November 4th, 2012

A video to send to conversatives and libertarians who might be contemplating voting third-party or not at all

They’re not as numerous or vocal as during the Republican primaries, but there are still quite a few conservatives or libertarians or somewhat-conservatives who, although they’re not keen on Obama, are reluctant to vote for Romney. Their reasons can range from thinking he’s not conservative enough to vague unease about his stiffness or some other gut feeling that gives them pause.

Bill Whittle has something important to say to them, and he says it in one fairly compact and easily-watched video. Send a link to any of your friends and/or relatives who might fall into one of the above categories:

Just copy and paste this link: http://youtu.be/wPjBXufufUU

You can also send a link to this post of mine to any and all of your friends and relatives who might have other friends and relatives who fall into the “conservative-but-not-voting-for-Romney” category. This needs to blanket the country prior to Tuesday.

Remember, it’s all about turnout now. Romney has done his best. Now you do yours.

[ADDENDUM: And that can include volunteering at your local Romney office, or online at mittromney.com.]

111 Responses to “A video to send to conversatives and libertarians who might be contemplating voting third-party or not at all”

  1. Brad Says:

    Jesus Neo.
    Maybe they simply don’t LIKE Romney.
    He doesn’t have much to recommend him. About the only reason to vote for him is because you hate Obama for Fast and Furious, or this Libya thing, or because you are scared of Obama Care.

    He’s a chameleon who flipflops constantly. Yeah, you’ll get most of your foreign policy desires with him in the WH ( a vast majority of Americans yawn at this point) but he’s not going to do much of anything else from a conservative viewpoint. Hell, he’ll probably be forced to keep some of the Obama care changes simply because the current system is so broken. He can’t “retire” Obama’s SCOTUS appointments.

    But more to the point he’ll just wield his Unconstitutional power more responsibly than Obama would. If Obama wasn’t so openly class-race-and sex warfare, it would be hard for me to recommend a vote for Romney at all. As it is, I raise one pompom.

  2. Brad Says:

    And I will NEVER blame anyone for voting third party.
    If more of your Republican readers had been willing to hold their party accountable in the past (same for Democrats but they don’t read here) we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.

  3. neo-neocon Says:

    Brad: well, one pom-pom will do.

    Yes, maybe they just don’t like Romney. That was included when I wrote the inclusive phrase “some other gut feeling that gives them pause.” The Whittle video addresses people who feel that way. Obviously, not everyone will change his/her mind as a result of it.

    I disagree strongly with your analysis of Romney, but I’m not going to waste time at this point arguing with you point by point. I’ve written hundreds of posts on the subject of Romney since the Republican primaries were in swing, and why I think his presidency matters a good deal, and in more ways than just foreign policy, too (take SCOTUS, for example).

    In the video, Bill Whittle most definitely does not blame people for voting third party. But he tries to convince them that it’s a very bad idea this time around.

  4. Charles Says:

    My first election that I could vote in I, based upon my “principles,” voted third-party – the worse candidate (Carter) was elected. I’ve regretted my ignorant vote ever since.

    Lord, how I wish I actually knew half as much today as I thought I knew in my youth! (Yea, yea, yea, if wishes were horses, beggers would ride . . .)

    Whittle nails it with his comment that one of these two will be president – which do you want? Like it or not – it IS that simple.

  5. Brad Says:

    Charles:
    That all depends on whether you believe that either of the choices is qualified to be President.
    Since I don’t believe either of the men is qualified to be President – and I’m convinced that we are only arguing over which one will be the least disastrous – I have no issue at all with someone who doesn’t want to endorse either of these schmucks.

  6. T Says:

    Brad,

    The problem you pose is that to set one’s tolerances so precisely and narrowly that no human being can cncievably qualify to run for president defeats any good purpose andseenwhatsoever.ever your particular stards are, they are simply your standards and may well be

    That fact is that what

  7. gcotharn Says:

    Rather than vote third party, I prefer to pressure Romney from inside the Republican Party. He is susceptible to pressure, b/c
    1) his governing principles are evolving, and
    2) he is the type of executive (talented executive) who is a data guy, and who willingly adapts to what the data is showing him.

    After he is elected, what Mitt Romney’s data better show him is that he must dismantle Obamacare DOWN TO THE GROUND; down to complete rubble. Mitt has, many times, spoken as a clever salesperson who qualifies a promise, and has qualified his promise to repeal/dismantle Obamacare, via adding, sotto voce, something like this: “as much as is possible”. At this point, Mitt is on all sides of this nuance: pressured by conservatives, he has, many times, flatly promised to repeal Obamacare. However, also many times, he has added a sotto voce “as much as can be done”, or some rough equivalent of “as much as can be done.”

    Now, look: I am not saying Mitt ought do what is logically impossible to do. Even God cannot do what is logically impossible. However, it is logically possible to nuke Obamacare to rubble. And Mitt better lead the charge to do so, or Mitt’s electoral possibilities will be nuked in 2016. I will imitate Slim Pickens, and ride that missile directly into the window of Romney campaign headquarters. And there will be millions of conservatives holding my hand.

    We have coalesced around Mitt Romney. We are the reason his booty is about to be elected. Even evangelical conservatives have gone all in for Mitt (as I said, from Day One, that they would). But: he needs to produce. If he has been lying to us; if he has been patting us fools upon the head, in condescending belief that he knows best, and that we will always fall in line for him, then his electoral future isn’t worth spit. We will destroy him. And that is what Mitt Romney needs to understand. It is nice that he is so talented. But talent is not 1/10 as important as principle, and as principled action. Mitt believes in his own talent. He believes in it to too great an extent. He needs to continue coming around his understand of principles of small government, and re tangible action in that regard.

  8. T Says:

    didn’t mean to publish–let’s try that again

    Brad,

    The problem you pose is that to set one’s tolerances so precisely and narrowly that no human being can concievably qualify to run for president defeats any good purpose whatsoever. Whatever your particular stards may be, they are simply your standards and may well be viewed as less valid by others.

    I suggest that one cannot dismiss “better” simply because it does not qualify as “best.” If that were the case there would be no progress whatsoever and we’d still be hunting bison with hand-chipped flint spears.

  9. Good Ole Charlie Says:

    Brad:
    You miss the point entirely: one cannot vote for a non-entity…this “principled act” is actually denying you are not adult enough to judge and analyze an adult situation.
    The main point of Whittle’s little essay is that it’s one or the other is realistic. That you cannot deny.
    There are then certain things we can deduce about you. One: you are an Obama shill. I lean to this explanation.
    Two: you have not successfully negotiated your way through adolescence to adulthood. You want your baseball and bat back and are going home to cry to mommy.
    Three: You are a fanatic with a worn-out soap box. Nothing will please you because you are above it all: the happy peasantry should pull there forelocks when you approach. Ain’t gonna happen…

  10. expat Says:

    This is OT, but a must read from my favorite German political thinker–one who actually knows what he’s talking about when he discusses America.

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/turn-away-from-europe/

    On second thought, maybe it’s not so OT, because Romney can understand the points Joffe makes whereas Obama hasn’t a clue.

  11. Brad Says:

    Good Ole`Charlie:
    Please go back to the old folks home.
    Really, trying to shame me for my stance that we have the choice between a piece of dog turd and a load of horse manure?
    Tsk.
    No, the real question is when people like you could be persuaded to vote for a third party or send a write-in protest, or even abstain from voting.
    Because until you are willing to do so, no politician ever has to take you or yours seriously. Because they don’t have to compete for your vote, and they can’t ever lose it -because the other guy is ALWAYS worse.
    And so you get the government you deserve.

    I see a dysfunctional federal voting system controlled by two dysfunctional corrupt political parties. This does not bode well for our future.

  12. neo-neocon Says:

    Brad, you write: “Really, trying to shame me for my stance that we have the choice between a piece of dog turd and a load of horse manure?
    Tsk.”

    I’m not sure who you consider the piece of dog turd and who the load of horse manure, but obviously one is Romney and one Obama, in your estimation. My guess would be Romney the “piece” and Obama the “load.”

    Aside from your calling a decent man a piece of dog turd, which shows poor judgment IMHO, even if your premises are accepted, it would lead to voting for Romney. In other words, I would rather vote for a piece of dog turd than a load of horse manure, and I think you would, too. If each were dumped on your head, the first would be a lot easier to clean off than the second, which could bury you. And Whittle’s very excellent point is that one of them WILL be dumped on your head. So that’s your choice, and the choice everyone who agrees with you faces.

    I recall that you say you have made your choice, and you will vote for Romney. So I applaud you for realizing how stark and important the choice is.

  13. gcotharn Says:

    “So that’s your choice, and the choice everyone who agrees with you faces your feces.”

  14. Curtis Says:

    Brad,

    What the hell is wrong with you? I gave you “good bread” status and you flung it away.

    Why your animus against Romney? How can he not have won favor from everyone with his reasonable mind?

    Maybe your whole point is to take attention unto yourself for what point I don’t know. But it pales in consideration of the election before us.

    Still, you brought us some narrative points, which were disputed and such disputation was worthy.

    There was a hope you had some value because of certain points you presented, but you rebounded, like Jason.

    Are you the bad bread after all? There are two Brads who post here.

  15. Susanamantha Says:

    I sent the Bill Whittle link to someone I know well who is planning to vote for Gary Johnson. This is what I received in reply:

    “Oh please. I’ve heard the same argument from Republicans my whole adult life (and Democrats, for that matter). “If you don’t vote for x THIS election, the world will end. Wait until next election/primary to exercise that power”. What has that netted us?

    Not a single Republican IN MY LIFETIME has reduced the national debt; in fact, excepting Ford, they have all significantly increased it. There have been NO attempts to curb the growth of medicare/medicaid, or defense, for that matter; three things cannot keep growing disproportionately to GDP. If we’re
    going to crash and burn, I’d rather it be now, than in 30 years when my kids or grandkids have to deal with a much worse burden.

    I hope Romney wins, I really do; but he is not the best candidate for the job, in my opinion. I’m not wasting my vote for Gary Johnson, I’m voting for who I think best reflects my values, and how I think
    government should be run (and he as demonstrably proven that he can do that in NM).

    Democrats are getting more big government, not smaller, so it’s not like it will be any less high stakes next time around, and voting for a Republican who is slightly less big government is no longer an option, in my opinion.

    Let’s not forget that Ryan voted for TARP and the auto bailouts, and Romneycare served as a template for Obamacare (if not THE template).

    The Republican party has a responsibility to its constituency, not the other way around; a responsibility that it has failed to fulfill time
    and time again. Voting for the lesser of two evils obviously ain’t cutting it. I will admit also that I’m turned off by the fact that it’s a party that chose Rick Santorum as its second choice in the
    primaries, and refuses to disown an idiot like Todd Akin.

    If Romney wins (highly likely), and he does what he promises — reducing the deficit, streamlining medicare/medicaid, simplifies the tax code — then I will definitely vote for him for a second term. Given that it’s mathematically impossible to do that without eliminating the Bush tax cuts, or significantly reducing them, or generating additional tax revenue some other way, he has a long road
    ahead of him. But if he has some tricks up his sleeve to accomplish that, more power to him.

    The fact that somebody as vacuous and ill-equipped for office as Obama can even get elected into office for a first term is testament to how out of touch the Republican party is with its electorate. Whittle says
    himself in the video that there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US (doubtful, but we’ll run with those numbers). If that is the case, my vote is completely unnecessary, but we all know
    that is not the case. There is a reason the Republicans aren’t capturing those extra votes.

    Obviously Ohio is very important in this election. If Romney loses by one vote, because I voted for Gary Johnson instead of him, then so be it. I cannot kick this can down the road any longer, and force my children to deal with it.

    Ever since supply side economics became de rigueur for Republican leadership, you’ll get a Keynsian in office no matter who you pick.
    Are you honestly comfortable with that status quo?
    As for the little diatribe in that video about how people died so that I could vote… for Romney — not Bill Whittle’s finest moment.”

    It’s hard to argue with much of what he wrote.

    Que sera, sera.

  16. Curtis Says:

    I’m listening to Dennis Prager right now who is stating the evangelical vote is massive.

    Obama. You die.

  17. Oldflyer Says:

    Wow! Brad started out sounding somewhat reasonable, but as he was challenged he slipped badly and fell back on truly egregious language.

    I am deeply offended by his slander of Mitt Romney. Whether you support him for President, or do not, he is demonstrably a good and decent man. He has faithfully served his community through his church, his Olympic leadership, and as Governor of his state. He has achieved a measure of personal success that obviously makes him the envy of less successful people. Brad’s scurrilous comment tells us much more about Brad than it does about Mitt Romney.

    T’s analysis rings true. Certain people draw their criteria so narrowly that choice becomes impossible. No one can govern this huge and diverse country without some accommodation to people with divergent points of view. Not even Ronald Reagan. Brad sounds a bit like like Peggy Noonan, without her vocabulary.

    In my personal opinion, anyone who withholds their vote at this juncture is behaving childishly. Anyone who casts their vote for a third party candidate is simply wasting the vote at best, or enabling a negative outcome (Perot supporters) at the worst.

  18. Curtis Says:

    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/11/03/obama-campaign-releases-ad-citing-moral-biblical-background-administration-policies-1

    AND NO SCRIPTURE

  19. Curtis Says:

    Fellow countrymen.

    Fret not.

    Romney wins.

    And keep your teeth clenched and your eyes focused so that we can impeach Obama for Benghazi.

  20. neo-neocon Says:

    Susanamantha: on the contrary, it’s easy to argue with what he wrote. It won’t convince him to do otherwise, but it’s easy.

    He is exhibiting the hubris of thinking he can foretell the future and is counting on what I believe is called the Hegelian dialectic to work out. It rarely does work that way.

    He’s assuming that a crash of major proportions will come, and he can hasten it and that will cause the restorative backlash to come sooner. He’s playing with fire. An Obama victory could put some institutional changes in place that would be extremely hard to reverse no matter what. SCOTUS justices that would be in there for decades, for example. Executive orders. More and more people dependent on handouts, greater union power, with more and more entrenched leftist voting habits. Do the countries of Europe which are in deep doo-doo look like they’re going to give up the welfare state because of their economic crises? Not so fast.

    I would say to him to give Romney and Ryan a chance, and discard some of his hubris about predicting the future, and hoping it goes his way. I wrote quite a bit about his sort of thinking in this post, as well:

    …[T]here’s a wing of the far right that I call the apocalypse-seekers. By using that phrase I don’t actually mean anything religious, but instead am referring to those who believe that if the electorate doesn’t see the conservative light and pull a hard reverse of our recent trend towards a larger welfare state and the demise of traditional social morality, then we deserve what we get, which will be some sort of societal/governmental breakdown and/or conflagration. They reluctantly welcome that because they see it as the only chance to rebuild.

  21. LisaM Says:

    I analyze things for a living, and sometimes that creeps into my personal decision making. Buying a new camera or choosing a vacation spot, I used to find myself paralyzed and unable to make a decision just in case there was something better around the corner. I found a blog, The Happiness Project, that had a post about this. The money quote was “Good enough is good enough.” It was a revelation. I can now make a decision knowing that yes, there may be something better out there, but this is what I’ve got and I like it. I now have that quotation along with another, “The perfect is the enemy of the good,” permanently on my desktop.

    This election started out that way for me. Romney was OK, and I was voting for him as a vote against Obama. If people out there only get this far it will make the difference in this election.

    But as the campaign went on, I came to believe that Romney was the only Republican who could win. He chose a fiscal conservative as his VP, which speaks volumes. He has the same law degree as Obama plus an MBA. He was a very successful businessman who turned around failing companies and a failing Olympics. He was a successful governor of a liberal state. And his life has been lived in such an exemplary manner that even the Chicago/Obama smear machine couldn’t accuse him of anything. Like him or hate him, how can anyone think he’s not qualified? He may be the most qualified candidate I’ve ever seen.

    I’m going to the poll on Tuesday eager and proud to vote for Mitt Romney. But even if you consider him the lesser of two evils, he’s still the lesser. No way can any thinking person believe that Romney and Obama are interchangeable. I voted for a 3rd party candidates in the past, and regretted it. We can’t afford to make that mistake this time.

  22. Curtis Says:

    Scaling little ladders with glue pots and pails of Lysol
    I crawl like an ant in mourning
    Over the weedy acres of your brow
    To mend the immense skull-plates and clear
    The bald, white tumuli of your eyes.

    A blue sky out of the Oresteia
    Arches above us. O father, all by yourself
    You are pithy and historical as the Roman Forum.
    I open my lunch on a hill of black cypress.
    Your fluted bones and acanthine hair are littered

    No longer do I listen for the scrape of a keel
    On the blank stones of the landing.

  23. Charles Says:

    Neo: ” . . . give Romney and Ryan a chance . . .”

    Yep. Can it really hurt any worse than another 4 years of Obama? (rhetorial question folks, the answer is NO!)

    Also, somewhat off topic; but sort of answering a question you posed, Neo, a few posts ago – I just heard on the NJ News that folks who have been displaced by the hurricane can vote by email or by fax if they contact their county clerk’s office.

    Requests will be taken until 5:00pm on Tuesday and must be returned by 8:00 pm on Tuesday in order to be counted.

    Of course, one has to have power, a fax machine or a computer in their new location in order to do so. One also has to be aware of this temporary change – many might not be.

    There could be all sorts of problems with this; But, hey, at least the folks in charge are trying something to let every vote count.

  24. T Says:

    Susanamantha and Neoneocon,

    That justification for a Gary Johnson vote re-hashed many of the same arguments we have heard on this blog from Foxmarks. It has nothing to do with them being invalid, just that we have heard them all before. Still, there is another element at work; it is that of the rule-ridden ideological purist.

    Such folk have absolutely no understanding of (nor any inclination to try to understand) the political process. People scream for compromise in an adversarial system and yet, when compromise occurs, the compromisers are accused of selling their principles down the river.

    Now Gary Johnson’s libertarian approach might actually be more to my liking, but the logical fallacy is that even if he would win he could implement his agenda. As Oldflyer mentions above, one can scream about ideological purity all one wants, but we must exist in the real world where constant adjustments are necessary to get anything done. These Foxmarkian arguments are really no different than those of the liberal leftist ideologue in their stridency and in their rigidity. They both fail to understand the basic truism that in theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.

    Because of the reality of the situation, Gary Johnson, even if elected, could prove to be as disappointingly ineffective as Obama has been malignant.

  25. T Says:

    LisaM,

    We call that affliction “analysis paralysis.” It usually leads to displacement activity to avoid making a decision and oftentimes nothing gets done.

  26. Curtis Says:

    Resting on the frying forest lawns
    I smell like yesterdays prawns
    Over and under grannies brow
    fofend the send of her but end
    the look of pain in your nests

    A something of another with glory
    ism shism of Snoop doogy god
    You are dirty and smelly and LA
    I cock my gun so you’ll go away
    you and your hair gel plzee

    My door is locked and the key
    is far far away from thee.

  27. OlderandWheezier Says:

    Neo nailed it at 3:01. Many have convinced themselves that since driving off the cliff is inevitable, we may as well hasten it so that true fiscally responsible leaders can get about the business of rebuilding the country in their own image.

    Which is incredibly naive. Should we experience such a meltdown, I believe there’s a far greater danger that we’ll watch this country fulfill the demented dreams of those who push for Cloward-Piven, not those who push for a Paulian/Randian solution.

  28. Mr. Frank Says:

    Some people place a higher value on their pride than on the welfare of their country. It’s that simple.

  29. T Says:

    Oldflyer,

    I was one of those Perot supporters you mentioned above. I voted for him because I believed (and still do) that a businessman in the white house would do this country a world of good for numerous reasons (a reason that this former Gingrichian is happy to vote Romney).

    Perot had the best thrid party chance of any candidate before or since and so I don’t regret my vote, because I chose it with the best information available at the time. Even under the circumstances of G H W Bush’s loss, Clinton wasn’t a deplorable president (his status as a moral human being is another question). Yes, many may argue that such was becaused he was forced to work with a Republican congress under Gingrich. That’s okay, I’ll take that. At any rate, the eight Clinton years were not a disaster (although they did feed the housing bubble).

  30. Brad Says:

    I just love how after being admonished by one rude commenter to “grow up” and basically happily vote for the lesser of two evils, I’m now taken to task for my language.

    Let me put it this way:
    Both Romney and Obama have some redeeming values as human beings.
    I think they both care for their families, though I suppose I could give Romney less chance of merely pretending to do so. He does after all, have so many kids.

    Neither of them is of the type to condone mass murder.
    Neither is a rapist.

    See, I’m going very basic here.

    Beyond that, I’m not willing to go. Irrespective of their characters -which as they are both liars I don’t think much of – I think they are both horrible choices for the Chief Executive branch. But we are stuck with them.

    To me, the Federal Government is already post-Constitution. The only question to me is who is going to be the one to make it “official”. I think Obama has been playing the rule of Julius Ceaser in a way. He’s pretty blatant about things. Romney is just going to be more like Augustus: more behind the scenes.

  31. texexec Says:

    Brad:

    I take back what I said about you in an earlier post today. I doubt you and I can agree on anything. And I think the language you have used in this thread is offensive and adolescent. Your thinking is unrealistic – similar to the idealistic, naive thinking of many (especially limousine) liberals.

    I voted for a Libertarian candidate “way back when” and even liked Adlai Stevenson when I was in high school. As Churchill once said…”If you aren’t a liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you aren’t a conservative when you are old, you have no brain.”

    If you are past 40 YO, then you haven’t grown up. If you aren’t, you have much to learn.

  32. Steve D Says:

    So long as most freedom loving Americans refuse to vote for a third party, the country will continue lurching back and forth between the republicans and the democrats, gradually overtime moving left, all the way to an eventual dictatorship. This is inevitable. Unless we get out of the two-party trap; we have no chance. If you don’t believe me just review what has happened for say the last fifty years. This is what the republicans and democrats have wrought upon us.
    It’s a cyclic con – we move towards fascism quickly with the democrats, more slowly with the republicans but always in the same direction. Creeping socialism became creeping fascism. The only possible way to avoid this disaster is through massive cultural change. If the libertarian party got a significant number of votes, it might force a change in the national conversation and we might stand a chance. Or it might not, I don’t know. But I do know that the republicans will not get us out of this.
    The problem is not Romney. He is about as decent a man as a politician can be. The proof of this is who he chose for a running mate. How many men would have the self-esteem to pick someone smarter and more capable than himself? Obama didn’t. Neither Bush did. Clinton did not, nor did Reagan or Carter. But Romney did. He has more guts and character than all of those other men combined.
    But on basic principles he will or can do no more than slightly slow the onrush of fascism, compared to Obama who would hasten it.
    The key is to look past the 4 year election cycle and plan for the future. If we are to have a future, that is.

  33. Baklava Says:

    Powerful Neo!

    Brad,

    Thank you for the one pom pom. But if I could attach Pom Pom’s to my feet – I’d raise 4 pom pom’s.

    This is the way I look at it. Look at a man’s words and actions – not how other people try to define him.

    Obama defines himself.
    Romney defines himself.

    I see Obama for what he is based on his words and actions. He has flatly REFUSED to work with Republicans, been lazy (thus the empty chair reference), incessantly pushes the radical leader of every country against the reasonable, pushes for higher tax rates on the job creators and will NOT understand the implications (doesn’t even try to), will not present himself to hard hitting questions (Univision surprised him), and has raised the level of corruption and then stonewall of the investigations to new highs.

    I see Romney for what he is based on his words and actions. He tries to build coalitions of people and influence them towards a consensus position and his principles of success. Success is based on people doing these things Brad. Somebody cannot build a business without help from consumers, employees, investors, etc. Basically people working in the free market with their interest in mind. Whereas Obama seems not to understand the free market – Romney does. It takes working with people to a) build something the consumer wants b) build efficiently c) manage the process well d) keep morale high e) understanding that the people working with personal responsibility raises all boats in this ocean called America.

    Liberals seem to think that one man can gain power and then ban contraceptives, ban abortions, take back the hands of time for women, make a product that people don’t want and force them to buy it, make all employees of a company unhappy and yet build a company. All of these things are preposterous.

    Capitol will flow and revenue from purchases will flow to a company that is managed well and produces well. Right now – money is on the sidelines – the fiscal cliff is near. Romney would’ve NEVER had us in this position. Romney may not make the perfect budget for Brad but that isn’t the way it works.

    Romney understands reality. Obama doesn’t. Romney makes things work. Obama doesn’t

  34. Baklava Says:

    Brad,

    I read further comments. I’ve decided you aren’t worth addressing any further. I apologize for my first post everyone.

    I have a new policy. I will not negotiate, discuss, or argue with people who cannot put forward a nibble of sense.

    I’m just Gobsmacked. You have limited space and time to communicate and the words you choose are the ones you wrote?

  35. Good Ole Charlie Says:

    I forget who said it – I believe it was an ancient Roman (I want to say Cato The Younger) – a remark to the effect that the mark of the fanatic is paranoia.
    Certainly Cato had a streak of this himself. Showed in his politics and fate.
    We who live in the real world have given the classical hostages to fortune. Hence we know (or instinctively feel) that the real world is a series of compromises. We don’t demand an instant paradise; we recognize that we are all fallen in a Christian sense…”Lord, be merciful to me a sinner” said the publican in the temple (while the Pharasie [sp?] told Yahweh what a great life he was living.).
    We are publicans here surrounded by Whited Tombs…”white on the outside, crawling with worms inside”.
    PS: Obama has been more like Domitian if you want the Twelve Caesars: perhaps Romney can emulate Trajan or Hadrian. See Gibbon…
    PPS: This contribution is slightly meandering among a group of random thoughts…

  36. Baklava Says:

    Susanamantha,

    Some people are insufferable and spread misery.

    I personally have chosen NOT to do business with people with that sort of tortured logic in their head. I do not consider them a friend. I do not associate with them.

    Unless they can present a greater benefit by thinking of something other than their own tortured logic – they are gone out of my life!

  37. Steve D Says:

    ‘But he tries to convince them that it’s a very bad idea this time around.’
    Well if more people had started voting third party twenty years ago, we might not be in this mess.
    Here’s another thought – unless two elections; the state total for the Electoral College and the Electoral College itself are both within one vote, your vote is wasted anyway. If you vote republican it will be lost in the millions of other votes, not even to have symbolic importance. But a vote for Gary Johnson; the more he gets the more notice and press he will get. Then next time they might get more…and then more…until eventually people notice.
    That’s called a long term strategy folks. It would work if we could convince more people to think long term. The problem is Americans can’t see past the four year cycle; they can’t think or act long term.
    However, the real key is culture. We’re not going to just vote our way out of this mess. That has never happened in the history of the world and it won’t happen this time.

  38. Steve D Says:

    Here’s another key point. Which man has proposed a balanced budget?
    The answer of course is; neither.
    Economic collapse waits at the end of this tunnel.

  39. texexec Says:

    Thanks for the link to this video, Neo. It was excellent. I just tweeted it and will do so again and again. We have to squeeze out every vote we can.

  40. Baklava Says:

    Olderandwheezier,

    Not is getting to the meltdown naive but it extremely dangerous.

    Imagine concentrations of people in areas of the country where little personal responsibility were present and hardship is abound and it’s every person for themselves.

    Incredible hardship will produce (in this day in age) an unpredictable amount of looting, crime, dying, yes death, people doing what they can for their loved ones, yet failing miserably.

    Municipalities, cities, counties, states will be UNABLE to provide for the safety or enforcement of laws in equitable fashion. Nor will governments be able to help in any meaningful manner. Collapse is not recommended.

    The aftermath of collapse you can’t predict. The calamity that will ensue – and the country afterwards is probably NOT going to be the same that the fore-fathers produced. It may be radically different.

  41. Gary Rosen Says:

    “Since I don’t believe either of the men is qualified to be President”

    I’m sure neither of them is anywhere near as qualified as you are, Brad.

  42. T Says:

    Steve D,

    The logical fallacy of your voting scenario is this:

    Johnson gets enough votes to get noticed. This is also enough votes to reduce Romney’s total in key states and give Obama the 2012 election. In the next four years Obama does such irreparable damage to the fiscal and social underpinnings of America (think Supreme Court appointments here)that in 2016, or anytime therafter, it doesn’t matter whether Johnson or any libertarian is electable because the damage has become irreversible.

    So here we are in 2016 with Gary Johnson noticed as outstanding in his field, but the field has been scorched and salted by Obama so thoroughly that the only use it now has is as a dump and Johnson has nowhere to sow his crops.

  43. T Says:

    Baklava @ 4:53 above,

    “Incredible hardship will produce (in this day in age) an unpredictable amount of looting, crime, dying . . . .”

    Read some of Victor Davis Hanson’s essays about the deterioration of the civil-social fabric in California. It’s happening there as we speak.

  44. Steve D Says:

    ‘Because of the reality of the situation, Gary Johnson, even if elected, could prove to be as disappointingly ineffective as Obama has been malignant.’

    Well, of course he would need a libertarian congress as well…

  45. ziontruth Says:

    Steve D,

    Why do you think a third party would be any better a panacea than the two mainstream ones? A third party would be just as hobbled by the orthodoxy-enforcing MSM. In my country the lesser parties have as much say in the policy game as the two standard-bearers (right now, Likkud and Kadima for the Israeli Right and Left respectively), but the MSM proves powerful enough to counterbalance even the strongest right-wing coalition when it comes to swaying the Prime Minister’s decisions.

    Elections are always a battle that need to be won, but if you want to win the war then it’s the MSM that has to be fixed.

  46. Brad Says:

    I’m so glad I didn’t answer TexExec’s stupid question.
    You see, I haven’t personally attacked anyone here.

    I’m sorry I burst your stupid little ideological bubbles. The ones that have you saying to yourself “I’m voting for a good cause! I’m voting for a good cause!”

    No, to put it bluntly, you are not.

    As for the rest – the “real politics” guys among you – well, there is absolutely no difference between your excuses for your party this election and those of the Obamabots you loath so much. Sorry to puncture your moral balloons about how “pure” you are.

    I bid you adieu. As I’ve said on Talkleft – I wish both sides could lose. And as I’ve watched this country sink farther into the toilet while “well meaning” idiots on both sides struggle for power via a corrupt political process, I’ve given up all sadness and regret about it. We will either have an American Empire or we will have anarchy and possibly split up. Either way the Republic is now dead, and this kind of worship of mammon helped kill it.

  47. Steve D Says:

    Here’s another way to look at it. Let’s say your wildest dreams actually come true. Suppose Romney wins (not much of a dream in this case becausehis victory is almost inevitable). But then suppose the Republicans win all of the close seats and take both houses (filibuster, veto or whatever proof). Further suppose, they surge to victory in all the close races in every state; they win everything reasonably within their graspfrom governor to dogcatcher. Now imagine they keep on doing this for eight straight years.
    Sound good?
    Then answer this question honestly. After those 8 years, is the country more or less free, more or less in debt? Is the government larger or smaller, etc? (Do not compare to the situation if the democrats were in power, compare only with 2012)
    Now replace the Republicans with Libertarians in the above fantasy and answer the question again.

  48. T Says:

    Steve D,

    A further thought. If Libertarians truly want to change this country it is they who must adopt a long term strategy. You don’t start at the top. WHat good would it do to have a truly Libertarian president in a congress and judiciary populated by spendthrift Republicans and Democrats? Answer: No good at all. What purpose would it serve to have Gary Johnson in the Oval Office with as Senate chaired by Harry Reid and a House chaired by Nancy Pelosi?

    If the Libertarians truly want to affect the future of this country they need to begin by installing enought representives in the House and Senate to pass the kind of legislation that they believe will help this country. Then they need to install enough members to influence a veto-proof congress so they can direct a reluctant president, or support one of their own in the Oval Office. Aiming first at the presidency is doing nothing more than focusing on the bowsprit of the ship of state while the hull remains in a rotting, barnacle-laden condition.

  49. Steve D Says:

    Well, I can think of two possible reasons to vote for Romney (sorry, I won’t vote for someone merely because he is decent) – that’s a necessary but not sufficient condition.
    They are:
    1) Considering the people he surrounds himself with; he is probably more libertarian/conservative than he lets on; and
    2) Paul Ryan.
    But if Romney gets in, tell me, what next? What is step 2 in the plan?

  50. Curtis Says:

    So you get to leave unscathed.

    Okay as long as you balance your act with the other side. Will you post where you did that? That would greatly increase your credibility.

    But even if you don’t, thanks for the chance to argue and present facts and do all that stuff which Americans think is so important. I thank you for the chance and the results of an honest argument.

    Curtis

  51. T Says:

    Steve D,

    @ 4:59 above, you’ve made the point youself. while I was writing my entry at 5:08. Without a Libertarian Congress, a Libertarian President is virtually useless. As I noted above, a vote for Gary Johnson in 2012 is attending to the wrong end of the ship.

  52. Oldflyer Says:

    T, I am glad that you are satisfied with your vote. My daughter is also proud that she voted for Perot–she was the only vote that he got in Walton County, Ga, or at least in her precinct, I believe. But, about 15% of the electorate agreed with you, and we got Clinton.

    So in hindsight it is decided that Clinton wasn’t too bad? Well, we did get the housing bubble, which eventually let to economic collapse. We got two of the worst Supreme Court Justices imaginable. We had the Office of President besmirched in ways that we cannot even fathom. We had the first President since reconstruction impeached; and most think that in a true Senate trial would have been convicted. We did get a President that was in essence convicted by a Judge of lying to the Court and to the American people, and subsequently had his law license revoked. We will never know how much damage was done to the Office of the Presidency by Clinton’s actions. But yes, we survived.

    Everyone should vote their individual conscience. If someone believes that Ross Perot, Gary Johnson, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, or Ralph Nader is the best choice for President, so be it.
    What bothers me is the people who withhold the vote. I do regret others who vote for a third party candidate as some form of protest; particularly when the intent is based on faulty reasoning; i.e. Candidate X will compromise my pristine principles in order to actually govern.

    On the other hand, I do not accept the argument that voting for a fringe candidate is a smart, or effective, long term strategy. There is no evidence in modern times to support such a claim. Perhaps some people are thinking of an earlier day, when parties were less organized and the cost of competing was much smaller than today. Reality is a rough task master.

  53. expat Says:

    Brad reminds me bit of Obama. He knows better than every other how to achieve utopia.

  54. neo-neocon Says:

    Steve D: yes, it’s a long-term strategy all right, a strategy that will keep liberals in power for your lifetime and beyond. Dream on.

    There’s also this passage from a book by Milton Mayer called They Thought They Were Free, about the Germans under Nazism. You may see certain perhaps-relevant harmonic resonances to the kind of thinking these days that says “a plague on both your houses.” It can pave the way for something much worse:

    National Socialism was a repulsion of my friends against parliamentary politics, parliamentary debate, parliamentary government—against all the higgling and the haggling of the parties and the splinter parties, their coalitions, their confusions, and their conniving. It was the final fruit of the common man’s repudiation of “the rascals.” Its motif was “throw them all out.” My friends, in the 1920′s, were like spectators at a wrestling match who suspect that beneath all the grunts and groans, the struggle and the sweat, the match is “fixed,” that the performers are only pretending to put on a fight. The scandals that rocked the country, as one party or cabal “exposed” another, dismayed and then disgusted my friends…

    My friends wanted Germany purified. They wanted it purified of the politicians, of all the politicians. They wanted a representative leader in place of unrepresentative representatives. And Hitler, the pure man, the antipolitician, was the man, untainted by “politics,” which was only a cloak for corruption…Against “the whole pack,” “the whole kaboodle,” “the whole business,” against all the parliamentary parties, my friends evoked Hitlerism, and Hitlerism overthrew them all…

    This was the Bewegung, the movement, that restored my friends and bewitched them. Those Germans who saw it all at the beginning—there were not very many; there never are, I suppose, anywhere—called Hitler the Rattenfänger, the “ratcatcher.” Every American child has read The Pied-Piper of Hamlin. Every German child has read it, too. In German its title is Der Rattenfänger von Hameln.

  55. T Says:

    Steve D,

    Step 2? Well in part we’ll have to see what Romney does and if he’s true to his campaign words. If he begins to move toward a balanced budget (it ain’t gonna happen in one year) that would be a good start. So too would be beginning to dismantle Obamacare as he promised and beginning to downsizxe the Dept of Ed and restrict EPA.

    Again, remember that life is dynamic. Step 2 will necessarily depend on the structure and outcome of Step 1.

  56. Curtis Says:

    Here’s what gets me about Brad types of comments: They are ultimately hateful and lack any real objectivity at all.

    They are the worse because either through outright misreprentation or ideological blindness, they utilize as much as they can of reasonable argument and moderate voice to present a totally hateful and partisan argument. He is the worst of the worst. He is to most prepared to decieve and demand what his deceptions result in.

  57. Steve D Says:

    ‘What purpose would it serve to have Gary Johnson in the Oval Office with as Senate chaired by Harry Reid and a House chaired by Nancy Pelosi?’
    You’re thinking too political. I answered this already – to force the national conversation – think bully pulpit. Think CULTURE not POLITICS. With a libertarian president in power, people would be forced into the discussion in a way that could not happen under Romany.
    Because, and I’ve known this for a very long time, there is no purely political way out of this. We’re in this mess too deep to vote ourselves out. If you think there is way, I would love to hear it. What is the plan?
    You make a good point about the Libertarians needing a long term plan, though. I would agree with your point about installing senators, and representatives. In fact, I would even say they should target state legislatures, city councils, and even education. Everywhere they can.

  58. T Says:

    Oldflyeer,

    Note that I wrote Perot had a better chance for a third party bid than any candidate before or since. That statement I stand by.

    I would not vote thrid party today for several reasons. First, this election is too damned important to the immediate future of this country. We rarely know what long term effects (Perot) will be.

    Second, as I mentioned in my respose to Steve D, a third party vote this year, even at Perot’s level, would accomplish nothing but give the election to Obama and we simply can’t have that.

    Third, I have somewhat revised my own approach since 1992. I would heartily vote for Libertarian and Tea Party candidates at local/state levels to begin to build a congress that would be more libertarian in nature. I would no longer try to begin at the top.

  59. Baklava Says:

    T,

    I live it.

    I see it.

    The place I moved into I left my shoes outside overnight. They were gone the next morning.

    We are about to have ANOTHER election where Sacramento has an unemployment rate higher than EVERY other state – yet Sacramento will have a higher percentage of votes cast for Obama as they did for Jerry Brown.

    People here double-down on stupidity.

    In a conversation at work I heard a person say I’m not voting for Obama or Romney because the person I wanted didn’t make it in the primary. I didn’t hear a thing he said after that because my brain shut off from hearing that stupidity.

    Almost everyone I know has been affected by some sort of theft or crime here yet it’s just the way we live. Almost every family I know here has some family member unemployed or underemployed. It’s just the way it is.

    The government is OVERWHELMED.

    And will somebody just by Jerry Brown a Lionel train set already????? His dumbass propositions will be driving more Toyota plants, Intel plants, Comcast, Campbell’s soup plants out of this state and my blood pressure just is through the roof with the Brad types and the coworker who can’t put two logical pieces together….

    Romney is not the problem. Romney’s methodology is actually the solution. People donating more. People taking personal responsibility. People working with each other. Bottom up not top down. It’s the reverse of Obama people!!!

    The reverse of Obama is Romney!

    I look for the positives yes. But I don’t look at Romney as having negatives that will drive us further into bankruptcy faster. I never try to find the perfect candidate.

    I don’t look at Romney as a pile of dung at all. He is a good man who has worked in plenty of organizations and yes finding and hiring democrats and liberals as well.

    As it should be. We need to win from the bottom up and have a resurgence of learning what conservatism is all about. Personal responsibility, national security, free markets.

  60. neo-neocon Says:

    Brad: I don’t know your definition of “personal attack,” but I would say these qualify [emphasis mine]:

    I’m so glad I didn’t answer TexExec’s stupid question…I’m sorry I burst your stupid little ideological bubbles…As for the rest – the “real politics” guys among you – well, there is absolutely no difference between your excuses for your party this election and those of the Obamabots you loath so much. Sorry to puncture your moral balloons about how “pure” you are.

    Occam:
    I’m not really even going to
    engage in argument about this with you as I’m sure you can pull a bunch of bullshit out of your ass and obfuscate the issue.

    Good Ole`Charlie:
    Please go back
    to the old folks home.

  61. T Says:

    Steve D,

    you wrote “You’re thinking too political. I answered this already – to force the national conversation – think bully pulpit. Think CULTURE not POLITICS.”

    Here is where I absolutely disagree. Politics does not change culture, culture affects politics. You can even have a libertarian influenced congress, but if you have a media and an educational culture that demonizes them you are no further ahead.

    Look at Geo W Bush. For all the good or bad that resulted from his presidency, the media played him as Satan/Hitler/Old Man Potter combined (that last from It’s a Wonderful Life). By the time the end of his eighth year rolled around many people were weary of him. The same would be true of be true for Libertarians.

    That cultural chnge must come predominantly from outside of politics. Libertarianism must be made to be culturally acceptable to be politically effective.

    If Romney can do for the country what he did for the Olympics, then that would be a good first step. Then people like Mia Love, Allen West, Paul Ryan and others would begin to have the backing of the general populace (I think we’re already over 51% on that. We’ll see on Tuesday). Again this is a long-term affair, which, even if successful, will only be fulfilled well beyond my own lifetime.

  62. Gary Rosen Says:

    “I bid you adieu.”

    DLTDHYOTWO, Brad.

  63. ConceptJunkie Says:

    I was determined not to vote for McCain in 2008 but my father convinced me to hold my nose and do so anyway. I’m glad he did and I have subsequently changed my mind strongly about the idea of casting a “protest vote”.

    The system is set up such that a third-party candidate is all but impossible, and with the exception of Ross Perot and to a lesser degree Anderson in 1980, this has been true for many years.

    As long as the winner-take-all voting system is in place, we will have two parties, and will be required to vote for the lesser evil. Anything else is an effective vote for the candidate least like the third party candidate you vote for.

    If you look at it from more of a game theory point of view, which after all it is, you will see that voting for a third party candidate is an incredibly stupid idea under almost any conceivable circumstance, and definitely in every election we’ve had in my lifetime.

    I believe in the electoral college as a good system, but the voting method itself is deeply flawed. The problem is that proportional voting, or any other system that could allow your vote to be something other than binary cannot be explained in a 7-second sound bite, and the majority of the country would either not understand or not trust it.

    So, I’m voting for Romney. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that Romney has improved my opinion of him in the past few months, but nonetheless, I’m not deeply enamored of him as a candidate, but since he’s infinitely preferable to the alternative, I am pleased to cast my vote for him in a couple days.

  64. Gary Rosen Says:

    “of course he would need a libertarian congress as well”

    There’s no way libertarians will ever get organized enough to elect hundreds of congressmen. What are you smoking … oh, *that’s* why you’re voting for Johnson. Never mind.

  65. texexec Says:

    Brad said:

    “I bid you adieu.”

    God, I hope so and you can consider that a personal attack.

  66. roc scssrs Says:

    I have a friend–quite personable in his daily life–who’s stocking up on guns, gold, and survival rations. He’s an old leftie who believes Wall Street and American capitalism are bringing about on an environmental and societal collapse, and he’s getting ready. You can drive yourself batty with politics, whether from the right or the left end of the spectrum, and wind up in the same place of paranoia and fantasy.

  67. T Says:

    Steve D,

    “You make a good point about the Libertarians needing a long term plan, though.”

    I live in Pittsburgh, a Dem blue city for over 70 years, and in many ways run like Chicago with somewhat less corruption. Every election a Republican runs for mayor but is never elected. It dawned on me, what good is it to have a Republican figurehead when all of the functionary officeholders do what they’re told by the Dem party bosses? After all it’s these functionaries who actually get the work done.

    The solution is to forget about a Republican mayor for now and begin voting fro down-ticket office holders of a different party to break the iron-clad control the Dem party ideology has.
    Only when a second party has some clout witin the system deos it make sense to have someone of that party at the helm.

    It’s a simple transferrence to see that federal and state congressional change could work the same way, ergo my earlier point in our discussion. It doesn’ help to install Republicans if they’re going to do the same thing as Democrats only for a different constituency. Neither does it make any sense to have an able president (mayor) hobbled by a pyramid of loyalties that s/he can’t direct and command.

  68. Steve D Says:

    ‘Dream on.’
    Don’t dream. Think carefully about this. It’s our only chance.
    We’re in deep trouble no matter who wins.
    No one has answered my question about whether eight years of Romney will make us freer or less free. That’s really what it all comes down to. If Romney wins, I’m sure in 8, 12 or 16 years we will be having this conversation again, with a horrible liberal president and reasonable republican but this time with the country even closer to disaster.
    There is no political way out of this mess as there was no political way out for Germany. Culture trumps politics in the long run. It always will. It has too.
    Once upon a time, Ronald Reagan was president and Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of Great Britain. They didn’t stop the march to fascism did they? In fact, I believe government expenditures went up under Reagan, not down. Do you think Romney will do better, even if, as I suspect, he has an inkling of the danger awaiting us?
    ‘As I noted above, a vote for Gary Johnson in 2012 is attending to the wrong end of the ship.’
    Because of people who can’t think past four year political terms we are now in a very real and dangerous bind. There is no time to argue about what side of the ship to attend first. We need to hit them all at once.
    ‘If he begins to move toward a balanced budget (it ain’t gonna happen in one year) that would be a good start.’
    He has not proposed a balance budget in the next four years. He has suggested a slight reduction in how fast the deficit increases, I believe by 2016. Assuming congress passes his budget. I am not sure what he can do about Obamacare. He can’t wave his magic wand and make it disappear, right. He doesn’t make the law. Wouldn’t the people who voted it in, have to vote it out? A huge and massive cut to government expenditures in the next four years might save us, unless it is already too late.
    ‘Look at Geo W Bush.’
    But Geo W. Bush wasn’t really anything at all as far as I can tell. Was he a conservative or a liberal or something in-between? He was definitely not the right person. Romney is personally a better man, I think than Bush but I still don’t see him a harbinger of cultural change.
    While I agree that most change must come from outside, a person with conviction and courage in the presidency who is willing to use his position to educate as far as he can, the American people would be a good thing. But most politicians like most voters cannot see past politics to culture nor work for anything more than eight years in the future.

  69. Steve D Says:

    ‘Only when a second party has some clout witin the system deos it make sense to have someone of that party at the helm.’

    Or do both at the same time.

  70. neo-neocon Says:

    Steve D: eight years of Romney would make us freer—or at the very least, less unfree. By the simple means of stopping Obama from being president for four more years, it would do that. By the simple means of preventing Obama from appointing several SCOTUS justices, it would do that. By the simple means of stopping all of Obama’s executive directives, it would do that. What’s so complex about that?

    Remember, also, we are not voting Romney in for 8 years. Presidents have four year terms, and after that the public reevaluates them.

  71. LisaM Says:

    T – I voted for Perot too, also because I thought a businessman was what we needed. I worked for EDS, a very well-run company, right after the Iranian hostage crisis where EDS successfully rescued its people and Carter failed. People like that know how to get things done. That was also the election that the religious right / Moral Majority took over the convention and I didn’t like the direction the Republicans were heading. I’ve regretted that vote ever since the following morning when I realized that the Perot votes threw the election to Clinton. I won’t do it again, even if I prefer a 3rd-party candidate. I live in PA, a battleground state this year, and Obama has to go.

  72. Curtis Says:

    i wll fnd a wy
    fgtt f t lv
    tn sn fwy
    ft lft jp dl
    ddd ddd ddd

    You see how that works

    You can make anything you want in hour mind
    but it is a different matter to impose it

    Now all you secret service people, if you ask how I did it, my answer it same way you did.

  73. n.n Says:

    Whittle is right again. The correct decision process begins with assembling a vector constellation representing our principles. We then assemble a similar constellation representing a candidate’s stated principles, positions, history, viability, etc. for comparison. We support the candidate who exhibits the best correlation to our ideal constellation. From this process it should become painfully obvious that there will never be a perfect match. Unfortunately, there is a larger domestic and foreign dynamic which influences and even controls our policies. So, election of our preferred candidate marks the beginning and not the end of the process.

  74. Steve D Says:

    ‘What are you smoking’
    Obviously, something more courteous than you are. The scary thing is that your argument might just be right this time. Because short term thinking has now brought us to the point where all we have left today is to delay the inevitable.
    And that is why I actually think that a vote for Romney might be justified using a different argument (especially in a battleground state). He is probably more libertarian than he lets on. He many not even realize this himself, but he picked Paul Ryan for a reason.
    In the following article I don’t agree with the author’s personal assessment of Mitt Romney, but he makes a similar strategic argument.
    http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/hustle-bear-judd-weiss/2012/nov/1/suggestion-republicans-consider-gary-johnson/
    He also makes another interesting comment I didn’t think of.
    ‘if you’re not in a swing state, it’s a no brainer to vote for Gary Johnson and show your support.’
    He’s got a point. I live in Missouri. Romney is going to win here no matter what. So why not fill up these solid blue and red states with libertarian votes, increase Gary’s total vote total and still elect Romney using the purple states and put pressure from him from the right. You would have the best of both worlds. Now how’s that for ignoring culture in favor of politics 

  75. T Says:

    Steve D,

    With regard to the budget and the national debt I think from what you write that you might not be addressing half of the`argument. First, I say at the outset that debt and deficit reduction is important. Period. We can’t go on running up the bar tab with no forseesable end in sight.

    Having said that, let’s look at it from another perspective. Say a person has an income of $50K per year and consumer debt (credit cards) of $50K. Such a person is in deep trouble. Now say that person can get a new job and triple their income to $150K a year. The $50K debt is still a problem and a burden, but less so than before.

    So, if one side of the solution requires reducing expenditures and paying down debt, the other side involves increasing income. Dems can only see that as tax revenue produced by higher tax rates, but for the U.S. it’s really the taxable GDP not a tax rate. With a healthy program to encourage business and reduce energy costs while increasing production (which Romney has proposed) he is likewise designing our current debt to be a smaller part of our national problem. This also makes it easier to pay off over an extended period of time.

    Now the caveat is that if is becomes a smaller problem, then there’s increased incentive to trivialize it and say we needn’t worry about it. That’s precisely what happened in the past hundred years as successive congresses kept kicking the can down the road in the face of growing economies.

    I have said before that perhaps we owe Obama some gratitude for exacerbating this to the point that it can no longer be ignored. It’s like finding your adolescent child out behind the garage smoking. Wanna smoke? Let’s smoke; and then making him/her chain smoke an entire pack. How d’ya feel now? Think ya wanna smoke some more? That, I think, is the point we are at, and I think it comes at a time when the problem is still manageable. That’s precisley why a vote for Johnson this cycle could well be deadly because it could give Obama for more years to do irreversible damage.

    Those people who think the fiscal cliff is inevitable, (so we should hasten it) really don’t think that the problem is irreversible. Death is also inevitable, but I don’t see them committing suicide at 40 because they’re going to die anyway.

  76. Steve D Says:

    ‘eight years of Romney would make us freer’
    So that is where we must disagree. I would argue that eight years of Reagan did not make us freer. Practically by every measure (debt, government dependency, spending, regulation) freedom lost ground; at a slower rate perhaps than under Carter but we still lost ground. It lost ground at a much faster rate under the first Bush and then even faster under Clinton. Notwithstanding short term tactical changes in regulating various industries which provided a temporary advantage, overall we see a decrease in freedom.
    It is also true that Congress and the state legislatures are part of this descent towards dictatorship. It may be that if you can give Romney the correct Congress and surround him with the right people (more people like Paul Ryan would be a start), it may help.
    But even if you could prove that Reagan did make use slightly more free we are certainly not freer four years ago than we were when he took office, meaning we still lost ground. I definitely believe that we misplaced freedom under both of the Bush’s.
    Yes compared to eight (or four if you will) years of Obama, you are correct. But if I am correct and that all Romney can possibly do is to slow the rate we descend into unfreedom and he is the best we can do at the moment well…I’m sure you can see the trap we are in.
    The question is: how do we get out of it? Attacking modern culture of course and blogs like yours are part of the solution but perhaps there is a political part to the solution as well

  77. T Says:

    Steve D,

    Regarding voting for Johnson, I will cede your argument about red states and blue states v. swing states. Of course the problem could be that if enough people in a state like Misssouri do vote for Johnson, then Romney loses an otherwise safe state. Perhaps out of the realm of probability, but certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

  78. T Says:

    And another reason to pull out all the stops to insure that Romney wins. As I noted, irreversible damage:

    More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation. The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/04/obama-epa-second-term-agenda-revealed/

    Let’s spreads this info across Ohio and PA.

  79. Artfldgr Says:

    whats a liberarian?

  80. Steve D Says:

    ‘Now the caveat is that if it becomes a smaller problem, then there’s increased incentive to trivialize it and say we needn’t worry about it.’
    Your point about increasing earning is good and I am not even sure I would worry that it will be trivialized. Somehow I find it hard to believe that we can earn ourselves out of 16 trillion dollars of debt ever being a problem. We have to hit this elephant from both ends, reduce the debt and regulations. All this assumes that Romney’s plan will work well. It also depends upon just how close we are to collapse.
    ‘That’s precisely why a vote for Johnson this cycle could well be deadly because it could give Obama for more years to do irreversible damage.’
    This is assuming of course that he will or that he hasn’t already (that we are not less or more resilient than you argue). I’m not sure anyone can really predict this but I’m not completely closed to this argument either, because I can’t say for sure that you aren’t right. In the case that we are precisely at the inflection point, you have an argument. However, republicans say that every election.
    ‘I think it comes at a time when the problem is still manageable.’
    I’m not sure. I think you could make the argument either way.
    When you argue about culture though, I would agree. No matter what happens at some point if things go the way they are going, the democrats will return to power. That much is certain. Unless substantial progress has been made between then and now, Obama II will more than reverse it in four years.

  81. T Says:

    Steve D,

    “‘I think it comes at a time when the problem is still manageable.’
    I’m not sure. I think you could make the argument either way.”

    No doubt about it. Just like forecasting the election, it’s all speculation. Only hindsight is 20/20. I look at the creation of the Tea Party from an offhand utterance by Rick Santelli. I look at the progress they can claim in a very short time. I see people like Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor and Mia Love, and even the response to Chik-Fil-A, and I am optimistic. We are hardly rolling over and playing dead.

  82. Steve D Says:

    ‘As I noted irreversible damage’
    Actually, I think a republican congress could put an end to this, even with Obama in power. So I’m betting you are proposing that I vote for Todd Akin. Do you feel the same way about voting libertarian in senate and congress races?
    (Both Akin and his main opponent are slimy career politicians in my opinion. I don’t really see how character counts for much in that race.
    I was thinking Jon Dine?
    http://www.jonathandine.com/
    I think your argument is more credible related to the military which is a main concern of the president. I worry about that; a lot. Like Athens, Rome and Britain before us, our power declines relative to the world. Once it passes a certain point, our enemies will not allow us to rebuild it. (That would truly be ‘a game over’) So there is a possible inflection point around that but I don’t have enough military acumen to determine how close it might be or whether it needs immediate action. Determining it will include adding the military power of our allies into the equation of course.

  83. neo-neocon Says:

    artfldgr: I guess a liberarian is a libertarian librarian, and a big old typo (post titles are not subject to spellcheck, in turns out).

    Will fix.

  84. rickl Says:

    I just got finished watching Romney speak on C-SPAN. Not bad. Great crowd.

    It was just 12 miles from me as the crow flies, according to Google Earth. Gotta love the internet.

  85. rickl Says:

    Oh, and Pennsylvania is definitely in play.

  86. Steve D Says:

    I see people like Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor and Mia Love, and even the response to Chik-Fil-A, and I am optimistic.
    The people I worked with seemed to be under the impression that Chik-Fil-A was against homosexuals. Now who I wonder, might have given them that impression? But the problem is that someone was not telling the truth and the argument did not reach the masses.
    The fact that someone like Paul Ryan was chosen to be a candidate for vice president is a very good sign. As I said, that’s the best argument I can think of for Romney. It would be the one thing that could convince me to vote for him. It definitely takes guts to choose a man more capable and popular than yourself.

  87. kaba Says:

    http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19996781/2012/11/04/romney-and-obama-in-dead-heat-in-latest-michigan-poll

    Recent poll from Michigan has that state at dead heat. Romney at 46.86% and Obama at 46.24%. The link to poll internals wouldn’t work for me.

  88. Irene Says:

    Anybody have any theories as to why Romney has never broken 40% on Intrade?

  89. baklava Says:

    Steve d,
    Ronald Reagan DID make us more free on so many levels and your phrases are factually untrue. I’m on my smartphone right now but can detail later where your statements were factually incorrect.

  90. neo-neocon Says:

    Irene: I don’t know much about Intrade except what I’ve read on various blogs. Those who try to explain it say that it is (a) a very small market; and (b) mostly European.

  91. Oldflyer Says:

    For discussion we get such strawmen as “in 8 years under Romney will you be…?”

    Who knows? Who would venture a guess?

    Did George W. Bush expect to be a war time President? For that matter did George H.W. Bush?

    When you are given the opportunity to cast your precious vote, you evaluate the choices, and then you vote for the available candidate who gives you the most confidence that he, or eventually she, will adhere closest to your principles; and, probably most importantly, the one you think will best handle the unexpected crises that will surely arise.

    If you want to establish a new party, or you want to run outside the two party system, then you better start doing the hard groundwork to build an infrastructure decades in advance. You don’t swoop in as the Presidential election year approaches and try to cherry pick.

    Just a question. When did Johnson decide to run?
    I have read some fantastic comments in this thread.

  92. cornflour Says:

    I have to admit that it’s hard for me to understand why anyone who regularly reads this blog would believe that there’s no meaningful difference between Obama and Romney. If there are such people, please don’t bother to respond to this little comment.

    For those of us thinking about taking Neo’s advice and making a last-minute pitch, for Romney, to our unenthusiastic conservative and libertarian friends, I’d like to also recommend the latest entry written by the Diplomad. It’s clear and well-done partisanship — maybe enough to convince a reluctant voter.

    The URL is http://thediplomad.blogspot.com/2012/11/no-hope-without-change.html

  93. T Says:

    Steve D,

    You asked about voting for Akin. I’m not a Missouran and other than the national media accounts and McCaskill’s record and allegiance I know nothing more about those candidates. I’m also not a big party man.

    I found Akin’s comment to be remarkably stupid from a political point of view which, to me, says something aqbout the innate intelligence of the man. Furhtermore I found his response to the natianal uproar to be narcisistic and totally self- involved. Even still, not knowing anything else about any other contenders, I’d probably vote Akin rather than McCaskill if I lived in MO if only to safeguard against an Obama victory. But even that might not be helpful. Given the way the national Republicans turned on Akin, I wouldn’t be surprised if he had some surprises of his own planned if he wins.

  94. thomass Says:

    Brad Says:

    “And I will NEVER blame anyone for voting third party.
    If more of your Republican readers had been willing to hold their party accountable in the past”

    we kind of have a communication problem. When republicans screw up the lefty media report it but there is the cry wolf thing. They report so much bs it gets thrown out as noise… If people on this blog come up with problems they have with republicans; we don’t have a means to get the word out… beyond this place. But in general I think a lot of republicans know that the party has problems…

  95. T Says:

    OT but I thought readers here would like to see what the opposition is saying. I went over to Charles Blow’s column at the NYT Is Romney Unraveling?(H/T RealClearPolitics) and aside from the fact that he predicts an Obama win (54% Obama to 34% Romney I found this little gem in the comments:

    Eric baltimore

    Let’s see… Romney is tactless, extreme in his views, awkward in diplomacy, lacking in empathy, repressive to women, beholden to wealthy donors… oh yeh, and he lies to get what he wants.

    Maybe people are starting to realize that he lacks the basic skills and moral character to be President.
    Nov. 3, 2012 at 11:50 a.m.

    Talk about projection!!! Seriously, one just wonders how Eric can even make it through a normal day!

  96. Gary Rosen Says:

    cornflour:

    Everyone should read your link to the Diplomad, though of course for most of the regulars here it will be preaching to the choir. A devastating takedown of Obama.

  97. Baklava Says:

    SteveD,

    I’m sorry. I’m tired.

    Please don’t be lazy. It is very easy to find how during the Reagan years the top marginal rate was cut from 70% to 28% and what ensued was a very sizable growth in the economy. GDP soared. Unemployment dropped dramatically.

    The funny and serious thing is that the unemployment rate for African Americans dropped at a faster pace than for whites. This is true if you weren’t lazy and looked it up you would stop writing the comments you write.

    The pen is mighty. But the pen is only mighty if you take the time to figure out how to use it.

    You sir have not done that.

    Let me share with others what insanity I’m addressing:

    I would argue that eight years of Reagan did not make us freer. Practically by every measure (debt, government dependency, spending, regulation) freedom lost ground;

    Yes, there was more debt. Yes Congress spent more than the revenue that came into the government. But DEPENDENCY went down. I don’t know how you say freedom lost ground but you said it. What was freedom like in the Carter years when interest rates were near 20%? Home loans? Forget about it… High unemployment and inflation to boot! All went down after 1981.

  98. Doom Says:

    Yeah, even for me, I have to… say he is right. I didn’t want to vote. I don’t trust Romney. I don’t care for Republicans anymore (they left me). But yeah, I am not sure we will get the chance to vote so that it counts again if we don’t vote this time. Even in Utah, where it is perfectly safe, it is about sending a message.

    And, I do have some small hope for Romney/Republicans. I just feel a bit too much like Charley Brown vs. Republicans/Lucy. Still, yeah, I’ll vote. For Romney.

  99. expat Says:

    Neo,
    I don’t know about Intrade being mostly European, but if it is that would explain a lot. European “journalists” consider themselves well informed if they can translate NYT articles for their readers/audiences. Furthermore, there is the expat community of academic/artsy types who trash America all the time. I just saw a report on Yahoo.de that Gayle Tufts will give up her American citizenship if Romney wins. Tufts is a 3rd-rate comedienne from Massachusetts who lives in Berlin and makes rare appearance on German TV. She is occasionally a participant in TV talk rounds, and she is totally ignorant. She has obviously figured out that the way to make a living in Berlin is to reinforce the right thinking clichees about America. Few normal Germans have ever heard of her. Yet today she has to make a stupid statement about her virtue. One of the things she mentioned in her statement was how amazing Michelle is, balancing her profession as a lawyer with being a mother. Obviously, she doesn’t know that Michelle traded her lawyer job for the far more lucrative niche within the Daley machine, and she doesn’t seem to realize that Michelle’s mother was always around to help out with the kids. Still, Gayle has managed to feed thebama myth for lots of Germans.

  100. texexec Says:

    In recent years, my wife and I have visited Paris several times and have been surprised at how nice and courteous the Parisians were to us. Often they offered theirs seats on crowded Metro rides to us, waiters in restaurants were very friendly, people on streets would volunteer to help us if we looked like we were looking for something,etc.

    Lately I’ve wondered if this was because they thought we must have voted for Obama. (Little did they know!)

    Or maybe it was because we looked so old. :)

  101. SteveH Says:

    Everybody that’s anybody seems to be for Obama. Which means the world will be shocked tomorrow by all us nobodys.

    Remember Wisconsin and vote like your country depends on it.

  102. thomass Says:

    Baklava Says:

    “It is very easy to find how during the Reagan years the top marginal rate was cut from 70% to 28% and what ensued was a very sizable growth in the economy. GDP soared. Unemployment dropped dramatically.”

    That brings up a point most conservatives are not aware of. How bad the growth was in the 70s. It, like the poor results from the New Deal, has been memory holed by the left. They managed to put an end to the post WWII expansion and Reagan pulled us out of their ditch.

  103. cornmeal Says:

    In keeping with Neo’s advice to try persuading our reluctant libertarian friends to vote for Romney, I’d like to add another resource to Bill Whittle’s video and the Diplomad’s blog essay that I’ve already noted.

    The well-respected libertarian academic, Richard Epstein, has just posted “The Libertarian’s Dilemma” to the Hoover Institution Journal, “Defining Ideas.” Epstein makes a carefully considered argument for Romney. The URL is http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/133596

    Anyway, I know it’s a cliche, but in the so-called battleground states, a few votes could turn the election, and this is a critical election — and no, I don’t say that every year. If you know anyone who might be swayed by Bill Whittle, the Diplomad, or Richard Epstein, then please send them a link and a prayer. Thanks.

  104. texexec Says:

    BTW, I saw several Red Cross ads on TV this weekend that featured Obama. Romney suggested that people donate to the Red Cross and got nary a mention that I know of.

    Chris Christie will NEVER get my vote if he happens to go national.

    And I will never donate to the Red Cross. There are too many other good ways to help people.

  105. Don Carlos Says:

    I forwarded the Whittle vid to my brother the Leftist shrink and he responded “emotion, not reason.”
    The shrinks I as an MD have known pretty much all dishonor their MD degree. Their cognition is screwier than that of most of their patients. Their practice consists of (1) Rx drugs, and (2) dealing with the minutiae of the legalities of mental health law. They are all Libs….

  106. southpaw Says:

    Brad might be one of the the Mike Church disciples who tune in each morning to learn what the constitution says, according to Mike, and what it doesn’t say, according to Mike. If you don’t process all political thought and opinions through the prism that is The Constitution, you are simply not worthy of a a vote or consideration for a vote. Any disagreements with what it allows for or what it doesn’t are entirely misunderstandings by those not in the “King Dude” camp. Any candidate not endorsed by the master intellect is simply another trampler of the holy document, and there is no differentiation or defining line between a Romney and Marx, except the rate of change. Only the Grand Wizard of Libertarian thought, Ron Paul, who has lobbied for and accepted more pork for his district can be trusted to uphold the purest values of our constitution. You can Google Uncle Ron’s glorious record, and see the pork he’s voted against, while at the same time being soley responsible for putting that pork in those bills, which he knows will pass. What a load indeed. A true bamboozler of the easily fooled, but more importanlty, a PRACTICAL man, who spouts one thing about what the goverment isn’t authorized to do, while grabbing it with both hands for his district, and securing re-election each term.
    I accept that nobody has done an ideal job for conservatives, and Romney is no exception, but you need to be brain dead (or a democrat) if you can’t tell the difference between one and the other, or where their visions lead us. One might not lead to conservative Nirvana, but the other is clearly determined to lead us farther down the Marxist path than we have ever thought possible.

  107. Artfldgr Says:

    A “Council” is a Soviet in the Russian language:

    Executive Order — Establishing the White House Homeland Security Partnership Council

    EXECUTIVE ORDER
    - – - – - – -
    ESTABLISHING THE WHITE HOUSE
    HOMELAND SECURITY PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to advance the Federal Government’s use of local partnerships to address homeland security challenges, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1. Policy. The purpose of this order is to maximize the Federal Government’s ability to develop local partnerships in the United States to support homeland security priorities. Partnerships are collaborative working relationships in which the goals, structure, and roles and responsibilities of the relationships are mutually determined. Collaboration enables the Federal Government and its partners to use resources more efficiently, build on one another’s expertise, drive innovation, engage in collective action, broaden investments to achieve shared goals, and improve performance. Partnerships enhance our ability to address homeland security priorities, from responding to natural disasters to preventing terrorism, by utilizing diverse perspectives, skills, tools, and resources.

    The National Security Strategy emphasizes the importance of partnerships, underscoring that to keep our Nation safe “we must tap the ingenuity outside government through strategic partnerships with the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, and community-based organizations. Such partnerships are critical to U.S. success at home and abroad, and we will support them through enhanced opportunities for engagement, coordination, transparency, and information sharing.” This approach recognizes that, given the complexities and range of challenges, we must institutionalize an all-of-Nation effort to address the evolving threats to the United States.

    Sec. 2. White House Homeland Security Partnership Council and Steering Committee.

    (a) White House Homeland Security Partnership Council. There is established a White House Homeland Security Partnership Council (Council) to foster local partnerships — between the Federal Government and the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, community-based organizations, and State, local, tribal, and territorial government and law enforcement — to address homeland security challenges. The Council shall be chaired by the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (Chair), or a designee from the National Security Staff.

    (b) Council Membership.

    (i) Pursuant to the nomination process established in subsection (b)(ii) of this section, the Council shall be composed of Federal officials who are from field offices of the executive departments, agencies, and bureaus (agencies) that are members of the Steering Committee established in subsection (c) of this section, and who have demonstrated an ability to develop, sustain, and institutionalize local partnerships to address policy priorities.

    (ii) The nomination process and selection criteria for members of the Council shall be established by the Steering Committee. Based on those criteria, agency heads may select and present to the Steering Committee their nominee or nominees to represent them on the Council. The Steering Committee shall consider all of the nominees and decide by consensus which of the nominees shall participate on the Council. Each member agency on the Steering Committee, with the exception of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, may have at least one representative on the Council.

    (c) Steering Committee. There is also established a Steering Committee, chaired by the Chair of the Council, to provide guidance to the Council and perform other functions as set forth in this order. The Steering Committee shall include a representative at the Deputy agency head level, or that representative’s designee, from the following agencies:

    (i) Department of State;

    (ii) Department of the Treasury;

    (iii) Department of Defense;

    (iv) Department of Justice;

    (v) Department of the Interior;

    (vi) Department of Agriculture;

    (vii) Department of Commerce;

    (viii) Department of Labor;

    (ix) Department of Health and Human Services;

    (x) Department of Housing and Urban Development;

    (xi) Department of Transportation;

    (xii) Department of Energy;

    (xiii) Department of Education;

    (xiv) Department of Veterans Affairs;

    (xv) Department of Homeland Security;

    (xvi) Office of the Director of National Intelligence;

    (xvii) Environmental Protection Agency;

    (xviii) Small Business Administration; and

    (xix) Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    At the invitation of the Chair, representatives of agencies not listed in subsection (c) of this section or other executive branch entities may attend and participate in Steering Committee meetings as appropriate.

    (d) Administration. The Chair or a designee shall convene meetings of the Council and Steering Committee, determine their agendas, and coordinate their work. The Council may establish subgroups consisting exclusively of Council members or their designees, as appropriate.

    Sec. 3. Mission and Function of the Council and Steering Committee. (a) The Council shall, consistent with guidance from the Steering Committee:

    (i) advise the Chair and Steering Committee members on priorities, challenges, and opportunities for local partnerships to support homeland security priorities, as well as regularly report to the Steering Committee on the Council’s efforts;

    (ii) promote homeland security priorities and opportunities for collaboration between Federal Government field offices and State, local, tribal, and territorial stakeholders;

    (iii) advise and confer with State, local, tribal, and territorial stakeholders and agencies interested in expanding or building local homeland security partnerships;

    (iv) raise awareness of local partnership best practices that can support homeland security priorities;

    (v) as appropriate, conduct outreach to representatives of the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, foundations, community-based organizations, and State, local, tribal, and territorial government and law enforcement entities with relevant expertise for local homeland security partnerships, and collaborate with other Federal Government bodies; and

    (vi) convene an annual meeting to exchange key findings, progress, and best practices.

    (b) The Steering Committee shall:

    (i) determine the scope of issue areas the Council will address and its operating protocols, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget;

    (ii) establish the nomination process and selection criteria for members of the Council as set forth in section 2(b)(ii) of this order;

    (iii) provide guidance to the Council on the activities set forth in subsection (a) of this section; and

    (iv) within 1 year of the selection of the Council members, and annually thereafter, provide a report on the work of the Council to the President through the Chair.

    Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) The heads of agencies participating in the Steering Committee shall assist and provide information to the Council, consistent with applicable law, as may be necessary to implement this order. Each agency shall bear its own expense for participating in the Council.

    (b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof;

    (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals; or

    (iii) the functions of the Overseas Security Advisory Council.

    (c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties, and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    BARACK OBAMA

    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    October 26, 2012.

  108. Irene Says:

    Thanks for the info Neo. BTW, Intrade has Romney down to 32.6% today. Go figure.

  109. Rob Says:

    Things are much more complicated than this video portrays them. A Romney victory in this election will likely set the conservative cause back DECADES.

  110. neo-neocon Says:

    Rob: Romney and Ryan are about the most conservative politicians who might actually have a chance of winning on the national level. So instead of voting for them, you would like to hold out for a perfection that will probably never come in terms of winning a national election.

    In the meantime, you say “a Romney victory in this election will likely set the conservative cause back DECADES.” My response is that an Obama victory in this election will likely set the conservative cause in this country back many more DECADES, and perhaps even a CENTURY, or perhaps forever. Not to mention compromising our national security and that of the world.

    You are one of the Cloward-Pivens of the right.

  111. Cassie Says:

    Thе сonсеpt of your blog iѕ
    verу fresh, I’m certain that the readers that find your blogs surely benefit your content and thoughts.

    Also visit my web page – Cassie

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge