on the part of the pronouncer. It's your vote, cast it any way you like - or not at all. But idealism and naivete about the way our electoral process and system of government works shouldn't be mistaken for wisdom or savvy.

For better or worse, we have a two-party system. And party trumps person. Either a Republican, George W. Bush, or a Democrat, John Kerry, is going to be elected president in November. No one else has a chance.

Not Ralph Nader, not the Libertarian candidate, nor the Communist, nor the Green. Minor party candidates are sometimes spoilers - like Nader costing Gore the presidency in 2000 - but they don't win presidential elections. Ross Perot got 20 million popular votes in 1992, and exactly zero Electoral College votes.

In Europe's multiparty, parliamentary democracies, governing coalitions are formed after an election. In our constitutional republic, the coalitions are formed first.

The Republican coalition includes, for the most part, middle- and upper-income taxpayers (but not leftist Hollywood millionaires and George Soros), individualists who prefer limited government, pro-market and pro-business forces, believers in American exceptionalism and a strong national defense, social-issues conservatives and supporters of traditional American values.

The Democratic coalition is an alliance of collectivists, labor unions (especially the teachers' unions), government workers, academics, plaintiffs-lawyers, lower- and middle-income net tax-receivers, most minorities, feminists, gays, enviros, and activists for various anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-military, anti-gun, one-world causes.
I say party trumps person because regardless of the individual occupying the White House, the coalition will be served.

A Democratic president, whether a liberal or a moderate (conservative Democrats, if any still exist, can't survive the nominating process), can operate only within the political boundaries of his party and its coalition. The party that wins the presidency gets to staff all the discretionary positions in the executive and judicial branches of government. Members of its coalition are awarded vital policy-making government jobs, judgeships, ambassadorships and appointments to boards and commissions, as well as a host of plum jobs handed out to those who have political IOUs to cash in.

A vote for Bush is a vote for the Republican agenda and conservative players in key posts. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the influence of the National Education Association, the National Organization for Women, the American Civil Liberties Union and the likes of Al Sharpton and Michael Moore.

The legislative branch is no different. After the individual members of a new Congress have been seated, a figurative nose count is taken and the party with the most noses wins. That victory carries with it control of all committee and subcommittee chairmanships, the locus of legislative power.

Now, let's say you're a registered Republican voter who clearly prefers the Republican philosophy of governance. And you're a good-natured, well-intentioned person who happens to like an individual Democrat, a Senate candidate, who's somewhat conservative. You decide to cross party lines and vote for him. As it turns out, he wins, beating a Republican and giving the Democrats a one-vote majority, 51-49, in the U.S. Senate.

Congratulations! You just got Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton as key committee chairs, and a guarantee that your Republican legislative agenda will be stymied.

That's the way the process works. Does this mean that in a two-party system like ours it comes down to choosing between the lesser of two evils? You bet it does. That's not to say that either party is really "evil," that's just an expression.

If we had 280 million custom-tailored minor parties, everyone could find his perfect match.
But that's not practical.

You can be a purist and cast your vote symbolically with a boutique party, or be a player and settle for the least imperfect of the Republican or Democrat alternatives. Your vote, your choice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The man is right ... no pun intended ! !

WMD Owl Wrote:But Obama scares the hell out of me. I can see the US suffering a terrorist attack, and Obama not retaliating. "A war is not the answer" he will say.. (if his teleprompter works).

Can someone help explain what this fear is based on? I've heard it on forums, I've heard it over dinners, and for the life of me I can't understand it. If you mean that Obama would not retaliate for 9/11 by bringing war on a country that had no business in the attack, in Iraq, then yes, you're probably right.

But his statements regarding AQ-- redeploying troops to Afghanistan, taking military action in Pakistan to take out AQ targets (even without their consent!) seem to indicate far more vigilance in handling the real threat of terrorism than anything we've seen in the last 16 years.

At Ease Wrote:Can someone help explain what this fear is based on? I've heard it on forums, I've heard it over dinners, and for the life of me I can't understand it. If you mean that Obama would not retaliate for 9/11 by bringing war on a country that had no business in the attack, in Iraq, then yes, you're probably right.

But his statements regarding AQ-- redeploying troops to Afghanistan, taking military action in Pakistan to take out AQ targets (even without their consent!) seem to indicate far more vigilance in handling the real threat of terrorism than anything we've seen in the last 16 years.

I'm thinking his favoring a nationwide ban on handguns, wanting to nationalize the healthcare industry, promising 1 trillion dollars in handouts, his SEVERE lack of experience, and the fact that the **** he's promising needs to be done in congress, NOT the executive office. Other than that, maybe it's just the fact that he's a Socialist.

At Ease Wrote:Can someone help explain what this fear is based on? I've heard it on forums, I've heard it over dinners, and for the life of me I can't understand it. If you mean that Obama would not retaliate for 9/11 by bringing war on a country that had no business in the attack, in Iraq, then yes, you're probably right.

But his statements regarding AQ-- redeploying troops to Afghanistan, taking military action in Pakistan to take out AQ targets (even without their consent!) seem to indicate far more vigilance in handling the real threat of terrorism than anything we've seen in the last 16 years.

$300 billion+ in additional taxation (and spending at even higher levels than that increase) ... dog piling on a broken system that has been collapsing in on itself. In essense, Obama's policies are like dropping 2 ton block of depleted uranium on on the camel's back, when the camel is already weezing, knees wobbling, and violently shaking.

My question was more in regards to what I quoted, as to concerns about Obama and terrorism.

Obviously there's little hope in trying to sell the social policy positions of Obama to the board's economic freebirds. I do wonder why his support of Pay-Go hasn't received more attention/support, though.

It's been a while since there have been young children in the White House. There are always refreshing images involved; Amy Carter's treehouse on the south lawn, JFK Jr. running around the Oval Office... Also, the emergence of Obama may put an end to the current black political, religous leaders such as Al and Jessie... Other than that there is nothing positive from me

I can say that there is no need to fear. America as a whole will not allow National Healthcare, Open Borders...

Rebel Wrote:The Democrats are turning this country into the haves (Politicians, people in politics, Hollywood) and Have Not's (Everyone else). They have mastered pitting one group against another. If we do find ourselves in a revolution, it'll make the Civil War look like a mere scuffle.

You got to be kidding. The whole have vs have not has been played by the Republicans. For you blame everything on Democrats just proves that you are not a Libertarian, but a right wing conservative Republican.

Golden Eye Wrote:I can say that there is no need to fear. America as a whole will not allow National Healthcare, Open Borders...

I really don't see a need for "National" healthcare. I believe that the states handle providing medical insurance for the poor quite well.

uhmump95 Wrote:You got to be kidding. The whole have vs have not has been played by the Republicans. For you blame everything on Democrats just proves that you are not a Libertarian, but a right wing conservative Republican.

Who is it that's trying to get one group off the tax roles, while making another share more of the burden?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...E_ID=58668

When conservatives cut taxes, they cut'em for everyone. When libs raise taxes, they raise'em on the group less likely to vote for them.

....then again, I could always go on about how the libs are trying to put everyone on the government dole, while they, themselves, live in a life of luxury. See Al Gore.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:BTW -- on leaving the country for somewhere with more freedom ... good luck. Many prominent Libertarians have already done so, and found most of the modern world to be even worse than we are. Though at the rate we're plummeting, that could soon change. I encourage you to look into the Free State Project in New Hampshire if you're seriously interested in moving for Liberty.

I think a potential best case scenario is that in DC vs Heller (right to bear arms case) ... that the Supreme Court rules IN FAVOR of DC... in which case Montana will secede from the union. And if they do, I'm dead serious I'll effing move to Montana. I'm sure other people like the Free State Project would beeline out there too.

Right on bro....The FSP Porcfest this past weekend sounded pretty good to me...500 liberty activists openly carrying firearms and consuming alcohol in the same place....and nobody got shot...Imagine that. NH really seems to be the state that will begin to make an impact on turning back the tide of statism. NH has a citizen legislature that makes it a prime target of activism, both political and apolitical....If anyone is interested go to Freestateproject.org