411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 123 - Should Tim Geithner be Fired, Would Obama Crush Palin in 2012, More
Posted by Brandon Crow on 03.25.2009
Should Tim Geithner be fired NOW? Is the fact that President Obama would crush Palin in 2012 a no brainer? Is Dick Cheney a total joke by saying the economic crisis is not the fault of the Bush Administration? Is Dick Cheney..."evil?"
Good day to my loyal readers.
I want to start this week's Fact or Fiction with a little announcement. I will be ending my run as host/moderator of F or F in a couple of weeks. Additionally, when I leave F or F, I will also be stepping away from 411 Politics.
I mean, really, what else is there but abject shame and utter self-imposed humiliation after resorting to something so cheap, so low, so vile as to put The Spook into F or F as a legitimate participant? I guess when that happens, your column's "jumped the shark…" So I guess I'm off to penance now…
No, seriously, leaving the zone was a difficult decision to make, but it is time the old Crow moved on. I've been here since April of 2005—four whole years. And looking around, I am the last of "the originals" at 411 Politics after Ashish re-envisioned, revamped and re-launched the zone back in the day. The last of the originals…I guess that makes me Tommy Dreamer…or AJ Styles…
This is Week 123. I will finish up my tour at the nice, round Week 125, coming on April 8, which will bookend nicely with my start date (same day four years ago). The week after that, I will have a very special guest host and the participants will be me, and Ryan Latimer, the F or F host before me. That'll be my sign off. Hope you all stick around for it.
Ok, enough about poor little me. Let's get to this week's action. This week, on the Crow's "farewell tour," (yes, it is ALWAYS about me, even if I just said it's not about me!) we have two of my all-time favorite participants, Ray Church (also a former columnist here), and Krunchy Law, who I believe to be the zone's People's Champion. Now just imagine Krunchy raising the eyebrow.
Ding! Ding!
1. The one guy in the Obama Administration that we can all clearly agree "needs to go now"—despite only having worked for sixty days—is Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
Ray Church: FICTION. But only on the grounds that the question mentions the ONE guy we can all agree on.
You see, Geithner doesn't need to step down, he needs to be fired. He needs to be fired publicly and he needs to be fired loudly and he needs to be fired in full view of anyone else in the Obama administration that would look to get away with the bullshit that Geithner pulled.
Not only did we find out that Geithner sat on the knowledge that AIG would be using government bailout money to pay as much as $218 million in bonuses to failed employees, but we also find out that he went so far as to kill the Dodd Amendment that would have prevented such use of money. We find out that he personally made phone calls to Senator Dodd to kill the amendment, along with his cohort, Larry Summers of National Economic Council...
And hence the fiction, because we hear a lot about Geithner, but nothing about Summers, who was as culpable as Geithner. Summers is a holdover from the Clinton Administration who called for higher interest rates and a balanced budget in Korea while the country was suffering a depression (oh look how the worm turns), a former Chief Economist at the World Bank who called for more pollution in the third world, and, more famously, the President of Harvard who decided that, genetically, women were just not as good at math as men.
And before you all chime in and say that that is a gross oversimplification of his viewpoint let me say yes, it's an oversimplification, but not a gross one. He definitively placed genetic disposition ahead of discrimination and socialization as the reason for the gender difference in the maths and sciences, but behind a willingness to devote the time and flexibility to these high paying fields.
And, for the last few months, he has been lobbying to allow the good men and women over in AIG to keep bonuses they totally failed to earn, at the expense of the American taxpayer.
So.... certainly, let Geithner's head roll, but send at least one more head down the aisle at the same time.
Krunchy Law: FACT. Ray brought the goods on this one. I say fact because you could argue either side for quite a few of the mistakes Obama has brought into the administration, but since it's only been 60 days or so, I'll give a mulligan to most. Timmy G. has been a complete disaster though. Blame it on his advisers, or blame it on whatever you like. When you make Alan Greenspan seem as charismatic as Bono, you are doing something terribly wrong. America wants John Wayne to come riding into town and fix the problem, not John Wayne Gacy making balloon animals (without bringing the balloons.)
And Ray, the three women of the female persuasion Crow's Note: Um, Krunchy, are there women of the male persuasion that I don't know about? that live with me all hate math. My roommate actually gets physically ill and has a panic attack if you ask her math questions. My fiancé has a history degree. If my daughter was driving a bus that couldn't stop and had to stay above 50 miles per hour, and her math teacher and Hitler were in the crosswalk, and she only had time to hit one…I'm pretty sure she'd have detention until the end of the year. Now that I think about it, her math teacher DOES look like Keanu Reeves. Hmmmmm.
0 for 1. Man, I love these guys. Leave it to Ray and Krunchy to pull absolutely no punches in their own respective styles.
2. A recent poll conducted by Public Policy Polling found that President Obama would "crush Sarah Palin" in a head-to-head match up in 2012. This is the biggest no brainer going today.
Ray Church: FACT. The GOP really needs to get a grip on itself. Sarah Palin is incredibly popular, but only within a narrow target of the population. She gets rock star responses, but only within a narrow spur of the population.
For the vast majority of people, she is not Sarah Palin, she is the caricature of Sarah Palin performed by Tina Fey, and to have her considered for president is another indication that the GOP doesn't know where to turn for leadership.
Here's a hint guys. The only wing of the GOP growing at the moment is the libertarian side. I may thoroughly disagree with the libertarian ideal, but people are getting religion about it.
Krunchy Law: FICTION. Why does anyone still fall for this? It's not even the middle of 2009 yet! Two years ago, Obama was considered a long shot. Obama would crush just about anyone RIGHT NOW that you put him up against, but 4 years from now is a long time to predict.
The office of the presidency has become almost a true cult of personality. I'm sure studies have been done about this, but the way I look at it, undecided people will vote for the person they'd most like to have a beer with at the local Applebee's.
In 1996, would you rather have a brew with Bob Dole or Bill Clinton? Bush Jr. or Al Gore? Bush Jr. or John Kerry? McCain just seems like an angry drinker. OK, I'll say it right now. I can't think of any Republican I'd rather fuck than a drunk Sarah Palin. Wait! Is her daughter a Republican? Recently pregnant, rebound sex is something you can definitely find at Applebee's. Don't look at me like you wouldn't either, you horny bastards. She's of age!
There is still a lot of time left for Palin to repair her damage. Tweny years ago, Biden was a joke on Saturday Night Live for his foot-in-mouth comments and his plagiarizing. Now he's one heartbeat away from the presidency. A run in the Senate would probably be good for Palin, though I still see Romney as the best bet for the Republicans in 2012. He was the only one that was offering any alternatives to Obama's plan that wasn't just vague ideas, and if the economy bogs down in the next few years, even his religion won't stop the GOP from running him.
0 for 2. I think Krunchy has been to Applebee's one too many times… on the other hand, I give him credit for voicing out loud what most Republican men won't ever admit to—the only reason they "liked" Palin was because they liked jacking off to her. By the way, isn't that wasting sperm, killing potential babies gifted by God?
Switch!
3. Last week, Dick Cheney went on CNN's Sunday show "State of the Union" and said that the Bush Administration was not responsible for the horrible state of the economy. He should have been laughed off the program.
Krunchy Law: FICTION. It's hard to be snarky when it comes to economic realities. I would say that the mishandling and wrong projections about the war impacted the economy in a horrible way. However, it's been going downhill for awhile, and policies instituted by Barney Frank among others have about as much to do with it as the Bush Administration. I would suggest that debt mismanagement from the average Joe Six Pack all the way up to the largest corporations did much damage that could take YEARS to dig out of. And when the biggest export we can ship out is "information" or "celebrity gossip," then we have no physical goods to really produce anymore to get us back on track.
A few weeks ago, a store in my town went out of business. Its name? National Wholesale Liquidators. When a chain that sells closeout items from stores that go bankrupt can't survive in this economy, all bets are off, don't you think? Even Alanis Morrisette could see the actual irony in that.
Ray Church: FACT. Ah, Krunchy, my foe. You make many salient points. Were there other people responsible who should ALSO be blamed for the economic crisis, certainly. But to claim that you can't blame the Bush Administration in the same breath that he blames Barney Frank for blocking their reforms is disingenuous.
Krunchy rightfully brings up the "mishandling and wrong projections" of the war in Iraq, even if his language is parsed (most people would call it a massive political lie and a clusterfuck, but we'll let him off with that for now).
What Krunchy doesn't mention is the determined program of deregulation and laissez-faire economics that the Bush Administration championed for eight years. When government oversight of the economy is largely run by people who feel there should be no government oversight, this is what you get. When the camp coordinator is sleeping, the boys in the banking bunks run pantie raids on the unsuspecting public.
Let's not forget, this is an administration that started their eight years with a $218 billion a year budget surplus, and ended it with a trillion dollar debt. The only way that Cheney's name was "fiscal responsibility" was if it was followed by the word "Sucks".
0 for 3. Could these two actually send me off on my farewell tour with a rare 0 for 4? That would be way cool.
4. Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, Larry Wilkerson wrote that Dick Cheney is "evil." This is the biggest no brainer since Obama would crush Palin in 2012.
Krunchy Law: FICTION. This is a really hard question when it's just sprung on you. He did shoot someone in the face as vice president, so he's on par with Aaron Burr. BUT he did shoot a lawyer AND made the lawyer apologize. Like Chucky from "Child's Play," Cheney doesn't seem to have the capacity to be killed, BUT having a bull-dyke daughter gives him that cuddly feel so lacking in some conservatives.
The best thing ever about him though was that Bush-Cheney gave off a wonderful Pinky and the Brain type vibe. Clinton and Gore were much more of a Foghorn Leghorn / Droopy combination (for those not following the animation portion of the paragraph, substitute Dean Martin for Clinton and Jerry Lewis for Gore).
Anyone that makes me think of an Orson Wellesian mouse hell bent on taking over the world CAN'T POSSIBLY be evil, right?
Ray Church: FACT. Oh Krunchy.
Adolf Hitler reminds me a bit of Charlie Chaplin. That doesn't mean he wasn't a power-crazed dictator set on conquering the world and destroying the Jewish people. What makes Cheney evil? Let's go back to his "Bull-Dyke" daughter (your words, not mine). Here's a guy who knows, from family experience, that homosexuals are people too, and yet he sides with the teams that cynically manipulates public perception about homosexuality, denying homosexuals the same rights as everyone else.
But that's just the diet coke of evil... only one calorie, not evil enough...
No, this is not just the lovable guy who shoots his friend in the face and gets him to apologize. This is a guy who publicly lied about the existence of non-existent WMDs in order to invade another country, even after the facts had been made clear to him.
He plants evidence in the New York Times, then calls on that as "impartial" evidence that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He then proceeded to push for the invasion of Iraq, reassuring the world that it would be a "cakewalk" despite previously stating, after the first Gulf War, that the reason they didn't oust Hussein then was that a protracted ground war would inevitably lead to a quagmire.
He was the foremost push in the Whitehouse for harsher detention measures, a voice that was instrumental in policies that would lead to the use of water boarding within US detention centers, and when this wasn't enough, the voice that pushed for rendition to other countries where oversight on torture previsions didn't exist.
The guy is a war criminal who runs the gamut on every deadly sin except lust, and I only say that because I know nothing about the guy's sex life. From having Enron and the oil industry write their own energy policy to investing in jails and detention centers while he's part of the machinery responsible for executing the laws (and if you believe his bullshit argument about the unique role of the Vice President, also part of the machinery responsible for writing the laws), Cheney was one never-ending sulfur pit of a Vice-President.
0 for 4!!!! And these dudes pull off the rarity or rarities for me! THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH! A great way to start my farewell tour!
Alright y'all…that's it for Week 123. I'll see you all in seven, but not for much longer… Come back and visit next week when I showcase two more of my favorite participants.
anybody forget hurricane katrirna,how about two wars and oh yeah we were also attacked and tell me how would a run in the senate help palin, remeber obama is the only sitting senator has won and oh yeah, she would actually be a back-bencher if she were elected, whereas now she's a ceo of a state and has far more responsilty
Posted By: coby preimesberger (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 02:01 AM
People like Krunchy scare me.
Posted By: Guest#9376 (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 03:36 AM
"are there women of the male persuasion that I don't know about?"
That's a joke, using redundancy to indicate an unfamiliarity with women, in a nice piece of self-deprecation.
Now, here's the thing: it's possible that Palin has no appeal for the moderates of the country. I don't know, I'm not a moderate. But I know she has no appeal to the left wing of the country. OK, agreed? But the flip of it is that Obama has no appeal to the right wing of the country. And given the Carteresque way he has thrown the country into progressivism, the right wing is mad as hell and ready to resurge. To beat Obama, moderate appeal is nice, but the GOP candidate must fit with the right wing, and must be absolutely hated by the left. Sadly, the constitution prevents the dream match, the Hogan-Flair that would be George W. Bush versus Obama. But we desperately need some hard right-wing presence in government to counterbalance Obama.
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 06:39 AM
I don't see how you can say Palin would be similar to Biden, Krunchy. Like you said, TWENTY years after Biden made a fool of himself, he is able to hold such a high office. That's time for a whole new generation to be born, grow up, and be able to vote. Palin only now has 3 years to clean up her reputation, which any news network is more than willing to remind us of.
I wouldn't call Dick Cheney evil. More like a supervillian.
Posted By: Moderate (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 07:56 AM
The Spook, you are an idiot.
Posted By: The Spook Killer (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 07:57 AM
Krunchy sez:
This was *somehow* left out of one of my responses.
*************
What? No statements about Obama bowling and the Special Olympics? Damn, if Obama had just mentioned conjoined twins that were hypnotised into seeing all fat women as sexy, I'd have just thought he was promoting a Farrelly Brothers Film Festival. This is most definitely a liberal conspiracy!
*************
Posted By: Krunchy (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 08:41 AM
It's amazing.. We have one conservative rep in Krunchy and TWO liberals in Church and Crow..
Anyways.. You're ALL wrong..
I urge everyone to watch this video on YouTube. It's about 2 hours, but well worth the lesson you'll learn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
Posted By: Spyke (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 09:22 AM
Tina Fey ruined Sarah Palin's chances of being taken seriously in the near future.
Posted By: CyberSocko (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 09:25 AM
Nice job guys. Crow thanks for all your effort, as well as the apology for Spook last week. I hope Krunchy has been offered the moderator job for this column, he's always both well-informed and entertaining.
Geithner should be fired, Palin is a joke, and Bush/Cheney was the worst leadership duo in U.S. history.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Hey Coby the Bush administration made a Hurricane Really ? Damn he must be an evil genius. Oh yeah a lady in my class also said he was behind 9-11 blowing up the towers and since it was an anti Bush thing no one disagreed with her but me. Bush was not my guy, but come on. Blame him for his mistakes not the worlds problems.We were attacked because Clinton and Bush dropped the ball. The FBI and CIA were not to communicate under Clinton. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."
Posted By: dan man (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 11:36 AM
I don't know how anyone can trust someone who wakes-up in the morning, straps a human hair facsimile on his head, looks in the mirror and admires the "improvement". He definitely has one thing in common with Hamilton, the love of a great wig.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Hey Paul,
maybe you're right about getting the Right Wing support for Palin, but there's the rub. People on the right may be upet with Obama, but the Center still remember Bush well enough to remember why they didn't like him, and Palin, for everything you can argue about her, would pretty much be a continuation of the Bush doctrine.
Naivety over foreign policy? Check. Un-nuanced attitude towards good and evil? Check. Wasteful Spending? check (She voted for the Bridge to nowhere before she voted against it). moral hypocrisy? check (Have we got any unwed mothers in the house? Wait for the ring, kids).
Hell, she even plays the old "folksy charm" card.
This will probably bite me, but the Republican Party will either discover libertarianism, or it will suffer another long defeat at the hands of Obama. There is just too much animosity for the Neocons and the religious right may have power within the party, but they are losing it outside the party.
Posted By: Ray Church (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 12:20 PM
in 2006 cheney went on cnn thumping his chest on how the economic upswing should be attributed to the bush administration. now that it is tanking, now it isnt their fault.
i find it deeply disturbing how a man with a lesbian daughter with a child and life partner, is the head of a party that wants to deny the existence of homosexuals.
Posted By: jd (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 02:16 PM
Wow, what's with the random call out and preemptive thrashing of Spook? He hasn't even graced us with anything yet...
Has Spook really achieved that iconic, "RVD one-shot deal" status?
Posted By: Crow21 (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 02:21 PM
palin's charm does not translate on a natioanl stage.
she made a point to accentuate how obama is "different". he was too smart, too city, and too non-white. she alienated all big city, ethnic, educated republicans.
Posted By: rey (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 02:24 PM
Where is my comment i posted before?put it up please
Posted By: danman (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 04:23 PM
Mr. Church:
That's as may be, but I lay the following facts before you, remembering that correlation is not causation:
Every time the Republicans run a hard-line conservative--Nixon, Reagan, Bush--they win elections. Every time they run a moderate--Dole, McCain, Ford--they lose elections.
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 04:36 PM
Mr. Church:
That's as may be, but I lay the following facts before you, remembering that correlation is not causation:
Every time the Republicans run a hard-line conservative--Nixon, Reagan, Bush--they win elections. Every time they run a moderate--Dole, McCain, Ford--they lose elections.
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 04:36 PM
*****************************
Be that as it may, but the people you named all got to run against weenie liberals ... Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. What do most of those people have in common? All but Gore came from Minnesota or Massachusetts, two hotbeds of old-school wussy liberalism.
Kennedy, Carter (against Ford), Clinton, and Obama all ran as progressives being proactive, aka centrists. Reagan, both Bushes, and even Nixon seemed much more "mainstream" than their opponents.
Posted By: Krunchy (Registered) on March 25, 2009 at 05:10 PM
Nixon may have RAN as a conservative in 1968, but he certainly didn't govern as one. As President, he encouraged temporary price controls and detente, which were pretty moderate, near liberal policies for a Republican to actually advocate.
Posted By: Moderate (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 05:28 PM
The Spook is not an icon. He is a dick. The Spook, you are a fucking dumbass who needs to be lynched.
Posted By: The Spook Killer (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 05:28 PM
Obama will be no match for Mike Huckabee in 2012. Huckabee is a real American who really loves this great country of ours.
Huckabee for President in 2012!
Posted By: #1 Huckabee fan (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 07:43 PM
Hey Paul, thanks for engaging. I like it when I can speak to conservatives / republicans who rely on arguing facts not vitriol.
Here's the thing. Reagan certainly had the advantage of the Iran Hostage situation and a wildly unpopular president in the Whitehouse. Bush ran from the center, hence the entire idea of "Compassionate Conservatism". He promised not to get involved with overseas conflicts. He got re elected, narrowly, when the country was still sympathetic to the "war president" ideal.
As for Nixon, someone else already pointed out Nixon was a centrist when it came to not just economics, but for the most part foreign policy (this is the guy, afterall, that renewed political ties with Communist China).
Most of Nixon's real hardline activities were conducted in clandestine operations, and a time Americans were still largely unaware of what their country was doing in South America. For what it's worth, Kennedy had the same Clandestine operations in action, so Nixon wasn't the sole villain here.
Posted By: Ray Church (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 07:49 PM
I'm registered Libertarian, but I don't bristle at being called conservative. In any case my overall point is that this country is a sort-of heat-sink for right-wingers. Actually, there's a book on this called The Right Nation that I found quite persuasive. It says that A) what's left in the US is center in Europe and what's right in the US is off the charts there, and B) Not only is our whole scenario shifted right, but we're more likely to vote for conservatives.
And so if nothing else I think that American Conservatives hold this country as a last bastion from the entire world being liberal. It's the one place where individualism and selfishness aren't villified a priori. If there's ever a permanent liberal orthodoxy here, then there's nothing left for the right-wing but open revolution.
As to the men themselves, I think Bush was more right-wing than you say--his major platform plank was tax cuts, which is a key issue. Nixon was the mirror image of Bill Clinton. Both men blew with the prevailing wind, defaulting to their party principles when no wind blew.
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 09:38 PM
20 years ago Joe Biden was a joke and a punchline.
Have you been listening and paying any attention to this guy, Nothing has changed in 20 years
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 09:50 PM
: coby preimesberger
Katrinia? The Mayor and govorner share just as much blame. Those knuckleheads in N.O. re-elected the mayor too.
Posted By: Blah (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 09:52 PM
Anyone else remember the fact that Tina Fey used almost exactly the same words as Sarah Palin when she did her parody? Sarah Palin ruined Sarah Palin's chances at office by being an incompetent moron. That is something you can't blame the liberal media for.
Posted By: Pete Thorn (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 01:49 AM
blah i think i have mentioned here on this site i don't know but i did blame both nagin and blanco, who seemed to get passes, and nagin seems like a buffoon, and with palin it seems the leftist bloggers with what there doing with these complaints they've filed against her, from wearing an artic cat logo on her coat, to get this doing an interview with greta van sustern from the governor's office, i the one legimate complaint they did have, was using the state to pay for trips her daughetrs came on that she reimbursed, she has spent 500,000 on 10 complaints, 6 that have been dismissed and the one that was legitmate that she payed the state back and u know what they got 6,800, so she's had to spend a half a million on defense, for 6,800
Posted By: coby preimesberger (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 01:57 AM
I don't know how people can argue with true libertarianism: socially liberal, financially conservative.
Posted By: M:-X (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM
**********
Tina Fey ruined Sarah Palin's chances of being taken seriously in the near future.
Posted By: CyberSocko (Guest) on March 25, 2009 at 09:25 AM
**********
Ummm, no. Sarah Palin ruined Sarah Palin's chances. She was a backwater bubbleheaded bimbo that had no idea what life was like outside of her little Alaskan town. She publicly stated she had no idea what the day-to-day duties were of the Vice President... the job she was trying to get elected to. Roll that around in your brain for a while. She couldn't answer the simplest of questions. In the VP debate we expect the candidates to go off tangent a bit, but Palin took it to a whole new level, absolutely refusing to answer questions put to her.
Her idiocy, and more importantly her stubborn desire to not improve herself, are what killed her chances.
**********
I don't know how people can argue with true libertarianism: socially liberal, financially conservative.
Posted By: M:-X (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM
**********
Oh that's easy - because "true" Libertarianism is the politics of selfish pricks. "I got mine, fuck you if you need help and can't get it." Libertarians live in a fucking fantasy world where we're supposed to give MORE POWER to corporations. Yeah, great fucking idea there. Let's see if we can make our financial crisis even worse! They want to strip all forms of government help... insurance, after-school programs, etc. When you ask them what these people are supposed to do for help, they say "well, some private citizen will do it." Really? Who? What will the plan be like? Will it be fair and open to everyone? Will there be any oversight whatsoever to make sure the people that really need the help are getting it? Oh, you don't know? Pull your head out of your fucking fairy-land and join us in reality.
The socially liberal values of Libertarians are laudable, but in many ways they are more conservative than Republicans, and that is exactly what we don't need right now.
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 01:32 PM
Scott B:
The point is not that we libertarians think unbridled freedom will lead to more prosperity; it's that we care more about freedom than prosperity. We certainly value it more than stability, as you imply when you talk about a plan. We also think that "everyone gets as much as possible" is a lesser standard than "everyone gets what he or she deserves."
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 05:20 PM
Hey Paul,
That is why a respect libertarianism, even if I don't agree with it. You have a priciple that you use to determine your ideals, not a whims of the focus groups. Republicans, as they stand, seem to be swaying to which ever group they think can benefit them, hence the importance of the Joe the Plumbers, Rush Limbaugh's and Pat Robinsons on the party.
My disagreement with libertarianism is that forget where people's rights end. As a rule, your freedom to swing your fist ends with the end of your fist and the start of my nose. Libertarianism, at least as it stands in politics, seems to forget that freedom has limits, when people's freedom's affect the freedom's of others.
Ideas like unbridled deregulation and the disolution of government institutions like the Department of Education, as Ron Paul described in his campaign, are points where the freedoms of the few overwhelm the freedom of the many.
But as I said, I can find more common ground with libertarianism than with Middle Ground Democrats.
And yes, in regards to the rest of the world, America is heavily right wing. Your left wing party makes a moderate middle party in New Zealand, for example. The reality is, however, that the US was not always this way. Since Reagan, it really did swing right, much as Britain did under Thatcher. Most polls of people's belief's in America actually reveal there are very few out on the wings with the Republican's however.
Most people in the US actually believe there should be government guaranteed healthcare. When asked to choose between universal coverage and private regulation, people take Universal covers by 45 to 35%.
53% of people think that education spending should be protected from any budget cuts, and repeatedly states that public education should be a spending priority, and close to 75% think teachers should be paid more.
The thing is that the vast majority of people in the US can't actually identify the policy positions accurately when they're described to them, just as liberals (and Rush Limbaugh, for that matter) tend to believe that Obama is a lot more leftist than he actually is.
Posted By: Ray Church (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 08:47 PM