Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

As I've said before, you can't elect a Clinton without a Perot. It just isn't tradition.

Posted by Big D at November 26, 2007 11:25 AM

I always try and point out though, that Huckabee is a strong supporter of the FairTax. They supported him, which accounted for quite a bit of his initial support in Iowa, and running on the FairTax could potentially bring in a whole bunch of the libertarians to his side.

Posted by taoist at November 26, 2007 12:25 PM

I'm going to comment about the elephant in the room. Rand has made it very clear he does not like Ron Paul, yet laments the fact that there is not a true libertarian in the race.

He is currently out polling Thompson in NH.
It also looks like he will out raise Thompson this quarter.

I know Rand thinks we should Nuke the islamofacists till they are gone, and at some level I agree with him. However I do not think we should be in Korea, Japan, Germany etc.. etc...
I'm willing to accept Paul's principled position that we should not be the policeman of the world.
It is 100% consistent.

Can you discuss your anti Paul views in a logical reasoned way without using the word kook or fringe, but actually discuss his consistent positions and principals?

Posted by Paul Breed at November 26, 2007 01:15 PM

I know Rand thinks we should Nuke the islamofacists till they are gone

Then you know something that isn't the case, just as when you say I "lament that there is no true libertarian in the race." I lament the fact that that there isn't someone who favors free minds and markets in the race and is sensible about foreign policy (though Thompson comes pretty close). I'm not sure what "true libertarian" means, but I don't think that an isolationist foreign policy works in a world with nuclear weapons and other means of mass murder that can be launched from afar.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 26, 2007 01:39 PM

There is a significant difference between non-intervention and isolation. I would recommend that you actually take time to directly research your statements.

Try reading the last two paragraphs of:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/
Or
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm
Or
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul401.html

To quote your own words...
"would be a pretty depressing prospect for conservatives and libertarians, to have no candidate in either major party with either a conservative or libertarian bone in their bodies."

This looks a lot like lamenting the lack of a libertarian in the race.

Lastly if you are willing to have an open mind I'll send you a copy of A Foreign Policy of Freedom. You know how to contact me off list.

Paul

Posted by Paul Breed at November 26, 2007 01:59 PM

I always try and point out though, that Huckabee is a strong supporter of the FairTax.

And for that one reason, despite everything else I've told her about him, my wife likes Huckabee.

I'd like to see the FairTax enacted too -- but to bankroll the nanny state Huckabee proposes, that tax would either have to be (1) far more revenue enhancing than any realistic supporters profess, (2) at a much higher rate than its mainstream supporters promise, or (3) accompanied by some other tax, such as, oh let me guess, an income tax.

I think it's just simpler, given the political inertia facing any wholesale changes to the tax code or to pretty much anything else controlling the flow of vast amounts of cash through Washington (can you say "Social Security reform"?), to assume Huckabee has latched onto the FairTax as a way to distract people from everything else he says. Or that, like another fellow Arkansan, he'd confess to having "worked harder than he ever has before" to get it enacted, but it just couldn't happen for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with him.

As I say, I'd like to see the FairTax -- but I'd have to be a lunatic to assume that a promise to make it happen would outweigh all the things Huckabee wants that I don't, that are far more likely to make it through Congress.

Posted by McGehee at November 26, 2007 03:15 PM

"It would be a pretty depressing prospect for conservatives and libertarians, to have no candidate in either major party with either a conservative or libertarian bone in their bodies."

It appears to me George Bush is neither a conservative nor
a libertarian

Posted by at November 26, 2007 03:36 PM

It appears to me George Bush is neither a conservative nor a libertarian

Yes, it appears that way to me, too, illiterate anonymous moron. Did you have a point, or do you just like flinging feces at my web site?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 26, 2007 04:04 PM

Fred is the man.

Posted by Josh Reiter at November 26, 2007 06:15 PM

Fred voted for the Patriot act and McCain Fiengold. Fred is not my man.

The Patriot act allows the FBI to write a warrant without review. (They call it a national security letter) These warrants are secret and you can not even challenge them in court as the very fact of revealing you have been served with one is a felony. This new power has been used tens of thousands of times, and yet not one terror suspect has been apprehended as a result. This cool new power is being used to for many many investigations not having ANYTHING to do with terror or terrorists.

Combine this with the military commisions act and you have the potential for very very serious abuse. Suppose that Mr bush and his administration only use this for good to fight terror....fine.

Lets assume that Hillary wins...
do you really want to give Hillary the right to tap everyones phones and listen to every conversation without consequence?

With a simple statement that she thinks Rand is an unlawful combatant (because he complains about her policies) she could order to have him taken away by federal agents and locked up for as long as she likes with no judicial review OF ANY KIND! One day Rand would just show up missing and his family would not be told anything! The only thing that prevents this is the "promise" from the executive branch is that "we only need this power for dealing with terrorists." With the Patriot act they have already proven they can not be trusted
to keep that promise.

You may argue that the military commisions act only applies to aliens, that is what the purpose says, but the actual text of the bill does not restrict it to only aliens, it applies to all persons declared as "unlawful combatants."
How do you determine who an unlawful combatant is?
It is whomever the military says it is.

Think I'm paranoid, take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Criticism

I believe in the theory of Natural rights, we are born with basic rights, they are not given to us by the government. Therefore all humans have basic rights, the government can not selectively take them away.

Wake up! We are loosing our basic rights.

Posted by Paul Breed at November 26, 2007 06:55 PM

"I want an across the board pro-life, pro-defense, small goverment, pro-entrepreneur conservative. And of the three men who fit the bill, I think Fred offers the most with the least baggage. He'll make sure the government leaves me the heck alone."
I agree with you that Thompsom has the right stand on most of the issues, unfortunately a one and a half term senator can not really be said to have the necessary political experience, executive experience especially, to get the job done. The nature of the beast is such that, even though he had the best of intentions, he simply would not, in all likelyhood, be able to get his programs through a congress that consists of Democrats on the one hand and free spending Republicans on the other.
I like Romney or Huckabee. Not because i agree with them on all issues but because I agree with them on enough and I think, with their executive experience, they can get their programs enacted.
Furthermore, state governors always beat legislators in the general election. Therefore, since having any republican is superior to have any Democrat, even Joe Lieberman, fine man that he is, it is ion our interests to elect a state governor who will have an excellent chance of beating either Hillary or Obama.

Posted by Michael at November 26, 2007 10:14 PM

Rand seems very upset at the claim that GW Bush is not
a conservative or a libertarian.

What is libertarian about anything he's done?

Posted by at November 26, 2007 11:14 PM

Go Fred!

Posted by Brad at November 26, 2007 11:51 PM

Rand seems very upset at the claim that GW Bush is not a conservative or a libertarian.

Why would he be upset? He made the same claim many times ago starting sometime before the 2004 election. His comment to you was straight forward. You are an illiterate moron if you are unable to read and don't realize it.

Posted by Leland at November 27, 2007 04:11 AM

Rand seems very upset at the claim that GW Bush is not a conservative or a libertarian.

No, I'm very upset that my web site is infested with cowardly anonymous morons, who don't know how to read, and thus indulge themselves in bizarre fantasies (polluting my web site with their idiocy), such as the notion that I have ever believed that George W. Bush is a conservative or libertarian.

When are you going to stop buggering little boys, Anonymous Moron?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 27, 2007 06:37 AM

rand says", such as the notion that I have ever believed that George W. Bush is a conservative or libertarian."

So why are you so upset that no conservatives or libertarians
are running?

You denounce Ron Paul, when he is a libertarian.

Posted by at November 27, 2007 08:48 AM

So why are you so upset that no conservatives or libertarians are running?

There is no relationship between my unhappiness with the current field, and whether or not George Bush is a conservative or libertarian.

Why do you ask idiotic questions that have no relevance to the post? Oh, right...

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 27, 2007 09:18 AM

With the exception of Ron Paul, whose position on the war is a deal-killer for me, I will vote for whichever Republican is nominated. Any of them is better than any of the Democratic candidates. Even a statist like Huckabee would be better than a statist and crook like Hillary.

The situation now is very similar to the situation before the 2000 election. Anyone who was paying attention then knew that George W. Bush was neither a libertarian nor, in many respects, a conservative. However, he appeared to be the better choice for libertarians and conservatives than Al Gore was. I think that time has confirmed the accuracy of that impression in spades.

The odd thing, IMO, is that so many libertarians and conservatives invested themselves in the idea that W was one of them, and now they feel let down. I had the opposite experience. I had low expectations when I voted for W, and I was pleasantly surprised when he showed a lot of insight and backbone (unlike what I would have expected from his father) in responding to the 9/11 attack -- and in having the courage of his convictions to invade Iraq, and to not pull punches as his father did by withdrawing from Iraq prematurely in 1991. W has faltered since then but on the whole he has done much better than I expected.

Thompson seems like a good man with good values, but his odds of winning are low (see Intrade). Giuliani is a less appealing person but a stronger candidate, and if it takes Giuliani to defeat Hillary then I am for Giuliani. It's just like the 2000 election but with different names. I don't expect Giuliani, if he gets elected, to be particularly good, but I might be pleasantly surprised and I think it's very likely that he will be a much better president than Hillary would be.

Ron Paul is only going to go anywhere in 2008 if the public perceives him as a tie breaker. To say that he is a libertarian is disingenuous. He is running on a melange of libertarian domestic policies and populist-isolationist foreign and economic policies. A lot of his support comes from people who seem more interested in the populism and isolationism than in the libertarianism.

Posted by Jonathan at November 27, 2007 09:55 AM

Ron Paul has been on Alex Jone's radio show several times and the troofers love him along with the neo-Nazis and white supremacists. That should be enough to disqualify him from being a serious candidate. That he has any traction at all gives me pause about the state of the electorate as a whole.
Paul in the comments is an example of the conspiracy nuts for RP. If the FBI had used this 10's of thousands of times, they would be serving what, a dozen a day every day for 7 years. If they have and it's illegal to talk about it, how does he know?

Posted by Bill Maron at November 27, 2007 11:52 AM

Giuliani is a less appealing person but a stronger candidate, and if it takes Giuliani to defeat Hillary then I am for Giuliani. It's just like the 2000 election but with different names.

Unless it turns out like a certain 2000 election with the same names --- Giuliani and Clinton.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 27, 2007 09:47 PM

Selecting a candidate (Giuliani) because "he's stronger in the general", despite being weaker on principles, is often an effective way to loose as the party base stays home and the opposition party doesn't care about your candidates concessions. The republicans lost in 2006 by sacrificing principle to gain 'broader support'.

Posted by Peter at November 28, 2007 09:32 AM

It also how you end up with someone like President Bush (really either one).

Posted by Leland at November 28, 2007 12:28 PM

Post a comment