Asymmetrical Information

Bush supporters: explain why this shouldn't gladden my libertarian heart.

Because Kerry doesn't have to write the legislation for his support of it to hurt you. And Kerry has voted for an awful lot of spending and tax increases, as well as voting against a lot of tax cuts.

But the Republicans are likely to continue to control congress; it might be better if he were only rubberstamping their bad ideas, rather than adding his own, as Bush did with steel tariffs and Medicare prescription drug benefits.

I can think of a lot of reasons to support or oppose Kerry. But I'm not sure that the number of bills passed in Congress is one of them. Certainly 10 bills passed is 10 more than Bush had at the time he became president.

For me support for Kerry derives from being socially liberal. I see no major differences in foreign policy and I think Kerry will be marginally better in fiscal policy. But I distrust and dislike conservative republicans on social issues.

The budget must pass a senate filibuter and a possible veto. Congressional republicans are very unlikely to have a large enough majority to block either one. If Kerry merely endorses congressional democrats' bad ideas (as he has in his campaign (see your Question 3)), several of them are likely to work their way into the compromise budget. After the backlash from the 1995 budget standoff, how likely are congressional republicans to stick to their guns?

I'm with GT. What's the average number of bills passed in a 20 year career, what's the number of significant bills, and when you look at the people with large numbers of bills that they've sponsored, do you see people you want as President?

What is # of bills passed supposed to be a proxy for?

Jane Galt asks:

But the Republicans are likely to continue to control congress; it might be better if he were only rubberstamping their bad ideas, rather than adding his own, as Bush did with steel tariffs and Medicare prescription drug benefits.

Dittos for the steel tariffs as the Clinton administration also implemented steel tariffs when they first took office (June or July of 1993) although the ones implemented by the Clinton administration were about 68 percent versus the 30 percent ones Bush supported. I’m frankly not as upset because I recognize that this was simply political horse-trading of trading temporary tariffs on a few items in order to get the votes necessary for Trade Promotion Authority which lead to the United States being able to negotiate broader and more permanent trade agreements.

What kind of point is that? Apples and oranges. Bush was a governor, not a legislator. His sole function is not to pass, review, and consider legislation. Comapare Bush's actual record to Kerry's record, whatever it is, and try to make the comparison that way.

Why it shouldn't gladden your libertarian heart: Half of that list is memorials, national holidays, and assorted BS symbolism.

Just the sort of president who wouldn't give a crap if some expensive program couldn't possibly work, as long as it gave him the warm fuzzy feeling he seems to think is the indicator of success if foreign and domestic policy. Some bill with a heart of (false) gold gets plopped in front of him, he won't have the cojones to veto it.

The only saving grace Kerry has on domestic policy is that he probably will be immediately hobbled by a Republican congress that will suddenly rediscover small government values upon Kerrys election. On foriegn policy,between his obsession with summits in the debates and that list makes me think Kerry would be Carter lite. If that doesn't send shivers down your spine I don't know what could.

The point is that I find number of bills passed a not very useful metric.

Bush's pre-presidential record was that of a twice elected governor of Texas which I understand is a pretty weak position lacking in real power.

Personally I prefer to look at what Bush has done and what I think he will do and compare to what I think Kerry is likely to attempt.

Kerry supporters: explain why I should want a president who lacked the ability to get more than this pitiful list of bills through the senate.

Bush supporters: explain why this shouldn't gladden my libertarian heart.

The long and short of it is this: We are a country at war and we don't need a legislator, we don't need a governor, and we don't need an administrator. What we need is a leader. Only one of the two candidates fits that bill.

If Kerry were a Libertarian, your heart could be warmed because you could assume that he accomplished very little which increased the role of government in our lives based on principle.

However, since Kerry is a liberal and would have us believe he is a born leader, your Libertarian heart could be warmed because he was largely ineffectual during his 20 years in the Senate, but should be troubled that you contributed to his salary during this period.

What is more impressive is Kerry's voting record on the entire range of issues which came before the Senate during his 20 years. He has voted against most of the issues Libertarians view as the principle roles of the federal government, while supporting most of the issues Libertarians view as unconstitutional federal intrusions.

Kerry's Senate record tells us much about how he would lead. We should be very afraid.

Jane -

My argument for Kerry's troubling rather than gladdening your libertarian heart relies on 2 assumptions, to wit: 1. National defense is a legitimate purpose of government in the libertarian view, and 2. Islamic-jihadist fanaticism is a threat to our national security. I don't know if you go along with either or both.

But if you stipulate these two things, Kerry's record indicates one of three things (I think I was a preacher in another life): 1. He's woefully ineffective at getting his security agenda through the Senate, or 2. He's, at base, unconcerned about national security, or 3. He doesn't stipulate those things and hence (if you do stipulate them) his view is inimical to yours.

The larger point here is that Kerry has no record of any kind of accomplishment. Maybe Kerry would be great as president, but there's nothing in his record to indicate this. He'll be doing a lot of on-job-training.

Neither party has done a good job of finding candidates. Maybe the US should do what the state of Louisiana does, and hold an open primary, with the two top vote getters facing each other in a general election. Our current system doesn't provide voters with enough good choices.

What Kerry's Senate record indicates is that he can't get anything done. He has criticized the President for lack of leadership because the President was unable to get the Assault Weapons Ban extension through Congress. (Both Kerry and the President had expressed support for extending the ban.) But if Kerry, as a member of the Senate, cannot get the Senate to act, what chance would he have as President? Yes, the presidency is a more powerful position than senator, but the President has NO direct roll in the operation of the Senate. Kerry, as a senator, does. To move the Senate, the President has to persuade. Kerry's record as a senator provides no evidence he has this leadership skill. Instead, it indicates his peers have largely ignored him for 20 years.

Well, I'm not going to advocate for either candidate. But, I'll say that as a libertarian who is going to vote democratic for the first time in many years, this does make me feel a bit better. The republican party has become entirely about social conservatism; a big change on the supreme court will destroy civil liberties. I figure that Kerry might mess up some economic issues pretty badly (though Bush is quite the spendthrift himself) but we can fix those provided we retain our freedoms. With all the key cases coming up in the supreme court due to the Internet, we can't have three more Scalias though. If us libertarians back the republican party when they screw us like the have in this administration, we'll be to the Republican's what the african american bloc is to the Dems: Complete ignorable.

So, back to the issue: In practice, getting a big program through the congress requires a lot of skill. This list looks like evidence enough that, especially with a Republican house, Kerry's health plan will be Hillarycare II. There will be gridlock, he'll change medicare a little, bail out, and declare victory. I'd prefer complete gridlock, but this will have to do.

Dan G wrote:

Well, I'm not going to advocate for either candidate. But, I'll say that as a libertarian who is going to vote democratic for the first time in many years, this does make me feel a bit better. The republican party has become entirely about social conservatism; a big change on the supreme court will destroy civil liberties.

Really, how so?

I cannot fathom the folk here who describe themselves as libertarians and plan on voting for Kerry. If you have not recognized by now that the single most important concern for our country today is Islamofascism, and that Kerry cannot help but bow before them, well, god save us from your willful ignorance.

In WW2 were asked to put aside our personal agendas until the war was won. But you want your cake, and you want it now. Thus, "libertarians" think they can get their way by throwing a Kerry monkey-wrench into the works, terrorism be damned. I find that position so unconscionable, it makes me ill.

GT said, "But I distrust and dislike conservative republicans on social issues."

Good thing, then, that the conservative republicans only number about 20% of all republicans. And I think you are right to be concerned with people who are in the extremes of their parties. But Bush isn't while Kerry is.

Jane, if your goal is to tie the government's hands so that it is unable to do much at all, then by all means, vote for Kerry. You'll be voting for a president who won't be able to fulfill a single one of his campaign promises, and you'll be installing a Democrat in the White House to fight against a Republican-controlled Congress. The government will be, effectively, ground to a halt for at least two years, and probably four.

No, I'm not being facetious. If that really is your idea of a good idea, then that's what you should do.

I personally believe that now is a time for action, not inaction. But if that's not a premise you agree with, then it's no surprise that you see the role of government differently.

> Really, how so?

Thorley,

Ok, let's assume that we had a court stacked with Scalia-alikes. So, future decisions would change to go with he votes on cases today.

Scalia is fundamentally anti-libertarian. He belives that people are chattels of the state, not free unto themselves.

First, Roe v. Wade is the obvious one. But, since some people don't believe this is about freedom (as I do), but about murder, I'll won't go in to that.

Let's look at some recent cases:

He dissented on Bowers vs. Hardwick. He belives the government has the right to tell you what to do and what not to do in the bedroom.

He also dissented when they struck down the COPA provisions on VIRTUAL child porn. He belives that you are not free to see what you want on your computer even when NO other person is harmed.

In Earls, he held that schools could drug test kids. The government can coerce people in to pissing in a cup. Once again, libertarians hold that people are free...

I could go on with the recent Miranda case, etc. Also, Medical Marijuana (but that was unanimous).

[[I'll be out and won't be able to check this thread for a bit, but if you need more examples that I can think of off the top of my head, I'll try to check back later.]]

So, yes, I worry about Kerry deeply. But I am condifent that the people of america will not let terrorists destroy our nation no matter who wins. On the other hand, these sorts of decisions hurt the freedoms that we are discussing protecting.

Just to sum up, one the domestic front, now is a time for gridlock. I loved the gridlock years under the various Republican presidents with Democratic congresses and I loved the Clinton years under Gingrich. The bad years were Clinton with a Democratic House and Bush with a Republican House. If Kerry is ineffective and and an opposing House, he's got my vote.

Dear Jane,

Please see your Question #6.

As much as I agree that less government is better government, sometimes things need to get done. They are not always the high profile or imminent danger type problems. That doesn't mean they don't need doing, and without an effective driving force behind them, they won't be.

How many overall Senate bills are widely known and singled out for praise in the last 20 years? Consider that rep majority leader Bill Frist has failed to pass any of the last 130 bills hes submitted. Hes a good bit less distinguished there then Kerry. Also consider that Kerry voted yes on the largest military and intelligence spending bills in US history. Hes also voted for tax cuts over 600 times, while the rep figure of 90+ votes in favor of taxes includes multiple votes on the same bill. Kerry signed Reagans balanced budget bill, and also supported the Clinton balanced budget resolution. He has also stated he would continue Clintons pay as you go spending policy.

Kerry is much better prepared than jr to battle the terrorists. Bush failed the country on 911. There wasn't even a terrorism policy in place on 911, 20% into his term. 95% of cargo entering the country is still uninspected. Prime terrorist targets like chemical plants remain unsecured. The Airlines have failed to catch government plants boarding aircraft with all sort of weapons. There isnt a consolidated "no fly" list, let alone consolidated intell, we have wasted billions on the dept of Homeland Defense and still need to create a National Security Intell Head.

Kerry knows that Iraq was one of the most secular Arab nations and with the sanctions in place the last place we needed to waste military resources. By acting on Iraq, we have accelerated NK and Irans nuke programs and made the world that much closer to seeing a radical muslim faction acquiring a nuke. We have allowed UBL to escape, and Al Qaeda has conducted larger and more numerous terrorist events since invading Iraq, and that means that they are bigger and better. We continued to use kid gloves on Pakistan, who has allowed the wide spread decimination of nuke technology by A Kahn, and continue to host Al Qaeda and many other Islamic terror groups. SA role in 911 has been punished by increasing their output of oil and doubling its value. I dont know our intell, and the world changes quickly, so Im not sure what Kerry will do on terrorism. But I bet he makes a move pretty quickly after assuming office to establish credability on terror. With the weekends report of mutiny by a Reserve unit in Iraq, its tough to say how bad things are in Iraq, but they have to be pretty bad for refusal of orders to take place. On personal intelligence alone Kerry would wage a much smarter war on terror than Bush. I think he will also have a much better cabinent, one that isnt wearing neocon goggles.

Rex,

If the socially conservative Republicans are only 20% of the party and they don't run the party as you are attempting to imply why do they get their way on the party platform? Why is the FMA a slam dunk in the House and the President supports it? Sorry, but trying to say it's really and truly OK because the social conservatives are a minority in the party doesn't jibe with what they get out of the party, which is an almost complete capitulation to their agenda.

The problem with gridlock - or with Kerry, gridlock or not - is that right now we really need effective action against terrorism. Bush's record is mixed, but he's doing something. (Old military maxim: doing the wrong thing right away is better than doing nothing.[1]) Put someone in the White House who will dither, try to figure out why the terrorists don't like us, and wait for permission from France and Germany, and I expect that by 2008 bombings will be common in US cities.

And if the terrorists manage to terrify the American public, then the next president will really be a fascist - and the courts will be too scared to do anything at all to reign him in.

[1] This maxim does not apply outside the realms of combat, security, and emergency response. For other issues, the best possible government response is usually to do nothing.

MarkM,

"For other issues, the best possible government response is usually to do nothing"

NO! the best possible government response is TO GET OUT OF THE WAY...

Unfortunately Rex they are close to 100% of the GOP leadership.

And I thought I made clear I am socially liberal. Given my views Kerry is mainstream and Bush is an extremist.

Rex:

You gave up the heart of your party to the southern Republicans and their extremely conservative social agenda. If you don't like it, go fight for your party and take it back. I think I'd prefer that victory to a Kerry victory. I think.

In regard to the libertarian position, this is simple. Congress has the power to repeal laws (by passing, essentially, laws that unmake other laws). Kerry shows very little leadership in the use of his two decades of power as a US Senator, either for refining, simplifying, or shrinking federal law and regulation or for making worthwhile new laws. That is certainly not the only measure of him, but it does not speak well of him nor of what we might expect were he to become President.

Bush took office 7 months before 9/11. Clinton had been in office for 8 years. Yet somehow Bush gets all the blame.

This is typical of the way partisans think. Their guy's all good and the other's all bad. In reality, both candidates have good points and bad points, and there are no guarantees that one would be better than the other.

Shamus that is such a tired, weak argument. Bush had served approximately 20% of his term and had no terror policy in place on 9/11, despite being briefed by Clinton that Islamic terror was the biggest threat to America. Berger wanted to brief Rice on that fact, but she didnt show up, never the less he passed on an overview of battling Islamic terror as the #1 priority in defending the US. In Dec 2001 Clinton, Berger, and Clarke rolled up 4 Al Qaeda millenial terrorist cells in Vancouver, Montreal, Chicago, and Buffalo. These cells were rolled up because Clinton and Berger coordinated the various intell agencies, connected the dots, and exposed the big picture. This intell coordination began because of the high level of terror "chatter". The success in this operation was so great, the Senate committee investigating the incident recommended it as protocal when terror chatter was high. In July 2001 terror chatter was at an all time, Clarke pleaded with Rice for help, and went so far as to cancel all his staffs vacation, but jr did nothing but go on vacation. Clarke used the phrase "running around with their hair on fire" to describe the intell community on the Hill in August, and Bush did nothing with no terror policy in place. The intell was there, the leadership was what was missing.

Further, the reps argue out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to UBL. On one hand, hes not a major factor in the war on terror, on the other hand if Clinton would have got him, 911 would have been prevented. The fact is the planning of 911 was mostly done by KS Muhammed and Atta, and the financing was handled mostly by SA charity. Killing UBL wouldnt have prevented 911, but if the intell was coordinated 911 would have been stopped.

Bush had served approximately 20% of his term and had no terror policy in place on 9/11, despite being briefed by Clinton that Islamic terror was the biggest threat to America.

What did this infamous briefing consist of? "Oh, hey George, this is Bill -- look, I was too busy banging interns to actually do my fucking job, but could you maybe get around to dealing with Al Qaeda?".

Al Qaeda and the Taliban came to power on Clinton's watch. Clinton didn't do a single damned thing about it. The idea that he had a plan to defeat terrorism and Bush simply failed to act on it is ridiculous. Bush inherited the results of eight years of military and foreign-policy incompetence; it's as simple as that.

Somehow Clinton wasn't able to stop the many other terrorist attacks that happened on his watch, including the first attack on the World Trade Center.

The problems with coordination between the FBI and the CIA had existed for many years. They didn't start with Bush. After the first attack on the World Trade Center, the FBI ignored stacks of records showing terrorists were planning to attack the US. Both Clinton and Bush made serious mistakes in their handing of the terrorist threat. It's human nature to search for a scapegoat, but when something like 9/11 happens it's an institutional failure.

Back on topic:

No one has mentioned that enacting legislation is only one thing the Senate does, and that is something it does as an entire body, not as single legislators. (Of course, John Kerry is no Lyndon B. Johnson; but many think that LBJ was as much motivated by ego and the love of power as by the belief that his legislation would work good.)

Another function of the Senate is oversight of the operation of the Executive branch. That is done through committees. It is not usually well publicized and at its best and most useful, done at a level of detail that most would find mind-numbingly boring. It is in the area of oversight that Senator Kerry achieved the most, however. That is also the area, it seems to me, most relevant to whether a legislator is qualified for the White House.

If there is one thing the past four years have demonstrated, it is that we need a president who is ready, willing and able to call the bureaucrats to account. President Bush has proved he is not. I think President Kerry will be.

"Bush supporters: explain why this shouldn't gladden my libertarian heart."

As a Bush supporter I'm afraid that the proper answer, based on this, is that it *should*. ^_^;

Better King Log than King Stork after all, ne? ^_~

The problem is that the executive function requires a different set of talents than the legislative does. The mindless sloth that makes Kerry an ideal legislator would make thus make him a galloping disastor as a President in charge of our military affairs. Do we really want a log in place of a man for President? o_O

Michael Wasserman - By what measure do you think Kerry excelled at "calling bureaucrats to account?" By all reports, Kerry didn't even bother to show up at a majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings. That record gives me little confidence in his willingness to pay attention to detail -- rather, it indicates a lack of interest in the topic.

He also dissented when they struck down the COPA provisions on VIRTUAL child porn. He belives that you are not free to see what you want on your computer even when NO other person is harmed.

That's way beyond the pale, there, Dan G. We can probably argue all night over various moral issues, and in the end not reach any accord because the issues were fundamentally those of beliefs (i.e. do you believe there is some Divine or other moral imperative to act (or not act) in certain ways?).

Certainly this is true with traditional pornography; one person could argue that there have been demonstrated links to future predatory behavior (one of the more infamous being serial murderer and rapist Ted Bundy, who attributed the origins of his mad career to an early aqcuaintance with sexual imagery), and another could counterargue that many other people view pornography without resorting to such behavior.

But when has a desire to view explicit images of children for purposes of sexual arousal ever been consistent with normal behavior? It doesn't matter whether the images are "only" virtual; first, "virtual" is increasingly reaching the point where a distinction between the real and the invented is difficult to make, and second, "virtual" or not, a mind is being trained to regard youths as objects of sexual gratification. You think Pavlov's bell only works with dogs?

I'm actually in agreement with the spirit of the axiom "You can't legislate morality." However, the letter can be enforced to some degree. IMO, that letter should be enforced in some cases, even setting aside the moral position, because the costs to society (whether presently realized, or subject to a high probability of future realization) are more than any of us should bear.

If we can't generally agree that child pornography is one of those cases, what claims remain to calling ourselves 'civilized?'

(By the way, COPA's language made it clear that a reasonable distinction was being drawn between what anyone would argue as an "artistic nude" and actual sexual explicitness.)

GT,

> And I thought I made clear I am socially
> liberal. Given my views Kerry is mainstream and
> Bush is an extremist.

That puts you right square in the center of the universe.

Yeah, right. You may like to define "mainstream" as "agrees with me" but a more common definition relates to the average or middle of the road.

Good Lord, Jane, vote for whom you wish. If, after the months and months and months and months (and months) of discussion about the various differences between Bush and Kerry (as much on this blog as any other) hasn't yet made the choice clear to you, then don't vote.

Hooray for the libertarian heart!

CP,

Not necessarily.

By voting for one or another candidate you move where the center is. If Kerry wins that wil be interpreted as America wanting a more moderate social policy than if Bush wins.

Kerry has been involved in government for 20 years. Kerry has done something with his life. Kerry has accomplished. What has Bush done? No one can criticize Bush's record because there is nothing there. His accomplishments would fill a pick-up with beer cans. Do you realize what a background of money and privilege Bush comes from? Do you understand how he has squandered the advantages he had? Bush is a disgrace. He is a lout and a bore. He has the Midas touch in reverse. Everything he touched in this administration has turned to lead. He is a cheerleader for some real sick minds. Before your criticize anyone first put it in comparison to Bush’s wasted life.

"Bush supporters: explain why this shouldn't gladden my libertarian heart."

Because entitlements, especially for seniors, are heading for a mighty crash, fairly soon, and the longer you put off a fix the worse it's going to be.

Kerry doesn't intend to fix that, would have to work with a hostile legislature to do so, and as his demonstrated by his record isn't capable of effective work anyway.

Bush does work, will have a friendly legislature, and gets stuff done, elegantly or not. (OK, that means "not.")

If the budgetary status quo was sound, you could gloat safely about your paralysed government. But it isn't, so you can't.

Dan no need for vulgarity, especially when it adds nothing to your point.

Attacking Clinton for 911 is ridiculous. WTC 1 happened at the same point of his first term as 911 did for jr, if you give jr a pass on 911 for that reason, you have to lay WTC 1 at Bush srs feet. Clintons DOJ captured and imprisoned those most responsible for WTC 1. He put Mcveigh to death. His DOJ identified abortion clinic and Atlantic Olympics serial terrorist R Coleman and ran him into the deep wilderness. He bombed terror camps and alleged chem weapons facilities in Afganistan and Sudan. The reps called that response a "wag the dog" because they, like you, were more concerned with oral sex than protecting the country. Al Qaeda began in the mid 80s as the Mujahadeen fighting the USSR, to say they came "into power" during the Clinton years is inaccurate.

Bush was briefed that Islamic terror was the greatest threat to the nation and how did he respond? The bombing of the USS Cole wasnt determined to be an Al Qaeda act until jr was in office, and he chose to do nothing about it. On 9/11/01 we had no terror policy in place, and Rice was scheduled to speak supporting the massive failure of Star Wars missle defense, which is useless in the war on terror. Despite claiming to have a post 911 mindset, Bush again has advanced spending on Star Wars, which is a huge fiscal drain and much more useful in the cold war climate than it is today.

Shamus, Clinton went to school on WTC 1, and his administration created the protocal that later stopped the Millenial terrorists. But its fair to lay WTC 1 at Clintons feet, it happened on his watch. The various intell agencies were never expected to self coordinate. The CIA isnt permitted to operate in the US, and if the intell they share with the FBI isnt coordinated there is a high probability a CIA agent could end up on the witness stand in a criminal case. Ashcrofts wall is a complete fabrication, a buearacrats memo cant create "law" as he suggested Gorelicks memo did. The fact is the NSAs job was to coordinate the intell from the various agencies, and thats further substantiated by the fact that 3 years later there still hasnt been a plan put in place that forces the various intell agencies to self coordinate. 911 was a failure of Bushs leadership.

Assuming the numbers posted for Kerry sponsored bills are accurate, I think it's prudent to put those numbers into some context. Getting any stand alone bill through the Senate is very, very difficult. My counter question is that how does this number compare to other Senators or even the average bill per year for Senators. As a former Chief of Staff for a GOP Congressman, who had served more than ten years, I watched my former boss struggle to pass his first stand alone bill just a few years ago.

Besides, isn't it odd that Republican's are criticizing Kerry for not passing a lot a legislation? Isn't that a good thing.

An abitious reader could enlighten us with the following:
1) How many bills does any Senator pass in a given term and how does that compare to Kerry's record?
2) How does Kerry's record compare to Cheney's record in the House in terms of being the original cosponsor of any legislation that became law?
3) Do these Kerry numbers solely focus on Bills where he was the sole original cosponsor? or does it include legislation where he shared the original cosponsorship with other Senators? (which is a more common approach)

David Blue,

Excellent point on entitlement program reform. Bush and a Republican Congress are more likely to implement some sort of Social Security reform that reduces the unfunded liability of the program whereas a divided government means (a) we put it off for another four years or worse (b) we end up with the sort of “reform” we had in the 1980’s with “divided government” namely we raise taxes (again) which is the about the only reform that Kerry hasn’t come out against.

Moreover, where do people get this idea that the GOP is guaranteed to continue to control Congress? Even if the Democrats don’t retake the Senate in 2004 or 2006, right now the GOP has about a one-vote majority and there are four to five liberal Republicans that a Democrat President (even one so legislatively inept as John Kerry) could probably peel off to get at least part of his agenda through the Senate. Which means then that any legislative battles are likely going to be two (POTUS and the Senate) against one and the two are more likely to prevail than the one.

Begbee:
"911 was a failure of Bushs(sic) leadership"

No. 9/11 was an attack. Quite figuratively, a "bolt out of the clear blue sky". No one saw it coming and no one expected planes to be used as missiles. For once, it would be nice to see the left get mad at our enemies instead of our leaders.

GT:
"I see no major differences in foreign policy and I think Kerry will be marginally better in fiscal policy."

If you are unable to see a major difference in foreign policy then you are either blind, looking in the wrong direction, or willfully ignorant. Kerry's policy is to subordinate US action to a UN or "coalition" veto. Kerry's policy is to engage in "summits" to presumably develop "plans" which could then be discussed at other "summits" in order to avoid actually having to act. Bush's policy is to seek approval not permission, before acting strongly and resolutely to defend the US and to defeat our enemies. The difference is fundamental.

Jane:
It should not gladden your libertarian heart because libertarian results require leadership: knowingly choosing the right but difficult course and having the tenacity to pursue that goal and the persuasion to achieve it. Kerry resoundingly fails the leadership test. He is not an "accidental" libertarian (by doing nothing, impeding Leviathan), he is a liberal, actively seeking to hobble the US abroad and to expand, domestically, the government's powers to tax, regulate, and constrain.

"Kerry's policy is to subordinate US action to a UN or "coalition" veto. Kerry's policy is to engage in "summits" to presumably develop "plans" which could then be discussed at other "summits" in order to avoid actually having to act. Bush's policy is to seek approval not permission, before acting strongly and resolutely to defend the US and to defeat our enemies. The difference is fundamental."

The difference is indeed fundamental, but not as m portrays it. Kerry would not subordinate US action to a UN veto; rather he would hold US action to a truth standard as he has made very clear. This is such a clear and laudible principle, it's difficult to see why so many have misinterpreted it (well, not too difficult, they're mostly partisan hacks, after all).

We should hold ourselves to the standards that we demand of the rest of the world. There is absolutely nothing "weak" or controversial about that principle.

It is Bush who, by attacking this principle of meeting the truth standard, reveals that he does not believe that America is capable of being honest, following the rule of law, and protecting itself at the same time.

Bush is ultimately a pessimist who has no faith in America's proven ability to be both right and safe.

See, the libs are assuming I'm a republican. I'm not. I'm an unregistered independent (I have to make this distinction because I live in a state where there actually is an "Independence Party").

I vote for whomever I think is the lesser of two evils, although sometimes I actually support someone who's running.

I am a fiscal conservative but a social moderate.

I believe in a woman's right to choose, as does my wife, but I am very thankful that I have never had to be personally involved with such a decision.

I'm anti-drug-war because I think the "cure" is worse than the "disease." (Besides, legalizing drugs gives you the power to control and tax them. "Control" as to distribution AND as to type.)

I believe in a welfare safety net that doesn't seduce people into permanent dependence. I'm against the notion of "entitlements" because I think that people should earn what they get, and not have it handed to them. I believe in teaching a person to fish, and if that means not giving them a fish so they have the incentive to learn, then so be it. I believe in a limited government, because I see "social responsibility" as being in a zero sum game with "individual responsibility", and I think that individual responsibility is the key to both a good life and to a healthy country.

I am not religious, but I don't mind if other people are, as long as they don't try to convince me to join their beliefs. Harmless displays of religious items on government property don't threaten me, nor do I believe that they represent an overarching involvement between church and state. The Lemon v. Kurtzman test seemed straightforward at the time, i.e., does it promote or inhibit a particular religion? Well, to me, the 10 commandments don't promote a *particular* religion, but rather a whole host of religions, because I view Catholicism as different from Judaism and Protestantism. (You can lump all the Protestants together as far as I'm concerned; I assume that is because of my Catholic upbringing.)

I also firmly belive that you must live within your budget and that it is intrinsically unfair (not to mention stupid social policy) to have only 50% of the people paying for 95% of the social welfare schemes. Therefore I support both universal FICA and state lottery schemes.

I think there is a limited role for governments at all levels, and that the governments should stick to those roles. But I understand that politics is the art of compromise because it is the mechanism by which a multitude of competing viewpoints are resolved.

So I view myself as a centrist, but far-left libs view me as a conservative reactionary, while far-right conservatives view me as a leftist liberal. So screw the extremes. I venture to guess that the middle 60% agree with me more than they disagree.

Rex, I agree with you on all points. Because I'm undoubtedly to the left of you, I would probably find myself arguing with you on the various degrees to which we ought to lean one way or the other on various policies.

But that's certainly acceptable within the centrist framework you put forward. I agree that 60% (probably much more, actually) of Americans are entirely comfortable in that framework.

Also, I'd add that it seems to me that the far-left ideologues are the demons that the far-right exploits to convince those of us in the middle to give up our centrist principles ... and vice-versa. It's time to stop letting the extremists call the shots.

anony-mouse,

>That's way beyond the pale, there, Dan G.
...
> But when has a desire to view explicit images of children for purposes of sexual arousal ever been consistent with normal behavior?

While I'd be happy to discuss this at length on some other thread, that wasn't my point. Esentially, you've hit on the key difference between libertarians and conservatives. A conservative thinks that it's ok to stop certin kinds of speech because of their "normality" or because people who engage in those kinds of activites may cause future harm. A libertarian does not. I was making the contingent pojnt that IF you are a libertarian (while I'm nowhere near the LP people, I consider myself rather libertarian), you should be strongly against the appointment of several more justices like Scalia.

Your argument is that Scalia is correct and that the libertarian position is wrong. As you said, some people belive that there is a God and that morality flows from God. If you believe that allowing other people to view fake child porn is immoral and should be punished (as you clearly seem to), you should by all means vote for Bush. As a libertarian who has traditionally voted Republican, I cannot.

Best,
Dan G

I'm a libertarian and I like Scalia. If we could have nine Scalias, I would be happy. I like him is because he insists on interpreting the Constitution according to the actual words in the document. I have no idea whether he favors or opposes abortion, for example; it doesn't matter. His point is that there is no language in the Constitution guarenteeing the right to abortion, and thus it is a matter for the states. The same goes for the other matters he is being criticized on here. (Devolving power to the states is a very libertarian position.) If you want a Constitutional right to abortion, then get an amendment passed. The Constitution is in shreds because of 70 years of left-leaning justices deciding it means whatever they want it to mean at the moment. I want to get back to a Constitution that is interpreted strictly according to its explicit language. I think that's a pretty darn libertarian perspective.

MarkJ, you're absolutely correct. The Constitution is what Scalia is interpreting; he is not putting his own preferences into law. If the State wants to outlaw child pornography, Scalia is looking only at whether or not what they did (substantive rights) and how they did so (procedural rights) comports with the Constitution.

This whole topic doesn't seem too serious, so I'll raise this question:
Doesn't "World Population Awareness Week" sound like Congress was smoking grass?

"Did you ever notice that there are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people in the world?"
"Whoa man, that's deep."

"Kerry supporters: explain why I should want a president who lacked the ability to get more than this pitiful list of bills through the senate."

Rather than his legislative record, Kerry's been emphasizing his investigative work, particularly (a) his work on the Vietnam POW-MIA issue, with John McCain; (b) the BCCI investigation (in which he took down Clark Clifford, a Democratic eminence grise). Neither would show up in a list of bills with his name on them, but they both involved a lot of work.

The BCCI investigation in particular appears relevant to the current war on terror.

Washington Post:

More than any other member of Congress, it was Kerry, with his ally Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who cleared the way for normal diplomatic relations between the United States and Vietnam, beginning the process of healing the deep wounds of war.

They did so largely out of the limelight, in the tedious and grinding work of a special Senate committee that was appointed to investigate the fates of Americans still missing from the war and the rumors that some of them were alive and being held captive in Southeast Asia. When the committee completed its work, Kerry, the chairman, had produced a unanimous, 585-page report that declared: "There is, at this time, no compelling evidence that proves that any American remains alive in captivity in Southeast Asia."

McCain was the lightning rod for critics of the committee's more than yearlong search for the truth, but it was Kerry who held the enterprise together. A lawyer by training, he used his skills to mediate vast differences of opinion on an emotional topic within the committee and with many of those who appeared before it. According to those who watched the process, he was invariably calm, evenhanded and, above all, persistent.

"Kerry was always there saying, 'Hey, everybody calm down,' " said Mark Salter, McCain's chief of staff. "He kept it going. It should have imploded."

The committee's report did not eliminate the explosive POW/MIA issue, but it did much to defuse it and lift the cloud that had been hanging over the country since the fall of Saigon in 1973. A little more than a year after the report was issued in 1993, Clinton ended the U.S. trade embargo against Vietnam; the next year, the United States established formal diplomatic relations with the Vietnamese. Both steps were preceded by passage of Senate resolutions, co-sponsored by Kerry and McCain, urging the actions.

Kerry was only one of many who eased the country down the long road to reconciliation with a once-bitter enemy, but other participants in the process describe his role as "pivotal" and that of "the catalyst."

Washington Monthly:

Despite having helmed the initial probe which led to the Iran-Contra investigation, Kerry was left off the elite Iran-Contra committee in 1987. As a consolation prize, the Democratic leadership in Congress made Kerry the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations and told him to dig into the Contra-drug connection. Kerry turned to BCCI early in the second year of the probe when his investigators learned that Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega was laundering drug profits through the bank on behalf of the Medellin cartel.

By March 1988, Kerry's subcommittee had obtained permission from the Foreign Relations Committee to seek subpoenas for both BCCI and individuals at the bank involved in handling Noriega's assets, as well as those handling the accounts of others in Panama and Colombia. Very quickly, though, Kerry faced a roadblock. Citing concerns that the senator's requests would interfere with an ongoing sting operation in Tampa, the Justice Department delayed the subpoenas until 1988, at which point the subcommittee's mandate was running out.

BCCI, meanwhile, had its own connections. Prominent figures with ties to the bank included former president Jimmy Carter's budget director, Bert Lance, and a bevy of powerful Washington lobbyists with close ties to President George H.W. Bush, a web of influence that may have helped the bank evade previous investigations. In 1985 and 1986, for instance, the Reagan administration launched no investigation even after the CIA had sent reports to the Treasury, Commerce, and State Departments bluntly describing the bank's role in drug-money laundering and other illegal activities.

In the spring of 1989, Kerry hit another obstacle. Foreign Relations Committee chairman Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), under pressure from both parties, formally asked Kerry to end his probe. Worried the information he had collected would languish, Kerry quickly dispatched investigator Jack Blum to present the information his committee had found about BCCI's money-laundering operations to the Justice Department. But according to Blum, the Justice Department failed to follow up. ...

Kerry opted in 1989 to take the same information that had been coldly received at the Justice Department and bring it to New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who agreed to begin a criminal investigation of BCCI, based on Kerry's leads. Kerry also continued to keep up the public pressure. In 1990, when the Bush administration gave the bank a minor slap on the wrist for its money laundering practices, Kerry went on national television to slam the decision. "We send drug people to jail for the rest of their life," he said, "and these guys who are bankers in the corporate world seem to just walk away, and it's business as usual…When banks engage knowingly in the laundering of money, they should be shut down. It's that simple, it really is."

He would soon have a chance to turn his declarations into action. In early 1991, the Justice Department concluded its Tampa probe with a plea deal allowing BCCI officials to stay out of court. At the same time, news reports indicated that Washington elder statesman Clark Clifford might be indicted for defrauding bank regulators and helping BCCI maintain a shell in the United States.

Kerry pounced, demanding (and winning) authorization from the Foreign Relations Committee to open a broad investigation into the bank in May 1991. Almost immediately, the senator faced a new round of pressure to relent. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Democratic doyenne Pamela Harriman personally called Kerry to object, as did his fellow senators. "What are you doing to my friend Clark Clifford?," staffers recalled them asking, according to The Washington Post. BCCI itself hired an army of lawyers, PR specialists, and lobbyists, including former members of Congress, to thwart the investigation.

But Kerry refused to back off, and his hearings began to expose the ways in which international terrorism was financed. As Kerry's subcommittee discovered, BCCI catered to many of the most notorious tyrants and thugs of the late 20th century, including Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the heads of the Medellin cocaine cartel, and Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. According to the CIA, it also did business with those who went on to lead al Qaeda.

And BCCI went beyond merely offering financial assistance to dictators and terrorists: According to Time, the operation itself was an elaborate fraud, replete with a "global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad."

By July 1991, Kerry's work paid off. That month, British and U.S. regulators finally responded to the evidence provided by Kerry, Morgenthau, and a concurrent investigation by the Federal Reserve. BCCI was shut down in seven countries, restricted in dozens more, and served indictments for grand larceny, bribery, and money laundering. The actions effectively put it out of business what Morgenthau called, "one of the biggest criminal enterprises in world history."

MarkJ,

> I think that's a pretty darn libertarian perspective.

I agree that it's popular among libertarians. However, I'd argue that it's not at all a libertarian perspective. The argument is basically "states rights"-- that is, states have the power to enact whatever they'd like. And it's quite true that liberal judges have given us lots of rights that aren't explicitly enumerated in the constitution. (However, the whole "strict interpretation" things is complete hokum: a made-up way for one side to push it's opinion--both sides belive they are reading the constituion as writen; it's written to request interpretation. Conservative judges mostl certainly do not only stick to the words.)

Libertarians (even weak ones like me) believe that we have certain rights that are fundamental to ourselves and that governments cannot take away. Conservatives wish to take away some of those rights, but the federal government does not allow them to take those rights away. The whole idea of "states rights" is so conservatives can say "oh, it is in the state's power to take away those rights". Libertarians are generally against "states rights"; they are for "individuals rights".

[[And yes, I'm well aware that liberals and the federal government also take away a huge number of rights, but that's a different debate.]]

This has been quite interesting & thanks,
Dan G

Senators perform many functions; passing legislation is only one of them. The senior senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, was already filling a legislative role. John Kerry spent quite a bit of his senatorial career investigating suspicious activities. He discovered the irregularies associated witht he Iran-Contra affair and was able to convince a Jesse Helms committee that an investigation was necessary. He was also instrumental in investigating and closing BCCI, an international bank with middle eastern origins known for money laundering.

I would bet that if you ranked law professors by how many trials their students handled as practitioners, Jim Lindgren would rank well below average.

1. One could conclude that the reason for this is that Prof. Lindgren is exceptionally incompetent as a law professor and no one trusts lawyers who studied under him to represent them.

2. One could also conclude that Jim Lindgren's students are generally superior lawyers who either go into transactional work (and don't do trials) or go into complex civil or criminal litigation (in which trials are both longer and rarer).

One of these conclusions is quite wrong (hint: #1) and one is quite right (hint: #2). The whole game is what you think the metric measures.

This is the entire list of all the things that John Kerry has managed to get passed in the last twenty years. Kerry supporters: explain why I should want a president who lacked the ability to get more than this pitiful list of bills through the senate. Bush supporters: explain why this shouldn't gladden my libertarian heart.

Tell me the list of things he proposed that failed.

That might shed some more light on Kerry's track record.

Jane,

The question comes down to whether you want an effective President or not. In your question to Bush supporters, you imply that it might better to have an ineffective President, since that will lead to a more libertarian result (less bills passed, less big government).

From the perspective of a legislator, that may be true, but I don't think so when it comes to an executive. That is, I think that an ineffective executive will lead to MORE big government, not less, since the very ineffectiveness will lead to more resources being needed for any given problem.

Moreover, I think that there are many areas for which we WANT an effective President. Just see Question #6.

So your answer here is that the paucity of Kerry's legislative record is not something that augurs well for him as President, even if it is a favorable result (from a libertarian perspective) for a Senator.

Also, to reply to those above who say that legislation is only one of a Senator's functions, and that there are others, such as investigation.

That may be true, but legislation is the MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION of a Senator. Investigations and other functions are ancillary at best. That's why they call it the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, not the investigative brach.

So let's face it, when you have been virtually a complete failure in your job's MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION, even if you do a good job in the ancillary functions, it's not saying much for how well you perform your job.

Al:

To clear up something you obviously don't understand: passing laws is the most important function of THE SENATE. It does not follow that it is the most important function of every individual Senator. Individual Senators may focus on committee work, where they can have enormous effects on the legislation passed without their names ever being attached to a single bill, or investigative work. All of them devote a large part of their time to attaching amendments to various bills that support interests in their home state or further their political beliefs.

The most important function of a football offense is to score points. It doesn't follow that an individual player who scores few points is an ineffective player.

Rather than looking at his legislative record, which is quite weak, look at what his Senate colleagues thought of him by the leadership positions he held. From johnkerry.com we learn that he was "on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - including a term as chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations" and "chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee." Dick Morris, Clinton's master pollster and strategist, called Kerry "a backbencher" who was so insignificant during the Clinton years that Morris can't recall his name ever being mentioned in Clinton strategy sessions. In other words, he wasn't a leader.

I suspect this may make Kerry less predictable since this is someone who seems to pander to different groups which seems to imply someone to whom power can sometimes outweigh principle. If he can't get his way with congress pushing growth of govt. in his own areas he'll likely pander to republicans desire to grow govt. in varius areas (more troops, etc). If he can't get his way with congress he may want to make his "legacy/mark" on foreign affairs re: going after Iran, North Korea, etc.
If at this late date you have any uncertainty of Bush vs. Kerry the question is if you want to waste your vote going for one over the other if its a tossup and you might just as easily, if the election were held some other day, have gone the other way. Perhaps in the long run the difference isn't worth wasting your vote on supporting the Demopublican status quo vs. sending a message by voting to support the Libertarian Party and telling the Demopublicans you don't want them to keep nominating lying/pandering/etc. candidates.
Read comments on the Badnarik thread. And don't forget the quirks the Demopublican candidates have. The LP doesn't have a personality cult candidate, a vote for the LP at this stage will be taken not as support that Badnarik is the best LP candidate they could have had, but that the LP is the direction to head moreso than the Demopublicn direction. The worse the Demopublican candidates get in the future the more people will fear one candidate and feel a need to vote against him with the other Demopublican, leading to ever worse Demopublican candidates (from a libertarian perspective) since the lemmings fall right in line and support them. In revolutionary times the King imposed much less of a burden on the public than the Demopublicans do and a small but vocal opposition grew to the point where we left the King. Stop voting for Demopublican candidates who exercise more power than our past King. Quibble over which Libertarian should be the candidate when we get close to winning or at least to getting into the debates or getting more media coverage, and better candidates have surfaced as they've decided the LP has become a useful vehicle for spreading the libertarian message.

Well, Megan, it appears that you have primarily conservative readers. At least the ones who comment...

My thoughts, if you are in a swing state, I would vote for the candidate who will likely do the least and therefore cause the least harm. Which, to my reasoning would be Kerry, as he will be faced with at least a Republican House, if not a Republican Congress. There are many things that neither party should be able to push through with the White House controlled by one party and the Congress (or at least the House) controlled by the other.

Furthermore, we should look at the candidate who might actually exercise veto powers. Which Bush has failed to do. Bush has never vetoed a bill, no matter how atrocious (like the absolutely ridiculous bill about making an DOI).

I don't beleive that you can ask much more from an election of terrible options.

If you aren't in a swing state, vote for Badnarik even though he's a fucking nutcase. On everything but pandering to corporate freedom, the LP stances are superior to either major party. And it will piss off both the bushies and the dems, which is always a good thing. And just think of how annoyed Rove will be about people voting for the LP...

Jane Galt writes:

Kerry supporters: explain why I should want a president who lacked the ability to get more than this pitiful list of bills through the senate.

Bush supporters: explain why this shouldn't gladden my libertarian heart.

My answer:

The fact is, Kerry TRIED, and will continue to try as president. As president, he would have a whole lot more power than he did as senator to get his weird ideas enacted into law.

Russel Wvong that was a great post. The idea that a Senator can be judged to be successful only if he has big publicity, bipartisan, well recieved new legislation named after them is truly ridiculous. And if we are going to look at Kerrys record in the Senate, its only fair to look at Bushs across the board, private sector failure.

Can anyone name a significant, high name recoginition bill to come out of the Senate in the last 20 years?

It is absolutely ridiculous for Bush to make the "tax and spend liberal" accusations. Hes "dont tax and spend anyway" fool. He was given trillions of dollars in surplus, and we are now trillions in debt. In the face of 911, two wars, an occupation, and the creation of Homeland Defense, he chose to pander to AARP and the pharmeceutical companies with a very expensive, very inadequite prescription drug plan, and have three tax cuts weighted heavily to the top 2% of the population. The positive effect of the tax cuts are over, we have generated far fewer jobs than the tax cut was suppose to yield, and all we get is a mountain of debt. So we should make the tax cuts permenant? Our Seniors have the number one rated health care in the world, theres tens of millions of people with no health care, and the prescription drug plan for Seniors was the right place to spend that money?

what about voting for the libertarian candidate? that would be noticed a lot more than voting for either bush/kerry, thereby modifying the karl rove political strategists marginally towards libertarian ideals.

kerry will win ny anyhow

I'm a libertarian minded Republican. I voted for Bush in 2000 because I liked what he said, especially the domestic policy stuff: limited government, fiscal conservative.

Hell if he didn't screw me. He hasn't found a government expanding bill he didn't like, as evidenced by him not vetoing a single bill. He's encouarged the GOP leadership in Congress to pass bill after bill that expands the size of government and jacks up spending. The Medicare monster (which was passed using some pretty unethical tricks) is going to kill us. Who's going to pay for that thing? Up to $2 trillion in the second decade! And all the pork - in every bill!!

Then there was the acceptance speech where Bush proposed tons and tons of new programs, new spending, larger government, etc.

Kerry is the man. He's more fiscally responsible than Bush (who thinks that everything is going great) and the GOP is keeping control of the House, at the very least. So there would be some gridlock to slow things down.

Aside from fiscal policy, I'm not too happy with Bush's social communism. Kerry is more liberal on social policy and won't try to force the totalitarian-esque control over our lives that Bush will.

And of course, the Supreme Court is of supreme importance. The court is going to be dealing with a lot of issues of rights and privacy, and I want one who will uphold our rights and privacy, not Bush's justices who will roll them back.

What occurs to me is to wonder if you're just taking this posters word that this list represents everything Kerry did. How well did he back it up?

Can anyone name a significant, high name recoginition bill to come out of the Senate in the last 20 years?

Does "come out of the Senate" mean Originate in the senate? What criteria are you looking for here?

I can think of several major bits of legislation which had names of some Senators not named Kerry as sponsors- the Patriot act, the Telecom dereg bill from 96, the welfare reform bill of the same year. The assault weapons ban, the brady bill. The medicare drug plan enacted last year. It's not as if congress has done absolutely nothing over the past 20 years; there have been some major bits of legislation enacted while Kerry was a part of the Senate. Did Kerry simply vote for it, did he sponsor any of these bits of legislation? What legislation or amendments did he sponsor that failed (or amendments that passed)?

He was given trillions of dollars in surplus, and we are now trillions in debt.

The surplus did not exceed 200 billion in any year and our peak deficit is less than 500 billion thus far.

Our 7 trillion dollar debt grew by ~1 trillion during the Clinton years, including a 200 billion increase during those 3 "surplus" years.

Umm, McCain-Feingold is the first one that comes to mind . . .

And that's why we seldom elect a senator. The senatorial skillset is not the executive skillset. I know there are those out there saying, "What skillset?" with regard to Bush, but Texas is in fact a major economy in its own right - not as big as CA but still up there - with a diverse population and problems similar to those of a nation-state, and common wisdom suggests that the governor of such a place ought to be better versed in what it takes to run a "country" than a legislator.

Before I knew anything about Kerry, the fact that he was "only" a senator (a post to which I don't even aspire, but that's politics for ya) counted against him for me. Then, when I found that his principled stance after his brief tour in Vietnam was to protest it, my hackles were raised. (I am not being sarcastic: I do think his stance was principled. Just not my principles.)

I'm probably a "security mom" - no credentials besides that. But I think the better bet for our national security is the known quantity, or perhaps I should say that Kerry's voting record, while a known quantity, does not inspire confidence in me that he will stick with the work in Iraq. At this point, whether Iraq was a mistake is a little moot (and has been brilliantly addressed in other threads, thank you all of you who contributed so knowledgeably!); the question now is how to finish it correctly, and bugging out is, IMHO, just about the worst thing we could do from just about every angle I can think of. Yet I saw some poll results today that indicate that "getting out" of Iraq is overwhelmingly important to Democrats - 2 to 1 or so against "winning" in Iraq.

A low-impact post. Sorry, all.

Bush supporters: explain why this shouldn't gladden my libertarian heart.

Because ... erm ... he's not doing the job the good people of Massachussets hired him ... um ... got me there, Jane. Kerry's the Libertarian candidate this time around. (Badnarik is the Loon candidate, unfortunately. Alas for the days of the merely corrupt Browne candidacy!)

Kerry's legislative record is not one of benign neglect that should gladden your libertarian heart, it just demonstrates that he is at essence a follower rather than a leader. All this talk about how nuanced his world view is is just spin on the fact that he is basically incapable of making decisions at all. Look not at what he has proposed in the past, but at what he has voted for. My great fear of having Kerry as POTUS consists of wondering as to whom he would "outsource" his role of commander-in-chief.

I for one do not want Hamlet as president

Whatever screen they're using to build that list, it's a lousy one. Where's the BCCI investigation, or the Kerry amendments on money-laundering?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

"Umm, McCain-Feingold is the first one that comes to mind . . ."

aka the "incumbent protection act". Challengers need to spend more than incumbents, and incumbents have a fund raising advantage in addition to having existing name recognition from being in office. Its foxes gaurding the henhouse. "feel good" smoke and mirrors with loopholes and benefiting those who voted for it.

"Kerry is the man. He's more fiscally responsible than Bush"

as if that were saying much...
also, you forgot the ":-)" after that, I assume its a joke to suspect a massachusetts liberal who has already proposed programs with huge costs will be magically able to do better keeping spending in check (though perhaps he'll tank the economy with huge tax increases rather than spending cuts to balance it that way and be "fiscally responsible" for the govt. and fiscally irresponsible re: the economy). Much of Kerry's claims are simply "i'll manage things better than Bush" with no real reason to believe that given his background and given that one person doesn't have time to micromanage everything even if he is smarter than Bush (which is I guess why people are falling for Kerry's used care salesman approach).

How much better would the economy be if he capital the govt. borrows were borrowed by private growing companies?

Given the 10,000 to 15,000 Iraqi civilians already killed, is it necesarily the case that the US should stay there and attempt to impose its will on a country when it doesn't really know how to keep a peace balancing the various factions? Perhaps the factions need to fight it out amongst themselves (hopefully at the ballot box at least in part) vs. killing Americans. vs. American's artificially tipping the balance temporarily in a way that'll then be undone when they leave.
It seems that'd be a big sign to the islamic folks that the US is done meddling over there and would make things safer for the US re: terrorism.
Presumably some non profits would be willing to accept some reparations money to voluntarily help out over there without it funneled through govt. bureacracies and bloated defense contractors with inside deals. US intelligence was wrong about what was going on in Iraq and doesn't have enough understanding of their culture so it seems a bit odd to then be over there trying to force the US scheme of things (which may be just as wrong) on them. Let them decide if say the Japanese might rebuild infrastructure better for them with the money, or say some other country with cheaper but still knowlegeable labor, etc., or US non-defense contractors they pay (likely not in one huge give-away-the farm-to-friendly-contractor deal) who are used to doing this stuff vs. bloated defense contractors and military personal who should be used for defense which is their focus and reaso for being. (obviously the military does need to have skills for their own internal infrastructure building, but still it isn't their job).
The US already made enough of a mess over there, is it necessarily the case they will then fix it right or as many govt. programs are, perhaps be as equally off target as the intelligence about WMD was. In the process of rebuilding things leaving reminders of the US having been part of making the mess to begin with.

re: how it was handled to begin with, the goal should have been the criminals responsible for 9/11. if they had to go after Hussein (obviously their intelligence was faulty and they didn't, it wasn't part of going after the terrorists for 9/11),I suspect a $1 billion bounty on the head of Hussein, smaller ones on whatever other strategic target, would have been much cheaper and less destructive of civilians if meddling absolutely had to be done over there). I don't know what if any bounty is on
Osama Bin Laden, likely too small given the alternative of how much is being spent otherwise. Let his associates turn him in, martyr to the cause but then left with a US which is only interested in apprehending the actual criminals and terrorists remaining who realize they might equally well be sold out by their compatriots if they choose to go after US targets in a violent fashion. (granted there is the danger then of terrorism in hopes of funds for the martyred criminals they turn over, but this was just one off the top of the head approach (ie, which may be faulty but is just to illustrate the point of criminal vs. military approach) to handling the issue in a way different from spending huge amounts of money and trashing foreign civilians in the process. Treat it as a criminal matter though in some creative scheme were the realities of their motivations are dealt with in a way to make the US safe vs. to build up the ego of a commander-in-chief and spending on military budgets)

Zip - How is it that a Bush Supreme Court would take away your property rights versus an activist court? This court is dealing with the definition of seizure of private land for the greater public good with the cases in Detroit for the Hamtramack Plant. With activist judges peering into the penumbras and emanations of the constitution there is your threat. If private property rights is your concern then a vote for Bush would ensure a man's home is his castle.

Cite examples that contravine this reasoning.

I'm not a Kerry or Bush "supporter" but consider the following:

1. Demographic trends over the next decades favor social conservatives (see http://www.techcentralstation.com/090104I.html and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54700-2004Sep1.html)
In addition, consider that even immigrant groups that tend to vote Democrat are also socially conservative (e.g., hispanic immigrants are quite religious) incenting the Republicans to emphasize social conservatism and Democrats to become more socially conservative.

2. Republicans already control all the levers of government including presidency, senate, house, 5 of 7 supreme court justices are Republican appointees, majority of state governorships, and majorities in a majority of state assemblies. Note that 20 years ago Democrats controlled most of these institutions.

3. Social conservatives are drooling over Bush being re-elected. To a social conservative, Bush is not just a good president, he's a dream president. I believe that Bush, Rove, and Company intend to utilize the second term to further consolidate power in order to push the social conservative agenda and to make its progression as unstoppable as possible. In order to get a better feel for what such an agenda is, I would suggest reading a blog such as brothersjudd.com/blog and its comments for a few days. They are fully hoping to undo Roe vs. Wade, institute even more draconian drug laws, hugely restrict gay rights, increase the power of religious organizations, etc. and they intend to do this from the federal government (as opposed to allowing the states to individually decide such issues).

A vote for Bush will help entrench social conservatism more quickly.

A vote for Kerry will slow it down. That should gladden your libertarian heart.

I made an error in wording the question "Can you name a significant, high name recoginition bill to come out of the Senate." I had asked this question previously with the inclusion of a bill that a Senator would use in a Presidential campaign. In any case, the examples provided certainly fall short of question here. The Patriot Act should at the very least be significantly altered. Inspection of library check outs, sneak n peak search without a warrant, and wires without warrant are a terrible abuse of our civil liberties. Telecom deregulation has allowed for consolidation of the media to the detriment of the public. The point is that most of the Senates legislation offers more to attack than provide something to run on.

Bret wrote:

They are fully hoping to undo Roe vs. Wade

Good, it was a silly decision and ought to be undone.

institute even more draconian drug laws

Unlikely considering that (a) Ashcroft has been taking assets that were used for the War on Some Drugs to go after terrorists and (b) Democrats are just as likely to support the current War on Some Drugs as Republicans while (c) wanting to go after tobacco, alcohol, and unhealthy foods as well.

hugely restrict gay rights

There is no such thing as “gay rights.”

increase the power of religious organizations

By letting them file applications for federal grants to provide social services as nonreligious groups can already do? Whoopty-do.

and they intend to do this from the federal government (as opposed to allowing the states to individually decide such issues).

You just contradicted yourself here since you began your rant by talking about undoing Roe vs. Wade which would have the affect of returning the issue to the State.

A vote for Bush will help entrench social conservatism more quickly.

I still cannot believe what I am reading here. Narrow meanderings along the lines of "I'll get my way a little more if I back candidate X". It appears that the working definition of "libertarian" here seems to have abandoned a principled "get government off my back" approach and instead accepts the less robust "I will date the guy least likely to accomplish anything, but only to make the other guy jealous."

Have you no shame at all? Does it matter not a whit to you that there are real terrorists who wish to kill you and your family? I simply can't believe my eyes. While I understand that some here hue to the Buchanan isolationism brand of libertarianism, I'm afraid that is as wrong now as it was in WW2.

Frankly, if Kerry wins, I will accept that we -as a people- simply don't deserve liberty. Say hello to dhimmitude, libertarian bretheren. It's a bit more, shall we say, confining than democracy, but hey, at least you can take satisfaction that you gummed up the works of the US gummint (while it lasted). Way to go!

Zip wrote:

Then there was the acceptance speech where Bush proposed tons and tons of new programs, new spending, larger government, etc.

Kerry is the man. He's more fiscally responsible than Bush (who thinks that everything is going great) and the GOP is keeping control of the House, at the very least. So there would be some gridlock to slow things down.

As far as the “gridlock” hope that so many “libertarians” tout as an excuse to vote for Kerry; there is no evidence to support the proposition that “divided government” leads to less spending particularly when the party more inclined to favor higher levels of spending is able to threaten obstruction in order to get more spending. It’s what Senate Democrats did during the first half of Bush’s term when non-defense/homeland security discretionary spending exploded (it was actually going up by 4 percent before Jeffords defected and has been steadily slowing down since Republicans regained the Senate in the mid-term elections) and gave us back farm subsidies and new education spending, it happened when Senate Democrats threatened a filibuster to bid up the cost of the prescription drug benefit from $300 to $534 Billion, and it happened when Clinton was President and vetoed welfare reform twice until Congress increased benefits and put more restrictions on State flexibility. Bottom line, you’re fooling yourself if you’re counting on “divided government” to restrain the growth of government.

More importantly there is no reason to believe Republicans will keep control of the Senate (one-vote majority) and even if they did, a Democrat president could easily pick off the four to five liberal Republicans in the Senate to get his agenda through there. Then it becomes a matter of two (POTUS and Senate) against one (House) during budget negotiations. Our own experience in Minnesota with “divided government” has shown that the two usually prevail against the one, unless the one is the side wanting larger government.

Besides which, I want Social Security reform and it needs to happen before the baby boom generation begins to retire and get “locked in” to what they think their benefits are supposed to be. If we had “gridlock” as you so hope, that means another four years go by without reform and the problem gets worse and harder to fix. Or worse still, if we enacted some form of Social Security “reform” as we did in the 1980’s with divided government (GOP Senate and POTUS with Democrat House) with one side adamantly against any form of investment option, we’d end up with another tax increase which is what Kerry and the Democrats favor.

Aside from fiscal policy, I'm not too happy with Bush's social communism. Kerry is more liberal on social policy and won't try to force the totalitarian-esque control over our lives that Bush will.

Bush, well Bush thinks that religious groups ought to be apply to apply for federal funds to deliver social services. Pretty scary stuff.

Thank you Thorley for giving further evidence to my points. You, as a social conservative should certainly vote for Bush - he's a dream candidate. For others, he's a nightmare. These are subjective preferences, not really debatable.

One person's wasteland is another's paradise.

Re: "These are subjective preferences, not really debatable."

If your intent is to ignore the war on terror and focus instead on domestic issues (a choice I cannot endorse), I would still suggest you are incorrect, for one reason:

Judges.

Do you really believe that Kerry's judicial appointments will be less intrusive on our liberties than those from Bush? What in his history would lead you to that conclusion?

For example, under nationalized health care, will your autonomy be lesser or greater as a patient (health care rationed by bureaucrats, not you)? As a health care business owner (property confiscated for the government)? As a practitioner (no longer at liberty to choose which patients you will or will not see)?

Kerry supporters: explain why I should want a president who lacked the ability to get more than this pitiful list of bills through the senate.

Because there isn't the option of voting for a candidate who didn't pass any laws at all?

Or is this now the "Libertarians for More Legislation" weblog?

We should also note that while Kerry has not passed a large number of bills, he has attempted a fairly substantial number of interesting congressional investigations. BBCI for one. I'm never sure if investigations of massive fraud are legit governmental functions in libertarian world.

Pogo writes:

"Do you really believe that Kerry's judicial appointments will be less intrusive on our liberties than those from Bush?"

Yes, because a Republican congress is more likely to force Kerry toward the middle in his choices of judges than Bush.

If the Democrats controlled congress I would absolutely vote for Bush. Split government is as close as possible to the libertarian ideal as we'll ever get.

Others have brought up the investigations Kerry performed, so that saves my rbinging them up. However, and I know any neocons will scream bloody murder upon hearing this, the important thing that they indicate is Kerry's willingness to follow leads and bring criminals to light. These are important factors in the war on terror, and they are things of which the Bush administration is completely ignorant.

No, I'm not suggesting that there's no place in the war on terror for going after the state sponsors of terror--more importantly, neither is Kerry. But this is a new war, and the neocons are trying to fight it in the old way. They wanted to topple a regime and set up a puppet gvernor (Chalabi), just like the Reaganites in the '80s did so often. That didn't work then, and manufactured both Saddam and Osama, our two great boogeymen of the moment. The war on terror is only partially a conventional war, and partially, not "law enforcement" per se, but very much the investigative aspect of detective work.

The armed forces haven't found bin Laden, and that is in large part simply because that isn't what the armed forces do. Hunting an individual, hunting individuals, discerning them from the rest of the population and bringing them into the light--these things are detective work, and Kerry has spent twenty years building a very, very impressive portfolio of work in that arena.

I certainly wish that we could just send the strongest military in the world into Terrorististan and remove them. Terrorists, however, are non-state actors with a redundant series of connections to various state sponsors. Finding those connections, and tracking them in both directions, requires a new kind of military action, and a new kind of intelligence, and the Bush administration is still trying to pretend that we're knocking over banana republics. We can't just guess at who is supporting the terrorists; that road leads to Baghdad, where there were no terrorists who could threaten us before we invaded, and which was not funding our enemies. 9/11 certainly changed things, but what it changed was that, instead of our first priority in the middle east as it was before, Iraq should have been our last priority. A president willing to have actual intelligence parsed for him, with the instincts of an investigator, would have discovered that before we tied our success in the region to our succeeding at what was at first, but is certainly no longer, a sideline in the war on terrorism.

They are fully hoping to undo Roe vs. Wade

Good, it was a silly decision and ought to be undone.

I've heard this from people who also happen to support abortion rights, but this tends to come from people who seek prohibitions on abortion.

I fail to understand why a "right to privacy" is necessarily a bad idea or how this court verdict was such a terrible application of law.

Personally I find the argument "allow the states to decide abortion" to be more compelling, since we seem to be demanding that we do so with same sex marriage.

Considering that social liberalism means racial preferences and setasides,

...

restrictions on freedom of speech in the name of “sexual harassment” laws, conscription (Democrats are the only ones pushing for a draft),

Couple of comments.

The Sexual harassment laws Thorley mentions is what allowed a courtroom to ask Clinton about his sex life during the Jones trial.

The conscription that is supported by Democrats appear to be more than just an attempt to bring back a military draft; advocates of the draft have sought to use conscripts for "service" that goes well beyond military service. Think "Forced to join Americorps."

Nick: "The armed forces haven't found bin Laden..."

That's because, as most blog readers knew long ago, OBL has been dead for almost 3 years. Sorry you missed it.

Thanks for the tip, Pogo. I like the hat, by the way--shiny. Can I freshen your Kool-aid?

Meanwhile, did you have any substance?

Nick, we don't have proof of OBL's demise, but that simply isn't ever going to be available if he's buried somewhere around Tora Bora in a collapsed cave. What's pretty suggestive is that he was frequently starring in his own videotapes until we put a number of huge bombs into Tora Bora. Since then, there have been infrequent low quality audio recordings purporting to be from Bin Laden, but actually unverifiable. So, what are you suggesting? That he lost his video camera in escaping from Tora Bora and hasn't been able to buy a new one in three years?

I can think of two possibilities, but they both seem far less likely than that he's dead and his followers are faking the audio tapes. (1) He escaped but is so messed up that he won't let them take pictures of him - and yet, somehow in the wilds of tribal Pakistan he found the medical care necessary both to treat those wounds and to give him the kidney dialysis he needs to stay alive. (2) Some other country nabbed him, tossed him in a dungeon, and kept it very secret, since they don't want to hand him over to us and don't want the US Marines coming in to get him. That's a remarkably good job of keeping secrets, and I don't see what they'd get out of it. (And if that's what is going on, the audio tapes are still fakes.)

By Occam's Razor, he's dead.

It is ridiculous to assume UBL dead. There are many reasons that may answer why we havent recieved new video from UBL. But first its important to note we have heard post Tora Bora audio from UBL in which he comments on post Tora Bora Al Qaeda bombings. We havent seen any video of Al Zaquarwei in Iraq either. In the Berg decapatation video the voice on the audio has been confirmed to be AZ. But the masked man purported to be AZ reading the statement shuffles and turns over the three papers that hes supposedly reading from a dozen times, leading many to believe that the voice on the video is a recording of AZ, and AZ isnt in the video at all. There are many photos of AZ, yet not a single photo of AZ since his appearence in Iraq, as AZ is always masked in these videos. That suggests AZ has either had plastic surgery, or has intentionally scarred his face to change his appearence. If UBL has undergone extensive plastic surgery post 911, he isnt going to release photos or video of his new appearence. If UBL is being sheltered in SA, he isnt going to chance, and wouldn't be allowed to chance any recording being traced back to him there. I believe that UBL was in Tora Bora in the months immediately following 911, but I dont think he could have been hiding in caves for all this time due to his health. Dialysis has come a long way the past 20 years, but I dont think a person could survive on the more mobile, less effective versions of a dialysis machine over more than a year.

Passing more important bills would have required skill at diplomacy with the Republicans to get something passed (even if it wasn't exactly what he wanted but a subset the republicans would go for).
Makes me wonder re: his skills at world diplomacy re:
his idea of cooperating with them to achieve his ends. though being libertarian I don't want to see him achieve much. Also, I suspect that a Democratic president may provide cover for the Republicans to load in more pork barrell and give in to bigger government than they would under a Republican since they can claim they needed to compromise to get something through. They will have an easier time justifying it with a democrat wanting to expand the military, etc. I suspect that despite hopes of gridlock, the combination may be worse than with a republican president.
Though I'm voting Libertarian since we need to show that we don't wish govt. to keep growing, etc. btw, I'd suggest that those who jumped too quickly to negative conclusions about Badnarik consider checking him out in the videos lined off his site, someone recommended the Badnarik vs. Cobb, LP vs. Green, debate as the one to start with (I hadn't seen it yet)
Also he has a book that just came out on Amazon (poor timing to come so late), last night it was ranked number 14 in sales already, hadn't checked today.

Poor, poor Occam, spinning in his damn grave.

Hell, I'm willing to concede, for the sake of argument, that Ousama may well be dead. the point is rhetorical in either case, as he still was never found, and clearly global terrorism doesn't need him. Ever if bin Laden dead, all of my actual points still stand.

If terrorism is your single, overriding issue, Bush is not your man.

Not particularly accomplished record, I'll agree. I think Kerry's not a terribly creative guy, and that he blew with the wind, if the wind were a moderate Democratic wind. (National Journal rates you one year as the biggest liberal, and you get tarred with it forever. Most years he fell in the middle of the Democratic pack.)

He apparently didn't need signature issues to keep getting reelected. I wonder how much pork he passed? Not that pork would convince a libertarian. Is it pork if it goes to the Cato Institute? These and other zen koans later.

Dan G.:

Well and good, but I think there's a reason the more extreme social-libertarian view doesn't have enough converts to win an office >:-) If you're still reading this, I wonder what your answer would be to the following question:

Assuming you have children or have very young siblings/nieces/nephews/whatever, would you be comfortable having them schooled, doctored, or counseled by a person whom you knew to privately indulge in child pornography (regardless of whether the source was actual or virtual)?

Right there, I daresay a majority of respondants -- regardless of their beliefs on any other social or political issue -- would find something fundamentally flawed in a truly purist application of libertarianism.

The real question that everyone is asking is do we trust the POTUS we have or do we elect a new one? Everyone would like to KNOW the correct person to vote for, but NO ONE KNOWS. So we will all go into the booth and guess and hope in the end that it will be the correct decision. I will focus my thoughts on what is the major issues for me, (that being what I think is the best thing for our country, our soldiers and our future) and I will let that be my guide, as I pray, "I, and the country, make the best decision." I happen to believe that no matter who wins it will be the correct decision, I just don't know if it will be the best one.

Comments are Closed.