Pajamas Media

154 Comments

1. Sulla:

I well remember being amazed at the 1972 election results of my home town. Our local university campus precinct was one of the few in the nation that voted for Nixon over McGovern, but on the issue of legalizing pot it voted overwhelmingly “Yes”.

The throughout our history major parties in America have sustained themselves by adopting the ideas of third parties. The Democrats have turned toward the Green Party. The only other tertium quid is the Libertarian party. GOP success lies in that direction.

Nov 12, 2009 - 1:34 am 2. Mike2:

I am from New Mexico and it’s true that Gary Johnson left office with the state in good economic shape and with a budget surplus. But, and there is always a “but”, there are some things in his past that might stymie a run for the White House. I am referring to complaints about substandard work his construction company did at the Intel plant in Rio Rancho.

I personally feel that his stance on legalizing certain drugs is a correct one. Cheap and legal heroin, marijuana and cocaine would go a long way towards reducing the crime levels in this country especially the numbers of burglaries committed to get money for drugs. Prohibition certainly hasn’t worked.

However, can he get the support of social conservatives and the power players in the Republican Party? I doubt it even though he is a tried and true fiscal conservative.

Nov 12, 2009 - 2:50 am 3. Khiri:

As much as I would love a Libertarian as president (a hawkish candidate would be preferable and in today’s global political climate, far more realistic and practical), a third party candidate would ensure a Democratic win. Want The Won for another 4 years, or, possibly Prez Hillary (shiver!)?

Nov 12, 2009 - 4:18 am 4. Distraught:

To:

The day I support drug legalization, well. The day I eat my shorts.

I don’t recall supporting Ron Paul, not that his voice is not a reasoned one in these times. Or is this about the real Johnson. His stance sounds keen though.

I _strongly_ support both wars, yet chose to fight with my mind rather than enlist, and thus do not think it laudable (?). I don’t think there is a bigger GW supporter than I, except for immigration and bailouts (probably another). They should, in some sense, fail.

Nov 12, 2009 - 4:55 am 5. CatoRenasci:

You have to be kidding. I’m a classical liberal and I wouldn’t vote for this guy on a national level. There is a fundamental difference, given our federal system, in what’s appropriate at a state or local level, and what’s necessary to be effective in national office where we’re dealing with an essentially Hobbesian world. Without a strong commitment to defense and the projection of American power, he would be unelectable, and rightly so.

While it is essential for a potentially serious candidate to be a fiscal conservative and to eschew larger government, it is also necessary for (ironically) a more lassez-faire attitude towards state and local level social conservatism. Candidates who wish to impose social conservatism will never win, true enough, but neither will candidates who seek to ban or stiff-arm social conservatives. Most social conservative issues are best handled at local and state levels, especially a country as closely divided as America: those who wish more socially conservative government can choose states where that prevails, and those who want more socially liberal regimes can choose those.

Nov 12, 2009 - 5:05 am 6. X:

Stop this! the change 2012 will be Palin, remember well: PALIN, not Pawlenty, no Johnson.
PALIN 2012!

Nov 12, 2009 - 5:11 am 7. CatoRenasci:

I _strongly_ support both wars, yet chose to fight with my mind rather than enlist

Just how are you fighting with your mind, Distraught?

Having served, I’m always queasy about those who, though unwilling to serve themselves, strongly support someone else going off to do their fighting.

I don’t favor conscription, but I think everyone who enjoys the benefits of this society has a moral obligation to serve.

Nov 12, 2009 - 5:20 am 8. David Thomson:

Sigh, what can I say? Gary Johnson has about as much chance of becoming the next president as I do humiliating Kobe Bryant on the basketball court. He could, at the very most, attract one half of one percent of the total vote on Election Day. One does not build a successful campaign for the highest elected office in the United States premised on the legalization of marihuana! Johnson would not even be able to raise sufficient funds to survive the first few Republican primaries. This is an idea going nowhere.

Nov 12, 2009 - 5:37 am 9. The SantaFean:

Gary Johnson did a remarkable job in New Mexico as governor. Nevertheless, the provincial nature of New Mexican politics does not translate well to the national level. Gary is a nice guy. His virtues are many: honesty, veracity, plain-spoken, fiscally responsible, anti-government, and the list goes on. But he’s a lightweight; he lacks gravitas. Too bad because otherwise he’s a fine man.

Nevertheless, if he can make the case that issues like marijuana legalization and abortion should be handled at the state level, he will add much to the presidential debates. The next Ron Paul? Probably. But he won’t tally much more than did Mr. Paul in the last election. Still, I wish him luck.

Nov 12, 2009 - 5:41 am 10. Thomas_L.....:

Distraught – It all goes back to the Volstead Act. Prohibition made everything illegal and the partial repeal of prohibition left cannabis, commercial hemp and various drugs in the dark. Between 1919 and 1933 we came to understand that the only thing accomplished was creating tremendous profitability in a new crime. Not only were incredible profits made possible by this law but the law against alcohol made criminals and scofflaws out of normal citizens. The same went with the other substances which eventually went from something enjoyed by jazz musicians to your kids smoking heroin in their bedroom. One definition of insanity is continuing to do the things that don’t worked and expecting different results. The war on drugs is a failure. Drugs won. Immense profit overcomes all sense. It has made criminals out of law enforcement officials and politicians. While these substances should never have been prohibited in the first place, it’s now become way to complicated and I don’t favor across the board drug legalization but the normalization of cannabis would be an intelligent beginning to gradually getting back to where we were in 1919. I salute the governor for his common sense and courage.

Here’s some interesting reading.

http://tinyurl.com/y9rbssc

Nov 12, 2009 - 6:07 am 11. Rich Vail:

He may well be a viable “insurgent” candidate. If he chooses that route, even if he doesn’t “win” the nomination, he can through those policies he supports, affect the GOP Platform. I’m a lifelong member of the GOP, though socially, I’m moderate to libertarian. The “war on drugs” has been a signal failure. Not much has changed in the last 30 or so years, except we’ve spent billions of dollars with nothing to show for it. 70% of crimes are still drug connected, mostly committed by those trying to get money to purchase drugs…it’s time to legalize marijuanna (at least) and decriminalize some of the others. Then sell pot just like alcohol and tax the sh*t out of it…just like cigarettes and alcohol. That in itself would raise billions in tax revenue.

Nov 12, 2009 - 6:23 am 12. Sapwolf:

Sarah Palin has the best balance of libertarianism and conservatism wrapped in a package of convictions, courage and charisma.

She is the Anti-Obama is almost every way, and will pull people into the tent rather than enlarging the tent to include statists like what Graham proposes.

Nov 12, 2009 - 6:53 am 13. Jack:

As long as the Libertarian party has drug legalization as one of their signature policy positions they will not get a second look.

Nov 12, 2009 - 7:05 am 14. hoads:

Oh no, guaranteeing a replay of 92!!!!! He’ll see his election coffers filled by leftists should he gain any traction.

Nov 12, 2009 - 7:06 am 15. Pedrosito:

Hey why not Harold Stassen.

Nov 12, 2009 - 7:11 am 16. Mistah:

Why are so many people in this country pre-occupied with legalizing pot? Is that such an important issue than let’s say jobless rates approaching 12%, a pending Health Care bill that will ruin the best health care system in the world, jihadists on our own soil shooting military men and women?
Let this guy run. I’d love to see it. He’d get his ass handed to him in the first debate. Oh yeah, he’s anti war? Great. That’s fine of course that will never work with social conservatives and moderate republicans. And I hate to break it to you, he needs those people to vote him in and they never would. I can see it now:
Wolf Blitzer: Gov. Johnson, the attacks on Ft Hood. What do you think caused this tragedy and how would you handle such a thing if you were president?
JOhnson: WEll, Wolf, the shootings of Ft. HOod were caused by American Imperialism in the middle east. We simply should not be fighting over there, we have no business being there..blah blah blah…
Over.
Sorry, there are too many problems going on in the country and the world than making pot legal so that a few whiny crybaby kids on dope have their way.

Nov 12, 2009 - 7:13 am 17. Jettboy:

He would legalize harmful and destructive mind killing drugs? He is against the Iraq war, and possibly play the Obama role with Afghanistan? He lost my vote from the get go. If anything, I think libertarians need to learn from Ron Paul by not emulating him. They should also learn from McCain and the backlash against the GOP. The majority of Republicans want Conservative candidates.

Nov 12, 2009 - 7:14 am 18. Mike2:

10. Thomas_L…..:

Are you sure about the Volstead Act? I was under the impression that the first federal abolition of narcotics was Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. There were state abolitions before that. I could be wrong. Otherwise I agree with your assessment of our nation’s drug problems.

9. The SantaFean:

I agree with you that he lacks gravitas and yes, I thought he did a good job as governor. He certainly tried his best to get the schools on an efficient basis and cure some of the top heavy tendencies. No Child Left Behind has only added more layers of administrative personnel to the schools here in New Mexico while doing nothing to improve the schools.

Nov 12, 2009 - 7:16 am 19. whyyeseyec:

Funny, but Gary Johnson doesn`t look like Sarah Palin therefore I won`t vote for him….

Nov 12, 2009 - 7:25 am 20. Bonnie_:

Let’s make sure this disgusting creature never gets elected to another office.

Let’s make a video: First take some images from “Taken,” of human trafficking of young girls — remember, this is in countries where prostitution is legal. Use some real images of prostitutes and young girls shipped across state lines for the prostitution trade. Spice it up with the ACORN footage of tax advice for pimps who engage in sex slavery. Interview some women who ended up in the sex trafficking industry and how their lives were destroyed. Describe how law enforcement won’t be able to take apart these sex traffic rings if prostitution is legalized.

Then show pothead Gary Johnson smiling and telling us that he supports legalization of prostitution. Yeah, that’s the ticket, Gary. You can mumble all day about legalizing pot, but when you start talking about legalizing what amounts to a slave trade, you’re not getting away with it.

Nov 12, 2009 - 7:28 am 21. Moho:

Without a strong commitment to defense and the projection of American power, he would be unelectable, and rightly so….While it is essential for a potentially serious candidate to be a fiscal conservative and to eschew larger government,

Cato supplies the perfect example of why such a candidate would never be accepted by Republicans. This mythology that huge Pentagon budgets on top of even larger discretionary war spending can lead to small government is central to Republican dogma. Johnson would be better off running as a Libertarian. Its time to let go of the ridiculous assertion that current Republican ideology is compatible with Libertarianism. Republicans don’t mind huge budget deficits and gigantic government, so long as that money doesn’t go to help anybody. That’s literally the extent of the average Republican viewpoint.

Nov 12, 2009 - 7:48 am 22. smaack:

A libertarian revolution would be a welcome change in the Republican party, but I won’t support Johnson unless he does what Paul failed to do: openly, loudly and repeatedly disavow the David Dukes and Stormfronters that supported the Ron Paul campaign.

Nov 12, 2009 - 7:50 am 23. Now and Then:

America, here’s your change candidate – Tommy Sowers. In fact, I’m gonna predict that Sarah Palin will endorse him.

Nov 12, 2009 - 7:58 am 24. Paul A'Barge:

he also endorsed Ron Paul during the last presidential election cycle

Then he has no place in the Republican Party. Ron Paul is not a Republican. Nor is Ron Paul a Conservative. Ron Paul is an idiot.

Nov 12, 2009 - 8:07 am 25. Poor Citizen:

I fear that no. 13 is correct on his assumption.

I like the idea of a shutting down the government, with the exception of national health and national defense, and a few other essentials, like border controls etc.., which of course makes me unnaccpetable to the democrats. And with my support of national health insurance I cannot support republicans. So where is my candidate? Libertarians dont support overseas adventurism either. They are blunt about us getting out of world affairs, with the exception of finances, of course. I just do not think a libertarian has a chance to get elected. They make too much sense…dont they?

Nov 12, 2009 - 8:12 am 26. Carol Herman:

After seeing the skit on Saturday Nite Live, I knew Obama could run as having accomplished “nada,” and get re-elected because there’s no better way to get to small government, except through a lack of agenda accomplishments. You think I’m kidding? Sometimes, you laugh till it hurts.

Nov 12, 2009 - 8:14 am 27. John "birther" Samford:

Another RINO. He is almost the perfect candidate for the Republicans, IF you are a Democrat. Certainly one of the top 3 the Democrats would pick to run against.
Isn’t it time the Republicans stopped allowing Democrats to pick their candidates?
Maybe him and Ron Paul should start a new party. I have a name for them. The Idiotiarian Party.
The Party symbol could be a Lemming.

Sara can win the White House in 2012, assuming there is an election. Axelrod understands that, which is why the Left is starting early on picking who they run against. You will see many more articles like this one as Sara gains momentum and fear grows in the hearts of the left.
After all, what is the point in having an army of useful fools if you don’t make use of them?

Nov 12, 2009 - 8:22 am 28. Kipling:

Mr. Johnson will never win the Republican nomination because he will lose the social conservatives. They will not vote, campaign, or fund a candidate who opposes everything they stand for in politics. Even if forced to vote for him as opposed to Obama II, they most likely will not fund or campaign. They will hold their noses and wear black arm bands like most conservatives did when they voted for McCain. And we all know how that McCain thing turned out. As to the youth/college pot-legalization vote, since when did we want to encourage single issue voting? I thought most of you guys resented prolifers who voted against abortion. Anyway, the youth vote is a weak base of support. They often do not vote in the numbers projected and they are not great at fund raising or campaigning.

My question is will the libertarians put their beliefs on the backburner so that a coaliion of Republicans can defeat Mr. Obama? After all, social conservatives are often lectured about how we should keep our mouths shut and toe the company line. Will the libertarians do the same?

Nov 12, 2009 - 8:23 am 29. Kipling:

We do not need another change candidate in this country. We do not need some slick marketed snake oil salesman like Mr. Obama promising to cure whatever ails us if only we will drink his progressive (socialist) tonic.

What we need is a reform candidate who will lead a reformation in American politics. We need to reform our government in line with the U.S. Constitution and with what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Progressives, socialists, and other leftists (the American liberal), have always promised a utopia if only we will destroy our traditional institutions and the foundations upon which they were built. They want us to abandon wells of living water for cisterns that do not hold water. The French Revolution, the Fascists in Italy and Germany, and the Communist Revoution all began with such high hopes. They all ended in bloodbath. Mr. Obama and his supporters promise hope and change but they abandon the traditions that have made American great. In the end, unless they are stopped, all they will bring is another blood bath.

Nov 12, 2009 - 8:32 am 30. Chuck:

A political movement spearheaded by a bunch of know-nothing college kids – yippee.

If Johnson’s foreign policy positions are informed by reason, rather than the veiled anti-semitism that suffused Ron Paul’s positions, then he’d be worth listening to.

More’s the merrier, I guess.

Nov 12, 2009 - 8:54 am 31. Local Yokel:

New Mexico has a long tradition of governors who act insane at the end of their final terms. Toney Anaya reduced all death row sentences to life imprisonment. Gary Johnson decided that legalizing pot and prostitution was a wonderful idea. Bill Richardson is in the process of bankrupting the state (with the help of the democrats in the statehouse). I’m sure that I’ve missed several, but there are more whack jobs in the past. Johnson definitely should stick to climbing the Himalayas.

Nov 12, 2009 - 9:05 am 32. M. Report:

One of the many (specious) PC arguments for
State-run Health Care is: Well, it works in Europe;
On the related rules for Sex, Drugs, (and R&R?
this is a valid argument.

the Local Option argument also applies; If you
do not want X in your city/state, make it illegal there, but leave room for people who do like it
to have it where they live, and >>>stop trying
to control other people’s behavior, as an end
in itself.

Voters who cannot accept this are more trouble
than they are worth; Invite them out.

P.S. When the economy gets bad enough, when
people get hungry enough (literally) they
will accept government food subsidies paid for
with taxes on sex and drugs.

Nov 12, 2009 - 9:10 am 33. Real Deal:

I would support the legalization of marijuana once we have a reliable test for determining if a person is under the influence that can be done by law enforcement officers in the field. Until that day I oppose legalization for marijuana. I will continue oppose the legalization of other drugs.

I have seen first hand what these various drugs can do to people, and unlike alcohol or even marijuana they don’t lend themselves to casual use. Some people can use them recreationally for a while others cannot, but eventually the hook gets set in you, and having them easily available at the local drug store will only result in more addicts. People flip out about cigarettes,the harm they cause, and the cost of medical care for smokers later in life. Imagine a nation of regular cocaine, heroin, LSD, meth, ecstasy, crack, and marijuana users and the resulting medical care. If you’re not familiar with the various medical issues associated with these drugs then go familiarize yourselves with them. Then ask yourself if you want to pay for it.

No taxing the drugs will not cover the cost, that is a falsehood, it may at first but as the number of addicts increases the drain on public coffers will exceed the revenue generated. Nor will it stop theft or prostitution by addicts to pay for the drugs. Eventually the addict will not be able to support both themselves and their habit, it will also affect their ability to hold a job, and then they will be addicts on welfare getting high off your tax dollar. The addict might be your kid, your neighbor’s kid, your brother or sister. Have you ever dealt with an addict? Have you ever had a friend OD? Are you willing to pay the cost?

That I believe is the true difference between conservatives and liberals, conservatives examine things like cost, constitutionality, and consequence where liberals do not. Drugs really are bad, however I know WHY they are bad, and not because some teacher or D.A.R.E. told me so either.

Nov 12, 2009 - 9:26 am 34. baal:

I absolutely support the decriminalization of marijuana and prostitution. I absolutely support slashing of budgets across the board.
All of you law and order, family values guys need to start thinking about allies with a common cause.
Our mutual enemy is socialism, and Im sorry but the billions of dollars of federal money going to subsidize everything we hate has done far greater damage that the decriminalization of marijuana and prostitution could ever conceivably do.

Nov 12, 2009 - 9:37 am 35. Ratatosk:

Unless Social Conservatives and Libertarians both set aside their differences, it won’t matter who runs in 2012. Looking at these comments, it appears that many have no desire to do anything other than punch themselves in the face, over and over again. Meanwhile, we’ll have 8 years of Obama and IF the GOP gets the White House again… the healthcare system will be too widely adopted to even consider ripping out.

The GOP needs to figure out if its a Big Tent or a Little Tent. If its a Big Tent, it must figure out what EVERYONE can agree on, and let everything else be secondary to those key issues. If its a Little Tent, then it needs to figure out if its a Socially conservative tent or a libertarian tent or just the “Ummm, we aren’t Democrats” tent.

So far, its more like a circus tent.

Nov 12, 2009 - 9:45 am 36. myth buster:

Besides, no pharmaceutical company would ever produce and sell heroin or street-grade cocaine, even if it was legal. They wouldn’t want the bad press, and investors would make them more of a pariah than tobacco companies. I do, however, think that we should stop throwing drug users in jail as long as they aren’t driving under the influence or engaging in disorderly conduct. In short, someone high should be treated as though drunk. The dealers, however, should have the book thrown at them.

Nov 12, 2009 - 9:50 am 37. Kipling:

Response to baal @ 34: Interesting username. Are you a fan of the Philistine god whose worship led the ancient Israelites away from the true God and thus opened them up to countless tragedies including the sacrifice of their own children? Baal worship included sanctioned prostitution as well. An excellent user name for a libertarian.

Nov 12, 2009 - 9:53 am 38. baal:

Now lets talk about something that we actually can agree on: Reforming the Republican Party.
I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that a new crop of elected republicans will behave any different than they did during the Tom Delay Congress. They will get in there and engage in exactly the same sort of deficit theft spending that they did before.
What we need is a real and binding enforcement mechanism.
The choice of whether to engage in deficit spending must not be theirs. They have abused that privilege and it needs to be revoked.
My proposal is a binding PLEDGE to never engage in deficit spending and to resist democrat spending, If they fail to live up to the pledge they will be expelled from the party immediately with no second chance and will turn in their resignation that day.

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:07 am 39. Real Deal:

Prostitution I don’t oppose as long as its run on a model like Nevada where the workers are tested regularly for STDs. Also I’d favor a brothel setup where the workers can have a safe environment to work in, and that any worker is free to quit at any time, no sex slavery.

This won’t completely eliminate the black market sex trade as unlicensed men and women will still offer their “services” to customers unwilling or unable to go to licensed establishments or workers. Those with STDs will resort to this for sure as they would be unable to work in the sex industry legally. Illegal immigrants will also be prone to work as prostitutes illegally as well.

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:08 am 40. This voter:

I am looking for a candidate who:

Supports the war on Islamic Fundamentalism, even to the point of upsetting our allies.

Believes in promoting the 10th amendment – and allows the states to make up their own mind on drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion.

Believes in tightening the borders, and strengthening enforcement of immigration laws already on the books.

Doesn’t feel the need to promote their religious belief (I really would hope for a true agnostic, but that’s probably too much to ask).

Believes that people should be hired, admitted to school, etc, based on their merits and not their religion, skin color, or heritage.

Supports an “english-only” policy for federally issued government-issued documents and functions.

Believes that gay people should have the same rights as straight people – and that government only has business in regulating civil unions, not marriage (keep marriage to the religions).

Believes in evolution.

That’s just off the top of my head…

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:13 am 41. Kipling:

Response to baal @38: Such a binding mechanism as you propose is unworkable. Most representatives think it is there job to get re-elected and will spend the money on what they think will lead to that goal, i.e. pork for their constituents. In the end they are not responsible to the Republican party but to their constituents. The GOP has neither the power or the authority to demand a resignation.

If we want to put a mechanism in place, how about something to which both parties will have to abide and something that would make it illegal to engage in deficit spending.

Response to Real Deal @39: One cannot be for limited government and yet ask the government to regulate prostitution.

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:20 am 42. Wildmonk:

A number of commenters seem convinced that legalizing Marijuana will lead to legalizing other drugs and that, once that is done, this will, in turn, lead to large numbers of people choosing to use these drugs.

The problem with this logic is that is assumes that prospective addicts are presently stopped from this path by the law. There simply is no strong evidence that this is so. It is the old “if you pass a law against X then X won’t happen” fallacy. Isn’t a century’s worth of failure enough to convince you that drug laws don’t work? In the vast majority of cases, people don’t avoid the hell of drug dependency because they might be arrested, they avoid it because they don’t want to descend into hell.

As far as increases in medical bills from addicts, does anyone seriously believe that this would be even remotely comparable to the huge cost of the current drug war? As far as protecting people against themselves, isn’t destroying their life via arrest and imprisonment worse than all but the worst addiction problems? As far as addiction treatment goes, isn’t it better to lower the bar for when people admit they have a problem rather than forcing them to admit that they have a problem AND that they are breaking the law? I would respectfully ask “Real Deal” whether he really thinks that having an addict “getting high off your tax dollar” (a straw-man argument if there ever was one) is truly worse than having your tax dollars go to the militarization of the police and the associated climb in violence and death that this currently funds.

No, legalizing drugs would be terrible but at least it would be less terrible than the violence and loss associated with the current drug war.

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:23 am 43. Mike:

Johnson, Romney, Huckabee et all will make nice fodder for the Arctic Fox as moves toward the Presidency in 2012.

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:23 am 44. Kipling:

Are we now in the business of allowing the government to promote liberal social values (liberal morals) through the legalization of drugs and prostitution? I thought government was not supposed to endorse moral values. Or does that just apply to conservative moral values?

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:23 am 45. Wildmonk:

Hey “This Voter” – vote for me! Oh wait, I’m not running for anything. Anyway, I’m with you: that sounds like my list as well.

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:24 am 46. Moho:

Mauro I have to commend you for presenting reasonable political discourse here, and the comments of many here, which approximate human reasoning are a surprise to me. Have you actually looked at what you’re surrounded with here at Pajamas Media? They have as much in common with you as you would have to a religious right wing group.

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:26 am 47. Mike C:

#40. This voter

Thank you. As a libertarian (small “L”), I’m willing to put aside my differences with the social conservatives as long as the GOP does more than talk a good game about fiscal sanity and constitutional government.

That said, I agree with Gary Johnson on every issue except the war. Islamism must be snuffed out at the source. If a candidate doesn’t support the war on radical Islam, they won’t get my vote.

Yes, I smoke. Camels.

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:29 am 48. R0ga:

Today’s “conservative” would become “moderate,” and today’s “moderate” would become “left-wing” by comparison.

No no no no no. No. This is not how the world works. Libertarians are not more “conservative” than Republicans. Independents aren’t necessarily more liberal. How many of your friends describe themselves as moderate and mean “halfway between Republican and Democrat?” – few I would be willing to bet. For the majority, moderate is just a word for “I don’t like either party all that much, so I close my eyes, take a deep breath, and check off the lesser of two evils, whomever that may be.” A huge portion of people with libertarian views probably self-describe as moderates for lack of a better term. Same goes for a lot of socialists. Legalizing drugs is not “more conservative than the conservatives.”

The concept of a single-axis political system is ridiculous. Its only use is for the media to marginalize groups by picking out a pet policy. “The teabaggers are far right-wing because they want to slash government,” except they don’t say that a lot of those teabaggers would also like to legalize drugs, prosecute corrupt republican politicians, and bring our troops home. Please, don’t fall into the trap of playing ball on a tilted pitch.

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:44 am 49. baal:

37. Kipling:
I’m not a Christian. I’m sorry if that bothers you and I mean no offense. What I’m here for if primarily to speak with like minded persons: people who want to turn this sinking ship around. And what I mean by that is the reform of the Republican party, and not just so that it can “win” again. I’m not interested in a RINO party. I want fiscal conservatism.
Now I think that you’re a social conservative, and I’d ask you to consider what benefits fiscal conservatism has for you.
Apart from the obvious–a better economic state for you and your kids, what is there?
Do you want federal funding for abortion here or abroad? Do you want pell grant money paying for leftist indoctrination? How long can this list get in terms of things you dont want YOUR MONEY spent on?
We have more in common than you think.

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:45 am 50. baal:

41. Kipling:
The reason it would have to be done at the Party level and could not be done in terms of illegalising that activity is that it would fall under their individual legislator or executive’s protected freedom of speech.

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:48 am 51. Real Deal:

Besides, no pharmaceutical company would ever produce and sell heroin or street-grade cocaine, even if it was legal.

No, but there are plenty of people out there familiar with cutting high grade drugs with other cheaper substances to maximize their profits. They could easily purchase the pharmaceutical drug and cut it to sell cheaper on the streets. Legalization won’t stop black market sales of these drugs, even booze and cigarettes still have a black market and they’ve been legal for generations.

I’ve known people who use crack cocaine and prefer their “rock” over the more traditional form, to the point where even though a friend had coke and was willing to share this individual still wanted a ride to go get some rock. People can be as finicky about their drugs as kids can be about food.

As far as tossing users in jail goes, I agree and disagree. While a person using drugs in the privacy of their own home (or that of a friend) isn’t necessarily harming anyone but themselves it can be useful to at least have the threat of incarceration. That way they might give up their dealer. I generally don’t see your average pot head as a major threat to society as long as they aren’t operating a vehicle or heavy machinery. Also to be honest many users at some point give dealing a whirl, some are successful and stay at while others just don’t seem to do well and either get busted, on their supplier’s bad side, or decide that dealing isn’t for them.

The problem here is that my belief that people should be free to succeed or fail as they choose hits the reality that society will have to support and pay for the life choices of drug addicts. I realize that we cannot have both, that is because a) societies resources are not infinite and b) forcefully taking from one person to pay for the folly and laziness of another is wrong and basically amounts to slavery for the productive person.

If you want a rather honest look a heroin usage by Hollywood rent ‘Trainspotting’ or ‘Requiem for a Dream’.

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:49 am 52. Donna V.:

While I support legalization of marijuana, it’s about, oh, 539th on my list of priorities right now. It’s down there with flag-burning amendments and arguing about whether or not Mormons are really Christian. Making pot legalization a centerpiece of one’s campaign makes no sense whatsoever when you consider the financial mess this country will be in by 2012 thanks to the Dems spending. It’s like focusing on a red wine spill on the carpet while your roof is caving in.

As for abortion being determined by the states – well, that’s exactly what would happen if Roe v. Wade was struck down. Many Americans on both sides of the abortion debate don’t seem to grasp that. The end of Roe v. Wade would simply toss the matter back to the states, and some states would have very liberal laws and some would ban it entirely.

Nov 12, 2009 - 10:54 am 53. baal:

52. Donna V.:

Legalizing pot is definitely no panacea, but its one of the priorities for libertarians. I don’t smoke pot, and haven’t for a very long time. As a matter of principle, I’m for decriminalization. My first priority is fiscal responsibility…and I think if we had balanced budgets for more than one year we would have to do things like legalize it–for the simple fact that we couldnt afford unenforceable laws!

Nov 12, 2009 - 11:07 am 54. twoninerkilo:

Pinning your hopes on a bunch of stoned hippies showing up to vote doesn’t sound like sound political strategy, even comming from a student at some left wing indoctrination camp.Enough of the hopey changey, you already voted for one hack losser;do you want to double down this time? I think you should come out of your mammas basement and get some air. Come back in twenty years or so when you’ve got something to say that makes sense.

Nov 12, 2009 - 11:24 am 55. debbie:

I am unimpressed with the entire field of candidates so far, Palin included, so Johnson catches my attention. But the pot issue is a net negative. It may get college kids excited, but they do not vote in any significant numbers.
What really matters is that we are a bankrupt nation. By 2012 nothing else will matter. What is Johnson’s plan for this?

Nov 12, 2009 - 11:29 am 56. Ytzik:

“America, Here’s Your Change Candidate for 2012!!!…

… Gary Johnson, former governor of ….”

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz…….

Nov 12, 2009 - 11:40 am 57. TheMichigander:

The only 3rd party candidate I want running in 2012 is Ralph Nader or any other leftist candidate. A so called Libertarian/Conservative 3rd party candidate run will pull a Ross Perot and give us 4 more glorious years of Obama. I wonder if the left is counting on this to carry Obama over the finish line in 2012.

Stay within the 2 party system for 2012.

Nov 12, 2009 - 11:47 am 58. tajtji:

We are paying to much keeping these people behind bars. Cry all we want about welfare, taxes and spending, something as little as just changing your mindset and treating marijuana like alcohol will solve alot of problems.

He makes a very convincing arguement in terms of saying hard drugs are being used BECAUSE we make everything, even marijuana illegal. I think most people in small town midwest cities would rather have the drugies on marijuana or cocaine instead of the horrible drug meth. That drug is killing small town police forces. It is sad to say but we need more of them to just smoke marijuana for their fix and not be using other hard drugs.

Nov 12, 2009 - 12:00 pm 59. Ruebacca:

I can accept pot legalization if you give up your drivers license and your employer is informed. A pot user should not operate machinery or a vehicle. Plus pot use should still be grounds for termination if your employer deems it necessary.

For hard drugs the model I could accept for legalization would be old Chinese opium dens. A facility with a staff and a nurse can dispense to you hard drugs but you can’t leave until you come down. But again anyone going to these places loses there drivers license and employer is notified.

Counties in many states have the right to ban alcohol. That right has to be persevered for communities. If a county wants nothing to do with the above they can make it all illegal locally. In my eyes legalization would still come with heavy regulations.

Nov 12, 2009 - 12:26 pm 60. Kipling:

Response to baal @49: It does bother me that you are not a Christian but not for the reasons you suggest. I would like (not force) everyone to become a Christians and submit to the headship of Christ; however, I am enough of a theologian to know that is not possible. The world would be a much better place if the people and our government acknowledged the soveriegnty of God and ordered ourlives to reflect His will, which incidentally would lead to a happier and more fulfilled life for the individual. Otherwise, I have no problem with you not being a Christian. The decision to follow Christ is a personal decision and can not be forced. I did however find your username interesting and relevant to your remarks.

You should know that I am a conservative through and through. I am a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, and a conservative who is strong on defense issues. My problem is that self-described fiscal conservatives are really one-dimensional. One cannot have fiscal conservatism without social conservative and all is lost without a strong defense.

Nov 12, 2009 - 12:34 pm 61. V for Victory:

Drugs. Bah. “Libertarian” = code for pro-drugs and pro-abortion. D:

Very predictable. \o

Nov 12, 2009 - 12:51 pm 62. Real Deal:

The problem with this logic is that is assumes that prospective addicts are presently stopped from this path by the law.

They are, many adults steer away from drug use for the following reasons:

1) Drugs are not easy/safe for them to obtain. Those who’ve remained regular users over the years maintain their suppliers, those who stop using and don’t maintain those connections often find it difficult to obtain drugs. At least if they aren’t willing to ask their teenager. Being able to run down to Rite-Aid or CVS and pick up an 8-ball or dime bag would eliminate this difficulty for many people.

2) If drugs are legalized then work related drug tests pretty much go away except for a few professions like Airline Pilot. If no one had to worry about drug tests at work then it doesn’t matter if they go pick up some Ecstasy at the local pharmacy for a “special” weekend with their significant other and don’t have to worry about passing a drug test to obtain or maintain employment. This eliminates a consequence.

3) “Militarization” of the police is not just related to drugs but also gangs, and implying that legalization would end all black market drug sales is a fallacy. Nor would it stop the violence that is associated with the black market control of drugs, there may be a reduction but it would not eliminate it altogether.

4) Another thing is that people rarely try drugs for the first time by themselves as new drug users generally have not established the connections to obtain them. In a way this acts a bit of a safety as the more experienced user “mentors” the new user. For example, many ODs occur when an heroin or cocaine user shoots up their first time. Allowing people to pick up and try drugs without an experienced individual around can have very bad results. Have you ever had a bad trip or had to talk someone down from one? It’s no fun.

5) Where are your support for the “the associated climb in violence and death that this currently funds”? You make an unsubstantiated claim here.

Nov 12, 2009 - 12:52 pm 63. Robert V:

“Are we now in the business of allowing the government to promote liberal social values (liberal morals) through the legalization of drugs and prostitution? I thought government was not supposed to endorse moral values. Or does that just apply to conservative moral values?”

Drug legalization and prositution, from a legal standpoint have nothing to do with morals. Drug legalization concerns individual freedom and the government controling your life; Prostitution concerns a contract between 2 consenting adults. Aren’t these things conservatives are suppose to have have strong opinions on?

Nov 12, 2009 - 12:57 pm 64. Kipling:

Response to Robert V @63: So, your basic argument is that the law has nothing to do with morality or, at least, should have nothing to do with morality. Then what is the authority for declaring something in the law to be legal or illegal. Why is breaking a contractual agreement – to use your second example – deemed illegal? Who or what says?

Is the legalization of drugs and prostitution really about individual freedom and limited government? Many who argue for their legalization also want the government to regulate the practices. How does increased government regulation contribute to limited government? How is addiction to substances – controled or not – really about freedom? Do the actions of these individuals really only affect the individual? What about the person killed by someone driving or working under the influence? What about the wife and kids of the husband who goes down to the local brothel on his lunch hour?

Nov 12, 2009 - 1:43 pm 65. baal:

60. Kipling:

I believe strong national defense is paramount–including missile defense. As far as war goes, I beleive Bush did a stupid thing engaging in the war on terror on the terms that he did.
I would have asked myself the following question: What would the Romans have done?
I think the answer would have been this:Take Mecca and Medina and hold them in perpetuity. When the Muslims want to go on the Hajj again, they will stop all acts of terrorism.
As far as Iran goes, a naval blockade would have worked nicely, remember WW1 ended when the Germans get hungry enough.
I have no idea where you get the notion that fiscal conservatism is predicated on social conservatism.

Nov 12, 2009 - 1:57 pm 66. myth buster:

64. For that matter, why would any drug store sell heroin or cocaine? The resulting boycotts would cost them more than than the drug sales are worth, to say nothing of the employees who would quit. The pharmacies who refused to sell hard drugs for recreational use would drive the ones who did sell them out of business.

Nov 12, 2009 - 1:59 pm 67. baal:

64. Kipling:
With that argument, in order to be consistent you’d have to also say that alcohol and tobacco should be illegal.

Nov 12, 2009 - 1:59 pm 68. Charles Kirtley:

Go for it. I’m tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. And I’m tired of Republicans declaring victory when the give the Democrats only 50% of what hey want.

I’ll seriously consider any candidate who has clear principles and stands on them – even if I disagree with some of them.

Nov 12, 2009 - 2:40 pm 69. Real Deal:

For that matter, why would any drug store sell heroin or cocaine?

Same reason they sell booze and cigarettes. Initially it might be problematic, but as the stigma wanes and recreational drug use becomes more accepted and widespread they will sell it. I mean why do convenience and liquor stores sell single “blunts” and flavored papers for rolling “blunts”? Its well known that they aren’t smoking the darn things, at least not with the tobacco in them. Especially when the glassy eyed individual purchasing the item reeks of marijuana and is probably wearing one or more items of clothing with pot leaves or Bob Marley on it.

Nov 12, 2009 - 2:46 pm 70. Kipling:

Response to baal @65: The success of fiscal conservatism requires the development of certain character traits within the population: frugality, personal responsibility, honesty, etc. The development of character is very much a part of social conservatism.

On a side note, WWI ended after the U.S. joined the war effort. The naval blocade of Germany influenced the course of the war but it did not end it.

Response to baal @67: First, it is not my argument but rather a reversal of the argument put forward by the libertarians. Second, alcohol and tobacco, although legal, are highly regulated. Why would we assume harder drugs would not be? And, if regulation is necessary, how does that contribute to limited government or individual liberty?

I am arguing here within the perimeters set by the libertarian position to show its internal inconsistencies. My objections to the legalization of drugs and prostitutions are quite different. If you want, I can go into them in another post.

Nov 12, 2009 - 2:59 pm 71. ConservativeWanderer:

Right. This guy is gonna be the “change” candidate, just like Ron Paul was in 2008, just like Ross Perot was in 1992 and 1996, just like Pat Buchanan has been every time he’s run, just like Lyndon LaRouche has been… well, seems like every election since Lincoln was shot.

Do ya get the picture yet?

Nov 12, 2009 - 3:15 pm 72. Marc Malone:

Lots of good discussion, here, but everyone seems to be speaking in absolute terms. The fact is, it’s all about where to draw the line. Some believe there should be no line, but most believe there should be SOME line SOMEwhere.

Personally, I believe there is no good answer. Too much speculation about results; not enough data. Perhaps we should finish the repeal of Prohibition, and kick it back to the States. Let each State determine for itself, then see the results. Of course, the liars then come out and spin and misrepresent, but at least we’d have more information.

Nov 12, 2009 - 3:16 pm 73. John "birther" Samford:

Everone here is missing the point on the drug issue.
What needs to be done is for Congress to create a category of drugs called “recreational”. Then the drug companies can get to work and create new drugs that are better then H, blow, pot, Meth, etc.
Drugs that get you high without adddiction and won’t make you drive to fast. Huey Lewis knows what I’m talkin ’bout.
What the holier then thou types need to understand that what a person puts in THEIR body is THEIR business. They are still accountable for their actions.
Current drug laws make a mockery of the idea that America is a free society. That is more serious then any damage to society some druggie might do.
As for the cost of supporting those that addict themselves, WHY? They chose to F_@K themselves up, so let them die. Slow suicide by self-administered drugs is still suicide.
I think those that think society has an obligation to care for drug addicts are trying to relieve the guilt they feel. 99% of the problems with drugs are caused by the Laws against them. Laws those wanting to support addicts put into place.

Nov 12, 2009 - 3:18 pm 74. David W. Lincoln:

This is primarily for those Americans who think of Canada as to how it was portrayed in “Canadian Bacon” (frankly the best movie made by Michael Moore).

You have to go back to the 1980s, in Canada, to see the earlier manifestation of the Tea Party Phenomenon. Federal government after federal government, regardless if the Liberals or Conservatives formed the government, kow towed to Quebec. Broken promise after broken promise was the record for the rest of the country. People had enough, and started the Reform Party.

There were people who never forgave the Reform Party for distancing itself from the Progressive
Conservative Party. Nonetheless, they agreed to
a merger between the Canadian Alliance (which was
the Reform Party rebranded) and the Progressive Conservative Party.

Frankly, why would people in the Tea Party movement back a social liberal? Because, it would be the case only when they would apply selective vision & hearing, by being blind to, or
tuning out, in the case of marijuana, those who
place the highest priority on the dangers of the substance. Furthermore, these people accuse the other side, namely those who place the highest priority on the benefits of the substance, of peddling politicized science.

The Republican Party is part of the problem, because too many fought against, or stood on the sidelines, efforts to reform what goes on inside the Beltway. So, why should they be trusted again?

Expecting those who are most responsible for the
2006 & 2008 election debacles to admit guilt is the same as expecting the Chief Deformed Soul in the Oval Office, to admit he is wrong. Which he isn’t, because of reference to an off ramp.

Therefore, expecting the Republicans, who fought
the Tea Party movement, tooth & nail, to be consequential is as ludicrous as expecting a leopard to change its spots.

Nov 12, 2009 - 3:38 pm 75. 335blues:

I am not a libertarian, and never will be. I am a conservative republican. I would not recommend to anyone to vote for a third party candidate as this will only split the republican vote and insure a liberal victory.

The correct path is to take the republican party back, and elect conservative republicans. Let’s all make sure we stand firm, and vote for conservative republicans in all of the primaries and elections.

It is conservative republican candidates that all liberals fear.

Nov 12, 2009 - 3:59 pm 76. Donna V.:

71: Conservative Wanderer: Well, the upside to this guy running is he might take a lot more votes from the Dems than the GOP. If a candidate appeared who promised to legalize pot, all the glassy-eyed stoners who sported Obama T-shirts last fall might abandon bambi for this, like, totally cool dude. Especially if it ever penetrates their fogged up brains that they might face jail time if they don’t buy health insurance. I expect many of bambi’s youthful worshippers will be in for a rude awakening when they figure out that “free” healthcare isn’t really free. It’ll be the biggest shock to their system since Mom told them Santa isn’t real.

Nov 12, 2009 - 4:00 pm 77. Vaughn:

I’m in agreement that legalizing drugs is a hurdle too high for me. How about a candidate behind the ‘death penalty’ for all drug pushers, any amount? That’s my man/woman.

Nov 12, 2009 - 4:08 pm 78. Kipling:

Response to John @73: As the old saying goes, “You can’t expect someone to drink like a demon and then act like an angel.” Drugs lower inhibitions and even create their own delusional realities. Under such circumstances innocent people will die. Sure, we can punish the actions of the user after the fact, but the innocent people are still dead.

As far as I’ve seen, no one has presented themselves as holier than thou. Several people have stated positions guided by religion and Scripture but that hardly makes them holier than thou.

Nov 12, 2009 - 4:12 pm 79. Now and Then:

76. Donna V.:

Ah, the well-conceived heartfelt commitments of the conservative philosophy at work. Shades of the permanent Republican majority. Stick with that. And if it doesn’t work out, you can guilt the closet Christian masturbators into carrying big signs with pictures of bloody fetuses. Dare to dream, Donna, dare to dream.

Nov 12, 2009 - 4:20 pm 80. Mark Noonan:

By even so much as suggesting a legalization of the inhuman practice of prostitution, he’s killed any chance of being President. He still may do much good, the highest office is forever barred to him. Nominate him, and we’ll just get a second Obama term.

Nov 12, 2009 - 4:20 pm 81. Moho:

I can accept pot legalization if you give up your drivers license and your employer is informed. A pot user should not operate machinery or a vehicle. Plus pot use should still be grounds for termination if your employer deems it necessary.

Another brainless refugee from the outskirts. Alcohol is legal you dumbsh%%^ and it kills more people every year in accidents than pot.

Nov 12, 2009 - 4:34 pm 82. Richard:

defined himself by calling for an end to the war on drugs, a position that speaks to advocates of limited government but alienates social conservatives

…which is why social conservatives aren’t conservatives at all but social statists. They’re all for tyranny and big government so long as its their brand of tyranny.

Nov 12, 2009 - 4:59 pm 83. OscarSchneegans:

The problem with libertarians is that they think that, since they just want to be left alone, that means everyone just wants to be left alone. Jihadists don’t want to be left alone. And they won’t leave us alone regardless what we do. We need a president that understands that and is willing to defeat the jihadists. Ron Paul doesn’t understand that (and even goes so far as to dabble in 9/11 trutherism), and neither do most libertarians.

Nov 12, 2009 - 5:00 pm 84. Falconsword:

Underestimate Libertarians in the coming election cycles at your own peril, Dems and Repubs. You’ve not only buttered your bread and feathered your nest with our futures, but you’ve set it afire. I will never again vote for anything other than a Libertarian, or a Conservative or Constitutional party member if forced to. The two main parties can GO TO HELL.

Nov 12, 2009 - 5:14 pm 85. Fai Mao:

I am generally considered to be an extreme libertarian in many ways but, I see the two issues of legalizing prostitution and some drugs as separate issues with potentially very different answers.

I live in Hong Kong and have travelled extensively throughout Asia. We have gone to Thailand for family vacations many times and prostitution is not only legal but ubiquitous there. It is also legal in Hong Kong in a limited sense in that women must be independant and cannot work for a pimp, there are no brothels. I don’t know if it is legal in China but it appears to be the major industry in many Chinese cities. It seems to me that once you open that door a crack it is very hard to keep it from opening all the way.

I worked in fancy hotels for many years before moving into education and I have had an opportunity to talk to and observe prostitutes who would frequent the bars and lobbies or were on call through an agency over a substantial period of time though not as a customer. Unlike their johns I’ve actually talked to hookers without any intent to avail myself of their services. My observation is that they are among the saddest people on Earth. There is a myth often perpetuated by movies of the glamorous call girl. In reality they are, in the best of circumstances little more than slaves. Often sick, depressed and hopeless. Most them got into prostitution because of horrid economic conditions of their home country or were essentially sold into a brothel by parents or relatives. Occasionally I’d meet one who admitted that she was supporting a drug habit. I have nothing but contempt for the Johns and nothing but sympathy for the women. I do not have confidence that if prostitution were legalized, on a wide spread basis in the US that it would be any different. Prostitution is an affront to human dignity. It enslaves women. It is an evil of almost unspeakable dimensions. If I ever move back to the US I’d rather not see German tourist in the bar negotiating with a 15 year-olds in fishnet stockings. While I am a rather devout Christian I don’t believe that you can force morality upon people. However, there is a huge difference between, for lack of a better term, consensual immorality between two people and hiring a hooker who is doing what she does because of severe economic deprivation or who comes from a society that devalues women as humans. So, no prostitution should not be legalized, get your booty for free or buy a magazine and have a hand party. Societies need to provide better opportunities for women (and men) so that prostitution is a less attractive career choice. Those who manage them should be executed. Those who hire them should face stiff fines or jail.

Soft drugs may be another matter to some extent. But here are my questions about it. Let us compare them to alcohol and tobacco.
1a. Are the proponents of legalizing these drugs going to allow them to be sold to to 11 year olds, complete legalization?

1b. Or, are they going to put the same restrictions on such drugs as are found on beer and cigarettes?

2. Do you honestly think that the drug pushers in the inner city are going to obey those restrictions? Tobacco companies try to get around those laws.

All that said, I don’t see much difference between cannabis and beer. I’d put cigarettes as a lesser evil because they do not cause immediate impairment eventhough smokers have long term health issues. Someone who smoke 3 packs of Camel’s a day is still probably a safer driver than person who drinks 3 six packs of Old Milwalkee or tokes 6 joints a day.

My concern is that I have known several long term, heavy pot smokers and they were always careful to not drive while high and to not go to work stoned. I think that part of the reason for that was that they didn’t want to get caught. I wonder if the deterent would remain?

So I guess that I might look at voting for someone like this other than the isolationist stance. While you can argue that the US is spread too far militarily it didn’t really have any choice. Iraq was probably going to have to be invaded at some point.

Nov 12, 2009 - 5:21 pm 86. RickGreenville,SC:

Moho: If you hate us all so much, why are you always here? I suspect a closet conservative in the making. Now and then: You sound like the old little davey from fla.I guess “masturbation” is now your word of choice instead of the old “morbidly obese Americans”? Now on to the topic- This guy sounds like a democrat lite politican. I predict he will go nowhere with conservatives.

Nov 12, 2009 - 5:30 pm 87. Donna V.:

Hey, it’s my favorite jackass, N & T! Hi, N & T! Now, put down that bong for a second and check these poll numbers out:

From Gallup:

PRINCETON, NJ — Republicans have moved ahead of Democrats by 48% to 44% among registered voters in the latest update on Gallup’s generic congressional ballot for the 2010 House elections, after trailing by six points in July and two points last month.

From Rasmussen:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 29% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -9 (see trends). Thirty-three percent (33%) now say the U.S. is generally heading in the right direction.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) say the President is doing a good or excellent job handling the economy while 45% give him poor marks. On national security issues, the numbers are 42% good or excellent and 39% poor.

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove.

Republican candidates have stretched their lead over Democrats to six points in the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Republicans have held the lead for over four months now.

Voters not affiliated with either party continue to heavily favor Republicans, 43% to 20%.

Now, N & T, fire up the bong again while you frantically google to come up with some really impressive and accurate online polls from HuffPo or Daily Kos which prove that 99.9% of all Americans adore bambi and think everything’s just peachy.

I do so love your delusions. I want all the Dems to remain as clueless and dense as you. It will make the 2010 elections just that much more fun.

Nov 12, 2009 - 5:50 pm 88. dynomitejim:

#25, Poor Citizen, I always enjoy your posts.

The libertarians such as Paul get marginalized by the Gop on foriegn policy issues because they do not undertand the difference between isolationism and seperatism. #16 Mistah, Paul if anything is a Constitutionalist and is misunderstood. The Framers warned us of Nation building, and policing the rest of the world. that does not make us imperialists; and I do not think Paul thinks we are imperialists, but our involvement in foreign affairs makes us LOOK like imperialists. If Paul has any fault, he is labeled an Isolationist(by the gop), and is seen as weak. I think Paul is a Seperatist who believes in a strong national defense. Seperatist believed in peace by example, but if attacked, use brutal force (kickin ass and taking names). Our Seperatism for nearly 200 years is why we are a super power, our recent history in Iraq and Afganistan only makes us weaker.

Nov 12, 2009 - 6:00 pm 89. Moho:

I suspect a closet conservative in the making.

With the exception of this writer and some of his commentators, its a safe wager that none of you are really conservative. I hate you because idiots like you, too lazy to actually form an opinion based on evidence, are destroying the country I call home. The more you complain about me the happier it makes me, especially when you make assumptions about my political affiliation. That tells me you’re illiterate as well as ignorant.

Nov 12, 2009 - 6:54 pm 90. Will Berg:

This Gary Johnson needs to return to the empty desert of New Mexico where nobody should be living anyway.

If he’s anything like Ron Paul he is to be ignored and destroyed.

Obama will be our leader for years to come, far beyond 2016 if not as our president, then our New World Leader.

While I like Palin and her support of growing our power abroad, she is an amatuer when it comes to the New World Order, even if she is working on it with her new PAC.

Ignore this Johnson, listen to Fox News. They will tell you who your Republican candidate is.

Nov 12, 2009 - 6:55 pm 91. ChuckW:

#81 Moho:
“Another brainless refugee from the outskirts. Alcohol is legal you dumbsh%%^ and it kills more people every year in accidents than pot.”

Excuse me, Genius Moho, but alcohol never killed anyone. People who ingest it do the killing.

Druggies should be put on an island and given all the drugs they want, pot, meth, heroin, morphine, cocaine, LSD, PCP, you name it. That will take care of the problem and my guess is it’ll happen pretty quickly.

Nov 12, 2009 - 7:26 pm 92. ConservativeWanderer:

Hey, Moho…

Did it ever occur to your genius brain that the fact that alcohol is legal and therefore far more accessible might have something to do with it being a factor in more accidents?

Did you know that there are far more automobile accidents than accidents in horse-drawn buggies, too?

Please, keep your head deeply in the sand, Moho… we’d lose our comic relief if you suddenly started posting stuff that made sense.

Nov 12, 2009 - 7:28 pm 93. tajitj:

I think the foreign policy divide can be summed up real easy.

If 100% support of the Bush style foreign policy (pre emptive war, tuff or no talk to enemies and not getting a declaration of war from Congress) is a litmus test for any candidate to win support from conservative media or the Republican party leaders, then the Gary Johnson crowd thinks they are destine to loose elections and become a smaller party, all the stuff the liberals pray for.

BUT, if conservatives and Republicans start to rethink the war on terrorism and realize we could have prevent most attacks if FBI or CIA agents did a better job and put two and two together and stopped the peope who carry out these horrific attacks before they happen, then we will this fight against terrorists.

Gary is all for a large, strong, well funded military. BUT, going to war the way we did in Iraq is not an acceptable and smart way to use that power. Staying with to small a force in Afghanistan, letting the people who attacked us escape, is not an acceptable or smart way to use that power.

I argue that being conservative with domestic spending carries into military spending since it is 50% of the Federal budget.

Nov 12, 2009 - 8:14 pm 94. Frank:

#4 If you don’t support drug legalization, you’re a tyrant, plain and simple.

Nov 12, 2009 - 9:02 pm 95. Moho:

Did it ever occur to your genius brain that the fact that alcohol is legal and therefore far more accessible might have something to do with it being a factor in more accidents?

Conservativewanderer…the idiot I responded was asked that:

I can accept pot legalization if you give up your drivers license and your employer is informed.

That’s incredibly stupid, given that currently alcohol is a major cause of accidents as you noted, but that the idiot poster isn’t concerned with that. My god, the stupid, it burns.

Nov 12, 2009 - 9:03 pm 96. Moho:

Excuse me, Genius Moho, but alcohol never killed anyone. People who ingest it do the killing.

Four words: Cirrhosis of the Liver. Oh wait, one more: idiot.

Nov 12, 2009 - 9:05 pm 97. john from cinncinatti:

moho you are the winner in the swearing contest.
when we made jails a business, we just got gouged for their room and board. it has nothing to do with right or wrong its just the bottom line that counts. making drugs legal has its unintended consequences. mostly kids who in their final years of brain development, will rot their brain. i wouldn’t vote for another cloud chaser to save my life. this article was satire, i hope.

Nov 12, 2009 - 9:24 pm 98. L:

Sigh. Libertarians.
Being labeled “the next Ron Paul” has got to be the Kiss of Death. Gary Johnson (I lived in New Mexico while he was governor) should run a mile from any such characterization.
Doctrinaire, upper-case L Libertarian candidates will never go anwywhere with the American electorate.
A Republican candidate with lower-case l libertarian leanings has a damn good chance at victory.
Tell me you’ll lower my taxes, ease up on regulation, shrink the size of government, sunset laws, and I’ll be interested. Explain how you’ll secure our borders and coast-line, how you’ll remorselessly deport illegal aliens, and I’ll applaud. Admit pride in the superiority of Western culture and the use of the English language in America, and I’ll sing your praises. Say you’ll increase personal liberty, and get government out of our bedrooms, our wombs, our recreational substance decisions, and I’ll be swayed. Let me know you’ll maintain the U.S. military as the most powerful and dangerous on earth, and that you’ll stomp the guts out of our enemies, and I’ll be enthused.
Do all this, and my vote is yours.

Nov 12, 2009 - 9:53 pm 99. LupusSolus:

CatoRenasci: I don’t favor conscription, but I think everyone who enjoys the benefits of this society has a moral obligation to serve.

—

I agree. And as an incentive to serve, it should be a requirement before you’re eligible to vote.

While every person should enjoy the fruits of Liberty, not everyone should be eligible to vote.

You can approach from two different angles … opt-in or opt-out.

Opt-in method would be to require some sort of federal service … military, park rangers, law enforcement, etc. Only those who completed the service could vote. However, those still in the service could not until their active duty time had ended.

Opt-out method would be to exclude those receiving any type of gov’t funding, salaries, or supplement and/or those not paying the hated income tax.

Or a combination of the two.

Either method should require passing a rather basic multiple-choice civics test … They should be able to identify the branches of gov’t; know about the Bill of Rights; jury nullification; etc/

The objective would be to limit those who could benefit from the treasury from voting (and thus voting it for themselves thru proxy).

Nov 12, 2009 - 11:19 pm 100. LupusSolus:

#40 and #47

I see no reason to put aside my differences with social conservatives … Libertarians have been doing that for decades and what has it gotten us? … A bigger gov’t with more debt.

Social conservatives should put aside their differences and vote someone like Johnson.

As for his positions on Iraq and Afghanistan, Iraq is essentially over. It should have little to no bearing on the 2012 election. I’ll have to wait to see his position on Afghanistan … presuming Obama hasn’t either a) settled it or be b) abandoned it.

Our mission in Afghanistan has morphed from hunting Osama (whom I believe is dead) and Al Qaeda to propping up the current gov’t and hunting the Taliban. I understand the reasoning for not letting the Taliban regain control however, we can’t prop up a corrupt gov’t.

We need a good debate about staying or leaving Afghanistan. At the moment, I lean towards staying if we up the troop level to numbers sufficient to do the job. Otherwise let’s declare Osama dead, al Qaeda disrupted and bring the troops home.

Nov 12, 2009 - 11:33 pm 101. LupusSolus:

52. Donna V.: Making pot legalization a centerpiece of one’s campaign makes no sense whatsoever when you consider the financial mess this country will be in by 2012 thanks to the Dems spending.

—

1) Think of the costs reduction if marijuana (and other drugs) are legalized.

2) Think of the tax revenue.

3) Think of the crack houses that would disappear as people went to legitimate vendors.

4) Think of the reduced funding to criminal gangs.

http://www.leap.cc

Nov 12, 2009 - 11:45 pm 102. Jim:

Some of you are missing the point regarding his views on drugs and prostitution; they are irrelevant. What is relevant is that he would fight to dismantle Washington, including sending those laws back to the states where they belong.

And regardless of our moral views on drugs and prostitution, the economic argument is clearly in favor of legalization. We’d save more lives and take away the criminals’ revenue stream.

Nov 13, 2009 - 12:09 am 103. Nick:

I’ve never used an illicit drug in my life, and yet I affirm that any genuine constitutionalist MUST support abolishing all federal drug laws; there is simply nothing in the Constitution that authorizes them.

Nov 13, 2009 - 12:39 am 104. syn:

Why I am not a ‘big L’ Libertarian?

Because typically Libertarians are so high on pot they’re reduced to jerking off to internet porn; in this state of mindlessness Libertarians are incapable of understanding the nature of the human condition.

Libertarians may enjoy their fantastic profit margins gained by doing dirty dealing with kleptocrats, dictators and all-around genocidal tyrants however this selfishness forces America into the position of having to defend herself from the very countries Libertarians do business.

So Libertarian college kids, you may be ‘against war’ however the enemy will bring war to you nevertheless; today’s college kids will soon understand the nature of the human condition.

Libertarian college kids, the days of pot and porn are over for you; by necessity you will have to give these things up in order to just survive.

Nov 13, 2009 - 5:10 am 105. Bob:

Huckabee leads the polls. There is a reason.

He is a proven vote getter in the primaries, and as 12 year governor in his otherwise Democratic state of Arkansas (much like Johnson) he know how to move legislation past recalcitrant legislatures.

He governed well, and was very popular in Arkansas, pulling the state up from the bottom of so many categories (roads, education, corruption, etc.) without breaking the bank or burdening the tax payer.

Fiscally conservative, socially conservative, well known and well respected, gentle but firm in his weekly dialogs with the opposition, he will appeal to the conservative and moderate wings of the party.

Having owned and run media himself (and met payrolls) we can expect no Dean moments or hostility to whatever small businesses we have left after Obama.

He is well vetted, and we can expect no surprises emerging to dampen his momentum. He is just plain likable, and Lord knows we need that today with Ram Emanuel, David Axelrod and Barach Hussein Obama in the White House.

Nov 13, 2009 - 5:15 am 106. EgregiousCharles:

I like most of Gary Johnson’s reported positions but I think to be an acceptable Presidential candidate he should promise not to spend his political capital driving for pot legalization; whenever it’s brought up by the media his answer should be that he will not work toward it. And of course he should keep this and all promises. As to prostitution, he should point out that it’s a state matter out of the reach of a president and should stay that way.

Drugs cause two kinds of harm.
The first kind is the obvious kind due to the drug use, which may or may be not be mitigated by the illegality. I have family that died; they were not helped by the illegality.
The second kind is due entirely to the illegality of sale and posession; this is as others have pointed out the primary source of violent crime in America. The enormous profits to be made by criminals are only enormous because the sale and possession is illegal. The horrible nature of the pushers is selected for and rewarded by the demands of success in an illegal industry.

I propose that the USE should be illegal, not the sale or possession. Criminalized sale and possession is an utterly failed strategy in the War on Drugs, and the collateral damage is most of the crime in the US plus virtually all of the militarized police evils.

Nov 13, 2009 - 6:16 am 107. Lynn:

Huckabee will be the agent of change for 2012. He’s the frontrunner because Americans are tired of polics as usual. They want someone they can trust and are deciding that they can in fact trust Huck. I consider myself to lean Libertarian and find him absolutely acceptable! He is one of a few leaders in the GOP who came out loudly against the bailouts!

Nov 13, 2009 - 6:19 am 108. Mike2:

90. Will Berg:
“This Gary Johnson needs to return to the empty desert of New Mexico where nobody should be living anyway.”

I am taking your comments as tongue in cheek but just in case, as to your empty desert comment, you might try a little research on the geography of New Mexico.

Nov 13, 2009 - 7:05 am 109. Bob:

Note the highest hour of the highest rated cable network. Folks apparently like watching this Huckabee – likability is important in politics.

Total Viewers: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 1015 | CNN: 461 | MSNBC: 240 | HLN: 248

Prime: FNC: 1261 | CNN: 445 | MSNBC: 326 | HLN: 299

5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:
FNC NewsHQ: FNSunday: Report: Huckabee: Special: Geraldo: Huckabee:
1088 1252 1480 1689 1003 1093 601
CNN Zakaria: Newsroom: Newsroom: SOTU: King: Newsroom: SOTU:
439 446 548 448 480 407 329
MSNBC Special: Special: Special: Special: Special: Special: Special:
255 172 251 290 372 316 290

HLN HLN: Prime: Issues: Grace: Behar: Grace: Showbiz:
200 206 219 322 320 255 242

Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.

Nov 13, 2009 - 7:33 am 110. Kipling:

Response to Lupusolus @99: Since when did service to the state as a pre-condition to full citizenship become a libertarine position? It sounds stangely similar to the volunteer corps pushed by Mr. Obama. How can you reconcile your proposed service to the state with the Libertarian Party platform of “sole dominion”?

A larger point to consider is that mandatory service to the state will lead to the indoctrination of those who serve. When the Progressives first proposed universal military service, their stated goal was to make it a school of citizenship and Americanism. If the liberals control the government, who is to say that they will not teach liberalism as the basic tenet of Americanism and therefore produce a generation of people comfortable with their increasingly leftist positions. Mandatory service to the government will also condition the people to follow government edicts without question and form bonds of allegiance to the state apparatus.

Are you really a libertarian?

Response to Lupusolus @100: Please point out how social conservatism has led to bigger government.

Nov 13, 2009 - 7:47 am 111. JEM:

107 – Huckabee is George W Bush without the mumbles. No thank you.

Nov 13, 2009 - 7:52 am 112. John "birther" Samford:

“likability is important in politics.”

No, Bob, you are wrong. Likability is an aid to electability, which is important in the minor subset of Democratic (consensual) government. It has NOTHING to do with politics overall. Politics is the art of governing (ruling), not the art of getting elected. In a Democracy, one needs to get elected to govern. America stopped being a democracy in 2008.
We have an Usurper as POTUS who has NEVER proven his eligibility to govern. That birth certificate is a forgery. In some of the districts that voted for the Usurper, there were more votes counted then voters. No, the US Presidential election of ‘08 makes Afghanistan look like a bastion of Democracy.

Nov 13, 2009 - 9:18 am 113. John "birther" Samford:

Gary Johnson has no chance of getting elected. Why would anybody vote for a weak copy of a democrat when they can vote for the real deal?

Sara would slaughter the Usurper. 10+ points and 300+ EV’s. Her margin of victory will equal the actual unemployment rate at that time. No accident, that. Not a co-ink-see-dink either.

That is why the left wants another RINO loser like McCain to run in 2012. Hey, it worked once, why not try again?

Nov 13, 2009 - 9:23 am 114. LupusSolus:

@110 Kipling,

1. I’m not sure if you meant libertarian or libertine but regardless, I never said it was a libertarian position.

2. I never said mandatory service. In the opt-in scenario, it would be just that … opt-in … which is a choice. If a person chose not to opt-in, he/she would still have citizenship rights (free speech, travel, passport, etc.) … just not the PRIVILEGE of voting or standing for office. Therefore, a person still has dominion of himself.

I propose that voting is a privilege that should be earned, not automatically granted. At the founding of this nation, most states restricted voting rights to property owners and veterans.

3. Social conservatism has led to bigger gov’t by expanding it’s effort to enforce its morality in consensual situations … such as the use of drugs. The “War on Drugs” has led to an expansive and intrusive gov’t. It has also been very expensive.

Not all social conservatives are fiscal conservatives, thus you get worse of both worlds … A nanny state and the willingness to tax and spend to enforce it.

Nov 13, 2009 - 9:40 am 115. Real Deal:

@ 99:

What you’re proposing sounds similar to Robert A. Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. However if you actually read the book you would understand that your proposal would not work. The key idea in military service in Starship Troopers was the weeding out of those that were psychologically unfit to serve. The service was strictly volunteer and made it very easy to walk away without stigma. It was this combined with the lessons learned during training and service “everybody works, everybody fights” that made the veterans “fit” to serve in a political capacity and also voting.

Federal Service as it currently exists, especially in a low risk position, would not engender the qualities that are desirable for people responsible for determining the course of our nation. Also it has been proposed that we return to the early qualifications for voting, you must pay taxes and basically have a vested interest in your community in order to vote. That is what early laws restricting voting to property owners were aiming for. Not the disenfranchisement of the poor as liberal scholars will advocate, but rather people who will vote in both their own best interest and that of their community. That non-tax payers can vote to enact policies or politicians who will take from the tax payers and give them largesse from the public coffers is wrong.

It was for no reason that Ben Franklin said:

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. “

Nov 13, 2009 - 10:08 am 116. Kipling:

Response to Lupusolus @114:

1. In your post @100, you spoke of yourself as a libertarian so I assumed that you were one and that the position you advocated would be in keeping with your ideological identification.

2. You were perfectly clear that full citizenship (i.e. the ability to vote or hold office) required mandatory service to the state. How long until the voters in your scenario exploit or even outright enslave the non-voters? What would stop them?

As you mentioned, the Founding Fathers often restricted voting rights to property owners, veterans, etc. Never did they require service to the state as a pre-condition. You could earn it by being a veteran but you could also earn it be personally productive and responsible. Under your method, voting would depend upon service to the state.

3. The War on Drugs is hardly a war and it is not the most expensive agenda item in the budget. Drug use is hardly a consensual act that only impacts the user and legalization will not solve the problem. Many others in this thread have made the argument so I will not rehash.

Are there other areas you would cite?

4. All social conservatives should be fiscal conservatives. I will agree with you there. I would also point out that there is different degrees of fiscal conservatism. A lot depends on what you deem as essential or constitutional for the federal government to do.

Nov 13, 2009 - 10:39 am 117. baal:

Kipling: Whats wierd about this whole thread is that Libertarians should have NOTHING to prove or defend to Social Conservatives–in fact its the other way around.
It was the Social Conservative–Bush–that put ALL Conservatives/Libertarians/Right wingers etc in a bad light because he lost his veto pen when congress went on a spending spree AND didnt get around to winning the Iraq war until thousands of our soldiers were dead.
With all due respect: Remember that.

Nov 13, 2009 - 11:27 am 118. myth buster:

I agree, veterans should be able to vote, and so should all taxpaying citizens. However, non-taxpayers should not be able to vote. Best part is, there is no constitutional prohibition on establishing certain requirements for voting so long as they do not have anything to do with race, religion, political opinion, gender or set a voting age above 18. In fact, I would even argue that a 16 year old who holds down a job and pays taxes ought to be able to vote.

Nov 13, 2009 - 11:34 am 119. LupusSolus:

@ 115; @116

Real Deal and Kipling,

Very good! Yes, I read Starship Trooper as a young teen (it was the first sci-fi book I ever read) and have toyed with the idea ever since. You might recall that in the book tho that the military wasn’t the only option but the nature of the book focused on it.

I’m open to debate whether the military should be the only option or whether service as POST certified law enforcement would also qualify.

And to answer the concern what would stop them from enslaving the rest of the citizens? The same thing we have now … the right to bear arms.

If you choose not to serve, you have only chosen not to participate in the voting process … Given voter turnout, many choose that now. The Bill of Rights still remains in effect!

That was my opt-in idea.

If you’re not keen on some type of federal service then there is the opt-out plan. Basically those who pay taxes earn the privilege of voting. If you choose to accept gov’t welfare, then you choose to opt-out of voting.

Of course, this option requires a bureaucracy to keep track of the current voter eligibility status. Easier with today’s computers than during Heinlein’s time but a bureaucrat is still a bureaucrat.

With the opt-in method, once a vet … always a vet.

It can be one or the other or a combination.

Some may have concerns about military as prerequisite for voting, but we all know that veterans aren’t some monolith of thought there are democrat, republican, and libertarian veterans. So we wouldn’t need fear that warrior caste would rule and launch us into a series of wars.

I don’t claim to have the answer tho I have put a lot of thought into it and I have come to believe that just reaching the age of 18 (or 21 or whatever) should not be enuff to earn the privilege of voting.

Nov 13, 2009 - 11:50 am 120. LupusSolus:

@116

Kipling,

I am basically a libertarian. But as you should know, getting libertarians to agree is like collecting frogs in a wheelbarrow … You just can’t keep them all there!

You continue to misuse the word mandatory or at least use in a manner that implies something not meant … Mandatory service implies compulsory universal service which is not the case here.

In the opt-in scenario, it is a requirement for earning the privilege of voting. We don’t typically speak of “mandatory” driver’s exam to earn the privilege of driving but passing one is a requirement.

In response to your concerns about who drug use impacts, let me quote Peter McWilliams:

“Yes, if we harm ourselves it may emotionally harm others. That’s unfortunate, but not grounds for putting us in jail. If it were, every time we stopped dating person A in order to date person B, we would run the risk of going to jail for hurting person A. If person B were hurt by our being put in jail, person A could be put in jail for hurting person B. This would, of course, hurt person A’s mother, who would see to it that person B would go to jail. Eventually, we’d all be in jail.

As silly as that situation sounds, it is precisely the logic used by some to protect the idea of consensual crimes.”

We already discovered that Prohibition against alcohol was a colossal failure as is the Prohibition against drugs.

And I’m not sure what the “problem” is that you’re referring to when you say legalization won’t solve the “problem”.

You think the “War on Drugs” is a trivial expense? Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that the United States spends $44 billion a year fighting the war on drugs. If they were legal, the US government would realise about $33 billion a year in tax revenue – a net swing of $77 billion and I’ve seen higher estimates than that and that ain’t pocket change! I don’t think that includes the cost of prisons but I’d have to research that to be sure.

As a former cop, I can tell you that that the Drug War is a waste of time and resources. If I arrested dealer on a corner, by the time I took him to jail and got back on patrol, there was already someone else dealing on that corner.

Another area? Social conservatives seem to be in an unholy alliance with feminazis to use federal and local gov’t resources to persecute and prosecute divorced and unwed men. Find a copy of “Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths” by Sanford Braver and have a read.

Over the years, I have become more and more leery of social conservatives because of just what you said, “A lot depends on what you deem as essential or constitutional for the federal government to do.” … I would any level of gov’t to that. To a large degree, we have created a costly legal system that is, to quote Alan Watts, “clergymen with billy clubs.” Kind of like the Taliban.

It’s not that I don’t believe in God, but I don’t think inquiring into people’s private morals by the police is solution.

Nov 13, 2009 - 12:08 pm 121. LupusSolus:

@118. myth buster

Actually, the “failure to pay taxes” as a dis-qualifier is currently prohibited by the 24th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Nov 13, 2009 - 12:25 pm 122. ChuckW:

#96 Moho. Alcohol causes cirrhosis? Wow.
By that logic, hamburgers cause obesity.
And jails cause crime. And cars cause wrecks. And boats cause drownings. And ladders cause falls. And bullets are out there shooting people.
OK, now I got it: it wasn’t Dr. Hasan who killed those 13 people at Ft. Hood – silly me! It was his bullets!

Name calling: the last refuge of the intellectually unarmed.

Nov 13, 2009 - 12:47 pm 123. Kipling:

Response to baal @117: The fact is that if you want the support of social conservatives, then you do have to prove yourself and defend your positions. It is the nature of the political process. If you think you can do it without the social conservatives, then be my guest but don’t lecture me on what I can or cannot ask for from people who want my vote or support.

I am not responsible for the actions of Mr. Bush and he was hardly the champion of social conservatism. At the most, he held ground already won but he did not advance any of our agenda items.

Nov 13, 2009 - 1:42 pm 124. Real Deal:

As I said before, I would not care if marijuana were legalized if law enforcement had a reliable field sobriety test as they do with alcohol and the breathalyzer. The rest just don’t lend themselves to recreational use, not for long anyway. It not only ends up destroying them, but along the way they do harm to others in the form of theft, neglect, violence, etc. and they end up a drain on society. There is no if, and, or but about it. No addict of drugs like heroin, cocaine, or meth can remain self-sufficient and a productive member of society for long. Can they recover? Yes, but too many don’t.

The tax revenue is a fallacy, at first it will be positive but as the numbers of addicts increase and the social programs to rehabilitate, support, and provide medical care expand the outlay will exceed the income. The only drug this actually works with is marijuana, the rest produce too many non-functional addicts. Many people can function while being regular marijuana users, heavy users however often are not very productive, though there are very rare people who can do quite well even while maintaining a “buzz” nearly constantly. O

Nov 13, 2009 - 1:50 pm 125. Kipling:

Response to Lupusolus @120: Perhaps you are not familiar with the basic definition of “mandatory.” It means “required or obligatory.” Therefore, it is right to say that under your proposed system it is mandatory [required or obligatory] that one serve the state in order to enjoy the full rights of citizenship, i.e. the right to vote.

How long would it be before this group of voters began to pass legislation to exploit the non-voters? How long until they pass a consitutional amendment making the Bill of Rights not apply to the non-voters?

Our Founding Fathers fought a revolution of the right of representation. They believed that to not be able to vote but to still be taxed was a form of slavery. You would implement a system similar to the one they revolted against.

The analogy you give by Williams and the evidence you provide that drug use only hurts the drug user is rather lame. As a former police officer, you have probably run across meth heads or paint huffers. Are these people productive members of society or are they a drain on the system? The substances they use eat their brains and leaves them violent, agressive, and not too bright. Eventually they cannot hold down a job and they turn to theft and petty crime to support their addiction. How does that not impact their community? How does that fit in with your junior high analogy by Williams?

Your comparison of social conservatives to the Taliban is absurd, shameful and offensive. It would appear that you are out of answers and simply trying to end debate by being offensive. If your moral decision cannot stand up to scrutiny then you need to reconsider those morals. By the way, you took the quote you used to lead into the Taliban comment out of context. I said that in reference to fiscal conservatives not social conservatives.

Nov 13, 2009 - 2:00 pm 126. Donna V.:

LupusSolus: I think whoever runs against Obama in 2012 will do well to emphasize those areas libertarians and socons can agree on and put the issues they disagree on the back burner. I think a strong emphasis on fiscal responsibility, holding the line on government spending and taxes – the Reagan approach is the best way to win.
If pet socon issues should be deemphasized, so should pet libertarian issues. I agree that the War on Drugs has been ruinously expensive, but legalization of drugs is not some sure-fire vote getter. On the contrary, many people will have serious questions about how it would actually work in the real world (some of those legitimate questions have been raised in this thread). Frankly, I think this country will be in such a mess due to Democratic spending by 2012 that we’ll have plenty of other things to talk about.

Huckabee is a RINO, a big spender who believes in the nanny state – an anti-abortion Jimmy Carter. Hell, I’m anti-abortion too, but I would have a very hard time voting for him. I don’t like him – at all. I’m not a Mormon, but I think the idiotic crap he pulled with his swarmy questioning of Romney’s religion was beyond the pale. It was certainly one of the low points of a bad year.

Reagan was a socon who barely darkened the door of a church. If Huckabee had been around then he would have used that fact to turn people against Reagan.

Nov 13, 2009 - 2:08 pm 127. baal:

126. Donna V.: Thank you for injecting a few notes of sanity into this issue. I think we’re seeing a good parallel right now from the left side of the spectrum–they got into power and immediately started trying to rewrite the way the country works and the way that people conduct their lives.
We cant afford to be that way when the inevitable pendulum shift happens. All we need to do is stop the out of control spending and return to balanced budgets–if we do that, if the republican party proves to be worthy of the conservative mantle, then we will hold washington for a long while.
I’d love top see pot legalized and kids stop going to prison over it, but right now we need to pick our battles.

Nov 13, 2009 - 2:34 pm 128. Kipling:

Response to Donna V. @126: I have a similar view of Huckabee. To me you cannot be a social conservative and fiscally irresponsible. Huckabee stayed in the race to spoil Romney’s chance at the nomination. He is the one responsible for McCain being hoisted on the Republican Party by the media and thus deserves a lot of the blame for Mr. Obama.

Nov 13, 2009 - 2:36 pm 129. Anonymous:

@125. Kipling

What to prevent them from doing it now to non-voters? In fact, a lot of liberty we have lost has been due to a non-elected judiciary. Your arguments lack logic … In fact, I’ve already answered it, the same thing we have now if we would choose to use it … the right to bear arms.

Our Founding Fathers never set the voter eligibility. That was left to the States and most states required ownership of property and most allowed veterans. So those who paid the Whiskey Tax where out of luck if they didn’t own property or weren’t veterans.

No one is excluded from the opt-in. A person just must make a choice whether the privilege of voting is worth sacrificing a few years to defend then country.

My viewpoint is that voting is not a right but a privilege that must be earned by something more than turning 18. Otherwise, eventually a republic devolves into mob rule … which is what is happening to us.

As a police officer I ran across a lot of alcoholics too but unless they were driving or hurting someone (most DV cases involve alcohol) then they didn’t go to jail. But we could put someone in jail just for the mere possession of marijuana. Jail is not an effective treatment for alcoholics or drug users.

BTW, Mexico just recently legalized the possession of “personal” amounts of all drugs and the country isn’t been overrun with addicts. Imagine that!

The comparison to the Taliban is not shameful. It illustrates how far monitoring moral behavior can go. At what point do you draw the line to stop it? For example, do you once again make homosexuality a crime? How about if you find a Playboy magazine in a man’s home? Off to jail with him? Should woman go to jail for dancing at a strip club?

Immoral should not equal illegal. Basically, if you don’t hurt someone (or threaten to), and don’t cheat or steal from someone, then it shouldn’t involve jail time or even be illegal to begin with.

Nov 13, 2009 - 3:17 pm 130. Bob R:

I agree w/ Glen Beck. Both the Dems and the Repubs have screwed our eyes out. And if the Republic survives barrackhussienobama mmmm mmm mm and his Socialist/Marxist horde, we’ll be extraordinarily lucky. Our one hope is that most of our State Governors will exercise their/our 10th Amendment rights and tell Wash. D.C. to go to hell.And every State with a National Border; close the damn thing, both north and south. And by God, use their own National Guards to execute same.

Nov 13, 2009 - 3:37 pm 131. Donna V.:

To me you cannot be a social conservative and fiscally irresponsible.

True. And I also think you are correct that if citizens don’t value self-restraint and moderation in their personal lives, there is no reason to believe that they will value those qualities in their government. The problem is that the more the government grows, the more it seeks to assume roles that were once rightly left to parents, churches, families, neighbors etc. Contrary to what Hillary thinks, the government cannot be a village. The government is bad at most of the things it does, and it’s going to teach us how to be good? Leftists firmly believe it can do so; it’s a great mistake on Huck’s part to think that he can use it to promote his own version of virtue.

Nov 13, 2009 - 4:10 pm 132. Dave:

Fai Mao #85: If you are still reading: Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

I like to consider myself an extreme libertarian.
Make that “libertarian anarchist” would you?

Trouble with “libertarian” (and especially “Libertarian”) is a failure to recognize that
libertarianism has consequences as well as benefits.

This in turn leads to believing in another version of the utopia (the Devil’s own invention)
and that one does not have to endure any form of discomfort. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

So while I advocate the repeal of many statutes,
I do not do so on the grounds that such repeal will guarantee proper behavior. Rather I do so on the grounds that a lack of statist intervention is necessary for human beings to correct their own shortcomings.

Therefore, the laws of man can properly restrict only those actions that qualify as aggression.

“Nuff said.

Nov 13, 2009 - 4:33 pm 133. Kipling:

Response to Anonymous @129: Let me address your points one by one.

1. Non-voters can always decide to become voters under the current system. Under your proposed system, non-voters are not allowed to vote unless they jump through the hoops set by the voters.

2. Our Founding Fathers operated at both the federal and the state level. For example, John Hancock, Sam Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson all served in some capacity at the state level. Thus, they worked with voting requirements. Besides, early restrictions on voting disappeared due to the abundance of land and to the mobility in early American society. In fact, in Virginia and other states with a western frontier, the restrictions were meaningless because someone could always go out and clear a new homestead.

3. No one every said jail was an effective treatment for drug use. Nice mis-direction but that is not what I argued.

4. Yes, Mexico is the example we all should follow. They have such a well governed and tranquil society. Not!

5. Just because it is difficult to draw a line on social issues, you recommend abandoning the process all together? Avoidance is hardly a commendable exercise.

6. “Immoral should not equal illegal.” No one has argued this point. By your own definition, drug use shoud involve jail time.

Nov 13, 2009 - 5:07 pm 134. Kipling:

The Christian social conservatism holds that God created and ordained government for the restraint of evil. Man left to his own devices will return to a state of nature in which the strong dominate the weak. Man is not inherently good. Government violates its own purpose when it begins to promote evil and empower one group to dominate another.

Nov 13, 2009 - 5:14 pm 135. Moho:

#96 Moho. Alcohol causes cirrhosis? Wow.
By that logic, hamburgers cause obesity.
And jails cause crime.

You’re this dumb. Its hard to believe. Follow if you can:

What are the common causes of cirrhosis?

* Alcohol is a very common cause of cirrhosis, particularly in the Western world. The development of cirrhosis depends upon the amount and regularity of alcohol intake. Chronic, high levels of alcohol consumption injure liver cells. Thirty percent of individuals who drink daily at least eight to sixteen ounces of hard liquor or the equivalent for fifteen or more years will develop cirrhosis. Alcohol causes a range of liver diseases; from simple and uncomplicated fatty liver (steatosis), to the more serious fatty liver with inflammation (steatohepatitis or alcoholic hepatitis), to cirrhosis.

What makes me laugh is your prison analogy. How is prison a comparable element to alcohol in your analogy? Please explain; you’ve made me laugh quite a bit already, but I could use a bit more levity in my life.

Nov 13, 2009 - 5:53 pm 136. Tucci:

–
Writes Kipling:

“Christian social conservatism holds that God created and ordained government for the restraint of evil. … Man is not inherently good.”

Hoo, boy. There’s the social pseudoconservative religious whackjob factor in a nutshell.

Government is ordained by God, the officers of government are the anointed of God, and the institution of government is infallible – except, of course, when its minions “promote evil and empower one group to dominate another.”

Look, Kipling (and all other social pseudoconservatives reading here), the “Man is not inherently good” bit is certainly something that us limited-government fiscal conservatives (read “libertarians”) understand and can agree with.

What we also understand – and you don’t seem to get – is that power not only corrupts but positions of power attract the corruptible.

Like garbage draws flies.

Government’s role in society – to function as the agency empowered to administer violent retaliation – is such that people with a yen to dominate and plunder their neighbors will do ANYTHING, say ANYTHING, make ANY claim to woo votes.

What was Mencken’s observation abut FDR?

“If he became convinced tomorrow that coming out for cannibalism would get him the votes he needs so sorely, he would begin fattening a missionary in the White House yard come Wednesday.”

It’s not just that government “begins to promote evil” but that government – as an institution – is in itself evil.

It may be a necessary evil, but to treat it as a benign entity “created and ordained” by God instead of being established by a very human Constitution is just plain bugnuts.

Nov 13, 2009 - 6:59 pm 137. baal:

135. Moho:
Idiot, as per Hegel:Idealism and Materialism. You are speaking to people who believe in free will and Individualism and it’s attendant consequences.
I’ll use you as an example. You weigh 400 lbs and are therefore a shut in. This is because of your weakness. You do not have to be this way. You could lose the weight, but I’m sure you blame your daddy issues for your obesity. Therefore you are a materialist and or a Determinist.
A libertarian or a conservative i.e. and idealist as per Hegel would understand that you are not a victim of society, you are simply fat and stupid and only worthy of working for Moveon.org.

Nov 13, 2009 - 7:10 pm 138. Kipling:

Response to Donna V. @131: I think we would agree on a great deal. The government cannot be a village and when it steps outside of its prescribed boundaries it will do more harm than good. The role of government is primarily negative. It is to restrain evil people and allow good people to live their lives in peace. According to Washington and the Founders, good government would allow men the liberty to do the right thing but it should never promote licentiousness.

Nov 13, 2009 - 7:19 pm 139. white tiger:

Abuse of alcoholic beverages is, in fact, a major cause of cirrhosis of the liver.

It seems necessary to imprison felons, but it is also true that we tend to become like those with whom we frequntly associate, eg, one’s fellow felons.

Gluttony in re Big Mac’s will result in obesity.

The sun rises in the East, and water is wet.

Man is inherently good, made in the image and likeness of God. Our Lord, Jesus Christ, while Divine, was born a man; inherently good. The scripture says He was made like us in every way. As He was born good; so must we be. Evil behavior is learned behavior.

The essential evil in Islam is their rejection of the truth that salvation comes only through obedience to Jesus Christ. Islamics specifically reject the Lord as their Lord and Savior, by refusing to obey Him. Thus they condemd themselves to eternal punishment

The essential problem is not with the terrorism, but with the islamic faith which promotes terrorism as a virtue.

Nov 13, 2009 - 7:20 pm 140. Tucci:

–
Dave, I don’t think that a “failure to recognize that libertarianism has consequences as well as benefits” is universal (or even predominant) among either small-L libertarians in general or the big-L Libertarian Party people.

By the way, benefits are consequences also.

But what might be the adverse consequences of a small-L libertarian policy in each legitimate area of civil government’s operations at either the federal level or among the several states?

Note that the ILLEGITIMATE operations of these governments necessarily disappear in a blaze of constitutionality with the implementation of libertarian politics, and therefore those who have been battening all their lives on federal government activities not specifically prescribed in Article I of the U.S. Constitution get kicked off the gravy train, but that’s the sort of “creative destruction” that frees up resources which have been malinvested in non-productive or even deleterious and pernicious violations of the lives, liberties, and property of American citizens.

If you discount these kinds of “consequences” (which may be bad for the particular slurpers-at-the-public trough who find themselves out the door on their butts, but could not be bad for the nation as a whole), what adversities could possibly come of a solidly libertarian government policy at any level of civil government?

On this I think some thought and expatiation are in order.

Nov 13, 2009 - 7:22 pm 141. Ole Sarge:

#7,

I served, I was in during the draft period, it was pathetic. Then they came along with project 100,000. Those who could not qualify to be drafted were allowed in anyway. Did wonders for performance and discipline, both went to hell. This is Vietnam in the late 60’s and 70’s.

Nov 13, 2009 - 7:26 pm 142. Kipling:

Response to Tucci @136:

I see that you bring a lot of your own personal baggage to the discussion. Such is life.

I never said government is infallible. In fact, Scripture is clear that when a government steps outside of its proper role and rejects the headship of God it becomes a ravenous beast that will destroy all thoses in its path. (See Daniel and Revelations.) It has ferocity and power but no ethics or conscience. A government and a person can never be ethics neutral they will always draw their ethics from something, whether a religious belief system or an ideology.

Government is an institution of man – although ordained by God – and is thus a fallen institution. Therefore, it must be restrained from the evil that it could do. Our Founding Fathers understood this and tried to bind the govenrment as much as possible to restrain the evil. Since the dawn of the 20th century, our society has gradually loosened the bonds. Now we are paying the consequences.

As to being a pseudo-conservative, I can trace my principles back to some of the earliest writings known to man. I can trace my personal message of looking to the ancient way back to the Old Testament prophets who confronted an evil government. I’m pretty sure that predates your rather utopian ideology.

Before you resort to pseudo-intellectualism, I suggest you examine the message of the conservative intellectuals dating back to Burke and beyond. Until then, I recommend you refrain from speaking about things beyond your depth.

Nov 13, 2009 - 7:38 pm 143. Chuck:

Moho, I normally don’t engage the chronically ill-informed and intellectually unarmed, but I will say it again: alcohol causes nothing. For cirrhosis to occur from alcohol consumption, first, the alcohol has to be manufactured, presumably by people. Where do you think the people with cirrhosis got their alcohol? Did it magically appear in front of them by the alcohol fairy who then forced it down their throats? Secondly, it has to be shipped to a distributor of some sort, a wholesaler and/or retailer. Presumably, that is also done by people. Then, and try to stay with me here (if you can), it has to be purchased, presumably by the person who consumes it, or a person who takes it to others for consumption. Finally, the alcohol has to be consumed, again presumably by a person, over a considerably lengthy period of time for the cirrhosis to occur. The alcohol caused none of these things; the manufacture, delivery and consumption of it by people did.

I don’t doubt for a second you could use more levity in your life. Here’s a helpful hint: take a sledgehammer, hold it in your hands, then move it toward your head in a fast, sweeping motion. Repeat until the desired results are achieved.

Nov 13, 2009 - 8:45 pm 144. myth buster:

121. Add the 24th Amendment to the list of Amendments that need repealing, right behind the 16th. I don’t particularly care about whether or not we keep the 17th- there’s good arguments both for and against it.

128. Huckabee didn’t spoil Romney; it was the other way around. Remember, Huckabee came in second, and besides that, Romney SIGNED universal health care in Massachusetts, as well as presided over the Big Dig which went way late and over budget. Romney is questionable on social issues, and bad on fiscal issues. He talks a good game, but his personal and political record doesn’t bare it out. Conservatives don’t sign bills that force people to buy health insurance or pay a fine, nor do they subsidize abortions. They also don’t throw half their personal fortunes into a campaign and proceed to lose to two people whose combined expenditures were less than half of what you spent. Romney may know how to make money, but he doesn’t seem to have a clue how to manage it.

Nov 13, 2009 - 9:03 pm 145. Kipling:

Response to myth buster @144: I can honestly say that neither Huckabee nor Romney really spurred my interest. As you stated, Romney was too recent a convert to conservatism to make most people comfortable. I think the similarities between the health care plan he signed in MA and the one that just passed the House will be a big problem for him in the primaries. We really need a conservative who can unite all three wings of conservatism.

Nov 13, 2009 - 10:25 pm 146. Knotacommie:

No Huckabee-outside of his support for the Fair Tax, Huckabee is another RINO. Hes a big spending, supports crap and tax, christian left. Sort of like someone from the United church of Christ or the Methodist church, which these days are overwhelmingly left and more about leftist politics than about God. While not an Obama commie, Huckabee is also a PC warrior who likely will have a defensive forgien policy rather than a proactive one. I dont dislike Huckabee as much as I beleive we can do better.

Nov 14, 2009 - 8:58 am 147. henry:

If the choice is Paul/Palin of Obama/Biden who would you vote for? Would social conservatives vote for Obama over Paul?

Nov 14, 2009 - 12:28 pm 148. David K. Meller:

Gary Johnson’s limited government positions are praiseworthy, and I certainly hope that he continues to “fight the good fight”. However, I am not sure that he is as aware as Ron Paul, and many other Libertarians and Constitutional conservatives that Foreign policy, monetary policy, and tax policy are at the crux of American tyranny!

It is in fighting a global crusade, whether the so-called ” war-on-drugs”, war-on-terror, war for democrazy, and so on, that anesthitizes Americans as to the loss of our rights! People yield to police powers in wartime, or even in a state of war preparation, that we would never tolerate in peacetime. Ron Paul insists we give up our empire. Does Gary Johnson?

Inflation and central banking, with its accompanying deficit spending allows a government to create, and spend, far more money than it could otherwise extort from its citizens through open extortion and blatant theft of taxation. It lowers our standard of living, makes us dependent upon banking and mortgage loansharks, and makes serious saving almost impossible. It also functions as a wealth redistribution racket where the goverment acts as a “bagman” for the bankers, their client bailout corporations, the military-industrial complex, and the rest of the criminal element in our society! Does Mr.Johnson know this? If not, he should really learn before he re-enters politics.

Taxation, especially the income tax, but also the so-called ‘fair tax’, and “flat tax” and other ridiculous substitutes, is nothing but legalized slavery, theft, and extortion writ large! It is an enforced claim on the fruits of your labor, by people whose signature claim is that they have NOTHING to openly and honestly TRADE with you! It is not any sort of contract entered into with mutual advantage and mutual respect, it is literally “your money or (many years of) your life! Taxation exemplifies not the relationship between one sovereign citizen and another, but the interaction between a beast of burden and its owner! Does Gary Johnson understand this and how willing is he to inform his fellow Americans?

Gary Johnson sounds like an attractive and personable candidate, perhaps even for the Presidency. His unambiguous call for an end the egregious enforcement of a major category of laws, e.g. drugs, gambling,and prostitution, among others, suggest that he has welcome and strong libertarian instincts. The enforcement of such laws has done its part into making America a prison State filled with “crimeless victims”! However, I think that he has a ways to go.

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

Nov 14, 2009 - 12:34 pm 149. Kipling:

Response to henry @ 147: The question is not whether social conservatives would vote for Paul over Obama. Election victory depends on a lot more than just votes. You want the base to be excited about a candidate, to contribute to his campaign, and to help get out the vote. Sure most social conservatives would vote for Paul over Obama but what about the other two activities. I would not donate to Paul and the best endorsement I could offer is that at least he is not Mr. Obama, something that could be said of Joe Biden.

Nov 14, 2009 - 5:41 pm 150. Starchild:

David Keller (#148) puts it extremely well. I would only add that the problem is not tyranny in the United States (to be concerned about tyranny only in one’s “own” country is nationalism, which is a form of collectivism and therefore ultimately at odds with individual liberty), but tyranny anywhere in the world. As Martin Luther King said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” And as the U.S. Declaration of Independence put it (or would have in the less sexist language of today), “All human beings are created equal” and therefore deserve equal rights under the law, regardless of where they live or which government claims jurisdiction over them. We should not excuse human rights abuses, civil liberties violations, and lack of democracy with terms like “cultural differences.” Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the oppressed. Our rejection of American Empire should not lead us (and by ‘us’ I mean freedom lovers) to support, by doing nothing, tyrannies and human rights abuses in other countries. What we need is a renewed spirit of American volunteerism like that which existed at the time of the Spanish Civil War when American volunteers formed the Abraham Lincoln Brigade to go and fight fascism, or earlier, when a patriot like Thomas Paine, having helped the United States throw off the yoke of British monarchy, went to Britain and began agitating for liberty there, until he was forced to leave the country, at which time he went to France and helped bring about the French Revolution.

Other than that, I almost entirely concur with David’s terrific comments:

“Gary Johnson’s limited government positions are praiseworthy, and I certainly hope that he continues to “fight the good fight”. However, I am not sure that he is as aware as Ron Paul, and many other Libertarians and Constitutional conservatives that Foreign policy, monetary policy, and tax policy are at the crux of American tyranny!

It is in fighting a global crusade, whether the so-called ” war-on-drugs”, war-on-terror, war for democrazy, and so on, that anesthitizes Americans as to the loss of our rights! People yield to police powers in wartime, or even in a state of war preparation, that we would never tolerate in peacetime. Ron Paul insists we give up our empire. Does Gary Johnson?

Inflation and central banking, with its accompanying deficit spending allows a government to create, and spend, far more money than it could otherwise extort from its citizens through open extortion and blatant theft of taxation. It lowers our standard of living, makes us dependent upon banking and mortgage loansharks, and makes serious saving almost impossible. It also functions as a wealth redistribution racket where the goverment acts as a “bagman” for the bankers, their client bailout corporations, the military-industrial complex, and the rest of the criminal element in our society! Does Mr.Johnson know this? If not, he should really learn before he re-enters politics.

Taxation, especially the income tax, but also the so-called ‘fair tax’, and “flat tax” and other ridiculous substitutes, is nothing but legalized slavery, theft, and extortion writ large! It is an enforced claim on the fruits of your labor, by people whose signature claim is that they have NOTHING to openly and honestly TRADE with you! It is not any sort of contract entered into with mutual advantage and mutual respect, it is literally “your money or (many years of) your life! Taxation exemplifies not the relationship between one sovereign citizen and another, but the interaction between a beast of burden and its owner! Does Gary Johnson understand this and how willing is he to inform his fellow Americans?

Gary Johnson sounds like an attractive and personable candidate, perhaps even for the Presidency. His unambiguous call for an end the egregious enforcement of a major category of laws, e.g. drugs, gambling,and prostitution, among others, suggest that he has welcome and strong libertarian instincts. The enforcement of such laws has done its part into making America a prison State filled with “crimeless victims”! However, I think that he has a ways to go.”

Nov 15, 2009 - 12:30 am 151. David K. Meller:

Our prospects in the GOP are limited because unfortunately there are a large number of Republicans,(especially jobholders), who are as committed to the NWO, the imperium Americana, and even the Dem’s welfare state, and who will vote for–and support–anybody but Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Peter Schiff, or anyone else that we have to offer!

It is immensely difficult for a person to change philosophy and politics in adulthood, especially when a large amount of one’s personal identity is obtained by seeing oneself as a “warrior for democracy” or a “fighter against oppression”. How hard would it have been for you or I to vote for, and campaign for, e.g. John McCain, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton? Their supporters suffer from the same tunnel vision.

Instead of searching for standard Republicans, our movement can successfully expand by looking for, and talking to, already disaffected voters, marginalized GOPers, self-described independents–who see the obvious flaws in both), and even ex-Democrats! There will probably be a considerable number of them after four years of an Obama Presidency, which promises to be at least as wretched as those of his three predecesors! Reminding the Democrats that they were once a largely libertarian (or at least libertarian inclined) party from the Presidency of Jefferson (1801) to the Presidency of Grover Cleveland(1896) would give a long overdue tone of libertarianism to the two party system. This will of course, do nothing for the entrenched Democrats, especially jobholders, but it might inspire many disaffected and newcomers, just as Ron Paul tried to do in ‘08 with his references to the “Old Right” of the GOP. At the very least, we will greatly expand the base of what will become a “politics of freedom” in the USA, and perhaps around the world!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

Nov 15, 2009 - 12:21 pm 152. MWB:

Some really good arguments on both sides. First I consider myself fiscally conservative yet liberal on many fronts at the same time. We seem to be arguing about things that really won’t have a large impact. That is the foundation of politics today. We align with 1 or 2 hot topics that are sensationalized by the press.

1) Legalization of Marijuana (Can be argued by all, but math prevails and it is cheaper to legalize and control/tax than fight a war that isn’t winnable and in fact has been decriminalized in many areas)

2) Gay Marriage (Really a personal opinion, Those inclined towards Religion are against, most are for it or don’t really care. Either way it has no real impact to the nation.)

3) Abortion (Really a personal opinion as well, I am against it for me, but realize that an unwanted child aborted is better in the long term as statistically shown in the decrease in crime roughly 20 years after ROE v. WADE was passed. Should be up to the individual, but not subsidized.

4) Continue to add to the list….

The key issue is OVERSPENDING…. By the Government, States and Citizens. The American Consumer Debt coupled with liberal programs that allow individuals to live off government subsidies in the many forms is removing the US from being a political force in the world. The dollar continues to weaken against all major currencies yet we continue to spend, be it healthcare for the masses or a new Flat Screen just in time for the Super Bowl.

Those of us who pay taxes are bearing to heavy a load. I currently live in NJ and the combined tax rate for me and my family is above 50% and that excludes sales tax.

We must hold ourselves and our government (state, local, federal) accountable for overspending.
There are no magic bullets, we cannot continue to print money that is only backed by US reputation.

I have yet to see a party or candidate that has ideas or a platform to truly reform our nation.

MWB

Nov 16, 2009 - 3:36 pm 153. ChuckW:

MWB: spot on re: overspending. About the only things that will get the attention of the current reckless spenders in Washington are: 1. Ousting ALL incumbents in the voting booth; or 2. Complete financial collapse. I’m praying for the former, but there is one more, although unlikely, possibility. That is passage of a balanced budget amendment. Look at the States that have balanced budget laws – they only spend what they take in (steal/confiscate?) and rarely experience deficits.
Until one of these things happens, the extravagant, reckless spending will continue until we are bankrupt and/or people go back to living off the land & the barter system. Yes, this may seem like an extreme view, but history shows us that empires don’t last forever, and if Congress keeps us on its’ current kamikaze course, we’re doomed. History occurs first as tragedy, then repeats itself as farce. Pelosi, Reid & Obama are about as close to farce as you can get.

Nov 16, 2009 - 4:42 pm 154. MikeI:

The one thing i can’t stand is how certain uninformed people can see the complexly intelligent and courageous position of ending the war on drugs as simply “college kids wanting to legalize pot.” Its is a when people don’t decry prohibition they are allowing the steady erosion of civil liberties as well as the rampant corruption that it brings. Anyone who supports the prosecution of victimless crimes is a tyrant. Here are some unfortunate victims of a campaign to “save the children” from drug use. http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/ When the argument boils down, it has nothing to do with the various dangers of drug use, but it becomes about the government controlling what you can and cannot do to you’re own body. And please, stop with the straw-man arguments, if heroin was legal, would you shoot up everyday? Almost all people would say no. But the people who willingly to do that to themselves should not have to deal with blood-borne disease and accidental overdose.

Nov 26, 2009 - 10:39 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: