Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Friday, April 11, 2008
Fred Schwarz on Baseball & Conservatives on National Review Online
It’s time for all you closet conservatives to open the door and come out into the light.
Support BBTF
My Bookmarks
You must be logged in to
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
My point is that, obviously, libertarians should be exceedingly skeptical of any extension of government power, and demand evidence of the utility of the expansion of power before supporting it. Given that there is no evidence of widespread fraud, I don't understand why libertarians, based on claims that fraud is possible, support the extension of government power into people's lives. I would think that "possibility" would be a profoundly anti-liberatarian criterion for government power.McCain supports Bush's current policies. Regardless of whether he has been a critic in the past, he is not a critic now.
Support for Bush's handling of the war is miniscule, support for the war is miniscule, support for withdrawal within a year or two is widespread (Polls). The Democratic strategy in the fall will be to tie McCain to Bush based on their shared support for indefinitely extended US presence in Iraq, their shared belief in the rightness of the war from the beginning. The Democrat will say that he or she believes that a steady withdrawal based on timetables is the right policy, while Bush and McCain believe that we should remain indefinitely. It will be incredibly successful. Sure, if things turn around in Iraq, it won't be nearly as successful, but if McCain's crowd is pinning their hopes on Iraqi security, they're far more delusional than I've ever suspected.
Yeah, because it's not like every time they do try to address fraud in absentee voting by tightening the restrictions and handling of absentee ballots, an ACORN sends in the goons to cry racism.
Oh, wait...
As for interfering with a right, as I pointed out earlier, voting fraud has exactly the same effect on one's right to vote as preventing one from filling out a ballot does -- it has the effect of nullifying one's vote. (And as for this being a problem which "doesn't actually exist," the petitioners were unable to identify a single voter who wished to vote but who was prevented from voting by the law. So which problem doesn't actually exist?)
JC: yes, voter ID laws are about voter fraud; there's no real way to know whether it's a big issue without voter ID laws. (If we pass a law saying that police may not demand to see motorists' drivers' licenses when stopping them for traffic infractions, would we then be surprised to find out that there's no evidence of people being guilty of unlicensed driving?) I haven't voted in MD in 16 years, and that was absentee (for Mr. Clinton), so I don't really remember how MD handled it. But I know how NJ does: I mailed in voter registration. Didn't need to show ID. When I go to the polls, I don't need to show ID.
I appreciate someone who dislikes libertarians so much telling libertarians what libertarians should believe in. Do you have any recommendations of other things I should believe in, in your worldview?
In which case the Democrats will probably lose. The public is familiar with McCain, he's been prominent for a long time, and they don't tie him to Bush even if it is true.
Not an effective rhetorical strategy, Zim.
I find no way to square the libertarian theory of power and right with the support of voter ID laws, in the absence of clear evidence of their utility in combatting real and widespread fraud. This happens to be a place where my own theories of power and right, which usually diverge from the libertarian, actually converge - I would be happy to support some form of voter ID if there were widespread fraud that it could be shown to prevent. In the absence of evidence, it seems a useless extension of government power which would effect poorer people and older people with no trade off in real benefit to the general public that can be demonstrated.
EDIT: for Rifkin's benefit, I left in my mistaken "effect" - shoulda been "affect" - and I look forward to his next hi-larious zinger.
Not an effective rhetorical strategy, Zim.
True, however.
Andy: George Bush is not John McCain's Jeremiah Wright, no matter how desperate you are to believe the analogy is valid.
Hell, the Democrats weren't even successful running against Bush's next term when they were actually running against Bush. Now running against Bush's next term is going to defeat McCain?
If the majority of the Democratic party believes this -- and I've seen this talking point parroted recently by the useless "Democratic strategists" (*) on tv -- the Democrats are in big, big trouble.
(*) I note that "Republican strategists" are just as useless. I change the channel whenever these people are on. All they do is repeat talking points without any useful contribution to the discussion. But where are the "libertarian strategists"?
Agree completely.
And congrats you drunk bastard.
McCain was always "electable." He is MORE electable now (indeed, perhaps the favorite) because of the Democrats' mistakes, infighting and various problems, but he always had a shot, and deservedly so.
.
This is an internal partisan take, much like Democrats who try to talk about the big differences between HC and Obama based on the differences in their health care plans or the fact that Obama opposed the war when he was in the IL legislature. McCain is certainly different than Bush in some ways; it is equally certain that he is perceived, at least, and likely is, far closer to Bush on the big issues---the war and the economy--than either of his possible opponents will be.
Nobody is required to do anything in their private lives or forbidden from doing anything in their private lives by these laws. If you want to vote, you're participating in government, so of course government is involved in that; government power isn't "extending," because government has always regulated elections and by the very essence of elections must do so.
If you want to talk about requiring ID to buy a firearm, or to drive, I can understand describing that as extending government power into private lives. But to vote?
How would it affect poorer people? The ID is free. Most of those poorer people already have a proper ID and wouldn't need to do anything.
McCain was always "electable." He is MORE electable now (indeed, perhaps the favorite) because of the Democrats' mistakes, infighting and various problems, but he always had a shot, and deservedly so.
But he would not be electable if the public easily saw him as Bush III.
In 2004, Bush's approval rating was about 50%. It is currently in the low 30s. (Bush approval, 01-07, Bush approval, current)
In 2004, significant majorities supported continued US presence in Iraq. That has reversed. (Polls - scroll down)
The Democrats quite clearly ran against Bush and against Bush's war in 2006, tying Republicans in Congress to Bush through such radical means as showing that they agreed on the major policy issues of the day. They won. The American people have changed their minds about Bush since 2004.
Find the missing word...
Congrats, Matt.
Hell, the Democrats weren't even successful running against Bush's next term when they were actually running against Bush. Now running against Bush's next term is going to defeat McCain?
Gotta disagree with you Ray. Bush fatigue is much higher now than it was in 2004 and Obama's a million times more appealing than John Kerry. If they could get the public to think of McCain as Bush III, it would be effective, but I don't think they can. McCain's been around too long and the public perception of him isn't going to change anymore than the public perception of Hillary is going to change.
On the contrary, there's no strong-held belief that McCain would be a great president, so that's what the Democrats should attack him on. Admit (even if you don't think it's true) he's a maverick and a great guy, but horribly wrong for the country moving forward and you make McCain's best qualities irrelevant - his maverick reputation and his inspiring personal story don't become assets unless you campaign in a manner in which he can get traction with them. This is, in fact, exactly what Obama's done so far and I think it's the best strategy.
Your argument is that the government should be able to place more restrictions on voting than on firearm ownership? That driving and having guns deserve more protection and defense, as rights, than voting? You would oppose forms of ID requirements for those forms of licensing, but you would support the same requirements with regard to voting?
This is a unique perspective. I'm probably misreading you somehow, because it really doesn't fit with what I thought were basic Nieporent beliefs. Explain?
I'm not saying that Democrats should say that McCain is the same person as Bush - he's obviously very different in temperament and personal history and speaking style and god knows what else. The Democrats should say that McCain supports all those policies that Bush supports, and that the American people oppose.
If I understood his logic, DMN is saying voting allows for more gov't restriction b/c in that activity the person is involving himself in gov't already; it's you moving out of public life into governance by your action. The other things (driving and shooting) are private acts and don't involve the gov't. I don't buy the logic at all, I am just piecing together the argument.
This is essentially what Obama mostly does, often making sure to speak highly of McCain's bravery and love of country, and rightly so. I assume HC does the same, although I don't listen to her much.
This is what I meant by tying him to "Republicanism" or "Conservatism." If you tie him to Bush, he repels that easily. If you tie him to this (and thus characterize it as a negative), he's got to respond in a manner that appeals to the middle while reassuring the right that he's one of them.
My proposed argument:
-John McCain supports the indefinite extension of George Bush's war in Iraq
-John McCain supports the indefinite extension of George Bush's tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent and big corporations
I would phrase the rhetoric that way because, as amply demonstated, people dislike Bush and McCain supports his policies on the most important issues. You're saying that these quite factual claims will founder because of already-entrenced views of McCain among the electorate, as I read it.
If McCain had a way of explicitly breaking with George Bush - either some form of about-face on the war, or simply ramping up attacks on the Bush administration for anything, really, then maybe he would be able to defend himself effectively. I certainly think that Nixon's 1972 campaign could be extremely effective - "peace with honor" from McCain is a winning argument - but I see little chance he'd do that.
Given that John McCain seems to have locked himself in to a campaign where he runs in support of the extension of George Bush's current foreign and economic policy, I have a lot of trouble believing that simply stating this fact over and over will be an unsuccessful strategy for the Democrats. (Obviously, if the war or the economy turns around, that equation changes.)
EDIT: something about health care obviously goes in the bullet point section, though I don't yet have a proposal for usefully parallel language
The point I was making was that one could imagine a system in which there were no laws pertaining to driving or firearm purchase/ownership/possession; one can't imagine a system in which there were no laws pertaining to voting. By definition, voting involves government. So it doesn't make sense to talk about government "extending" itself into the voting realm; that realm presupposes the existence and involvement of government.
That having been said, certainly I think driving and firearms ownership deserve a higher level of consideration. These are rights important for their own sake, whereas voting is only a means to an end. Certainly we need to be able to vote as the first option for ousting an oppressive government, yes, but I don't think there's any particular inherent value in voting. Most libertarians don't fetishize democracy the way liberals do; democracy involves collective rights, and libertarians care about individual rights. (To re-clarify, that doesn't mean we don't see utilitarian value in voting.)
Re the 1st, I think McCain says:
Bush created a mess, hesitated to fix it when and how I suggested it be fixed, then finally (and perhaps too late) relented. Hopefully, it's not too late. We will do our best to support our military in a necessary battle against terror that we cannot afford to lose and which my fine opponent (who refuses to say the Pledge - OOPS! Didn't mean to say that about B. Hussein Obama) has no experience of.
Re tax cuts:
I initially opposed them (insert social fairness
language), but now that they're locked in and law, in the midst of a faltering economy, it would be imprudent to repeal them. We need to grow the economy... or some such.
The government could require that everyone who votes be white - that would be a very, very large extension of government power. They could require that people register at least a month or two beforehand using personal information and create laws making it a crime to lie in registration, which is the current state of the extension of government power. They could require that you arrive at the voting booth wearing a bowler hat, which would be a silly extension of government power.
Adding a voter ID requirement is obviously an extension of government power. Any law that requires people to do a thing is an extension of government power. The question is whether the extension of power is commensurate to and effective against the problem it exists to solve. Given, as posted above, there is no evidence of widespread fraud, I see little utility in the law.
I agree that the current system could be defrauded, but I would think that the holders of an ideology which opposes the extension of government power as a matter of principle - though it is open to utilitarian arguments for some government - would require more than the possibilty of fraud to support these laws.
The danger for the Democrats is in embracing defeatism on the war before it is definitively lost. That's why they need to step carefully, because blasting McCain on the war now will kill them if Iraq is being spun (by the media, not by either of the candidates) as in better shape by November.
-I have opposed George Bush's war in Iraq from the beginning, and now I support timetables for withdrawal and redeployment. My opponent supports the indefinite extension of Bush's war in Iraq.
-I opposed George Bush's disastrous economic policies and his tax giveaways to the wealthiest few, and support making health care available and affordable for all Americans. John McCain supports the Bush economic plan and the extension of these irresponsible tax cuts.
The American people have a clear choice. They can support the indefinite extension of Bush's policies by voting for John McCain, or they can support a real change by voting for me.
Of course, John Kerry was no Barack Obama. And the '04 electorate didn't have the benefit of hindsight as to Bush's second term.
And whether they were "successful" in any event can be debated, despite their having lost the election; despite being a pretty uninspiring, milquetoast, charisma-free candidate, Kerry almost knocked off an incumbent president in wartime before the ineptitude of that president became as manifest as it is now. Historically, that's a pretty impressive performance. (Or it points to Bush's weakness as a wartime incumbent. Or both.)
That wouldn't be an extension of government power. It would be a change in who they allow to vote. But, at the end of the day, the government decides who votes and who doesn't. Their power is the same, whatever they allow. Now, I believe it would be wrong on other grounds, but not because it is an extension of government power. The US government's power over who votes hasn't changed in 221 years. What has changed is who they grant that right to.
Possibly, but I don't think so. I don't think many people would see a phased withdrawal as some humiliating defeat. Also, JC's wording says "necessary battle against terror", and whether the Iraq war is generally seen as such is up for debate.
Basically, I'm profoundly skeptical that candidates have much effect on the outcome of a race except around the margins. If the economy and the war turn around over the next year, McCain will have a good shot at winning. If they don't, he won't. Very few other issues are going to make much difference.
That doesn't strike me as an extension of government power at all, but then I see the "power" in question is "determining who is eligible to vote". The way in which they define the answer to that question can be more or less complex and onerous, yes, but that doesn't make the power per se any more or less expansive.
Like the Hall of Fame, perhaps? Sometimes the HoF voters have been extremely strict. Sometimes the HoF voters have been extremely liberal. But the power they are exercising -- that is, determining who goes into the Hall -- remains the same, regardless of whether they're failing to elect Lefty Grove or admitting Roger Bresnahan.
No it's not. It's easily recast as:
I support the troops and support winning a necessary battle against the agents of terror. My opponent would have us impose timetables on our generals. I will not. I will continue the strategy that has us crippling al-Qaeda in Iraq or Iran or whereever they are.
And, it's very easy to cast the Obama w/drawal strategy as not "solving problems" but creating new ones.
That will work with most people who would vote Repub anyway. I have doubts that it will work at the margins, as Matt suggests, coming at it from another angle.
Don't get me wrong; McCain has an excellent chance--I think this election will be close. But I don't think that chance resides in re-articulating his war policies and re-selling the war.
I think it's really as simple as this: the American people don't like to lose. When they have to lose, they like to lose as gently as possible.
If the choice is seen as being between humiliating defeat and phased withdrawal, the American people will tend to pick phased withdrawal. If it's seen as being between phased withdrawal and victory, they'll tend to pick victory. The challenge in this election is going to be in framing the choice, and whoever does it better will probably win.
In which case the Democrats will probably lose. The public is familiar with McCain, he's been prominent for a long time, and they don't tie him to Bush even if it is true.
Right now McCain and both Democrats are nearly in a dead heat when you average the national polls, which in itself means little, but which is still pretty amazing considering all the scrutiny of Obama that's been going on for the past two months, and considering Hillary's enormous personal negatives.
The obvious reason for this has nothing to do with McCain himself, since he's generally viewed in a more postive light than either Democrat, and has little personal baggage. It has to do with the extreme public distaste for the policies of the past eight years, especially the Iraq war and the Republican dog eat dog economic philosophy regarding the economy. McCain not only endorses these policies, he's basing his campaign on them! It's tough to separate him from Bush when he's promising to continue the war and continue Bush's economic policies.
And if the Democrats don't try to point this out at every turn, and make him explain what his differences are with Bush, they're f*ck*ng nuts. Either he has to admit it, or deny it and risk alienating the Dittoheads who are suspicious of his conservative credentials to begin with. Quiet as it's kept, it isn't just the Democrats who have a big split within their ranks---look at Huckabee's and Paul's write-in totals in the Texas primary. McCain was the only credible candidate that the Republicans had, and he won the nomination largely because of the shortcomings of his opposition. It wasn't but a few short months ago that the same wingnuts who are obsessing about Jeremiah Wright today were then obsessing about John McCain's "amnesty for illegal immigrants," and vowing that they'd freeze in hell before voting for him.
The Democrats can easily conduct such a campaign without personalizing it---in fact you can emphasize McCain's fine personal qualities at every turn. This is strictly about the record of the last eight years, and how McCain would change course so little. Do that, and you can still run a high level campaign based on the war and the economy---real issues that are exactly what the Republicans are going to be running away from, and understandably so.
Just passed Lou Brock.
No offense, but I think that is a Republican-framed argument that will not change centrist voters. I think most people see this war in terms if "Is it making us safer?" and "Is it worth all the blood and treasure?" not "Let's go in there and really kick their ass." If McCain can convince people their safety depends on an indefinite war in Iraq, power to him. I am ready to listen to him on that issue, even though there is almost no chance I will vote for him.
More importantly, how is your cat?
No, because the data says that violence in all of the receiving schools increases markedly through this policy.
Of course we do that. However, when the school is thrown into chaos because we can't have announcements or bell as that would "disturb the mayor" and kids cannot question or meet with the mayor as that "could jeopardize the safety of the mayor".
Not so fasr. Didn't McCain, in February 2008, vote against a measure the Senate passed 51-45 that would have forced the C.I.A. to 'abide by the rules set out in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which prohibits physical force and lists approved interrogation methods'?
Requiring an ID is similar - right now, that is not a requirement extended upon people.
Not so fasr. Didn't McCain, in February 2008, vote against a measure the Senate passed 51-45 that would have forced the C.I.A. to 'abide by the rules set out in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which prohibits physical force and lists approved interrogation methods'?
I was comparing McCain to Bush, not to the ACLU.
Not so fasr. Didn't McCain, in February 2008, vote against a measure the Senate passed 51-45 that would have forced the C.I.A. to 'abide by the rules set out in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which prohibits physical force and lists approved interrogation methods'?
edit:
This works, given the level of political dialogue most voters can understand. It will need the voiceover, and scrolling text, listing five of the most important and destructive issues that Bush and McCain are particularly close on. Other than that, it's a winner. I've got the camera. Let's go viral with this one!
I don't think it's an argument, as such; I think it's an attitude. Americans like to win. That doesn't mean Americans like to blow the hell out of things, just that when they get involved in something, they like to win. And I do over-simplify; if the cost is high enough, then winning starts to become less attractive. My position, such as it is, is not that Americans will necessarily embrace victory at all costs, but that they'll prefer it and that preference will weigh in their decisionmaking.
(You may argue that leaving Iraq will save us billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and you may well be right, but unless McCain's campaign is being run by complete morons, they aren't going to leave it there -- they're going to sell the potential costs of leaving in blood and treasure.)
More importantly, how is your cat?
We tried catnip, but she appeared to be completely uninterested -- like it didn't affect her at all. My wife tells me this is not unknown in younger cats.
So now she's on a Prozac regimen, which neither of us feel all that great about. She's still very very jumpy so far (there's supposed to be a 2-3 week lag time), but fortunately the neighbor cats have left us alone the past few days, which has led to a happier toilet situation.
This works, given the level of political dialogue most voters can understand. It will need the voiceover, and scrolling text, listing five of the most important and destructive issues that Bush and McCain are particularly close on. Other than that, it's a winner. I've got the camera. Let's go viral with this one!
I see that you were the first person to pick up on the unstated part of what I was saying. That's what I meant by beating these motherf*ck*ers at their own game. And of course the parts you've added would be keys to the ad's success.
But keep it short, and keep it to the point. Putting a new face on Bush's policies isn't going to fool that many people, if you keep reminding them that a new face is the only new thing that they'd be getting.
CNN/Opinion Research Poll, April 28-30, 2008
Do you favor or oppose the US war in Iraq?
30% favor
68% oppose
2% Unsure
Which comes closest to your view about what the U.S. should now do about the number of U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should send more troops to Iraq. The U.S. should keep the number of troops as it is now. The U.S. should withdraw some troops from Iraq. OR, The U.S. should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq.
8% Send More
21% Keep Same Number
35% Withdraw Some
33% Withdraw All
CBS News / New York Times Poll, April 25-29, 2008
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
29% Approve
64% Disapprove
7% Unsure
Regardless of how you intend to vote, what would you prefer the next president do about the war in Iraq? Would you prefer the next president try to end the Iraq war within the next year or two, no matter what, or continue to fight the Iraq war as long as they felt it was necessary?
62% End War
34% Continue
4% Unsure
You can look up these polls' histories and see that popular opinion has shifted massively since 2004.
You are entitled to your own IMO idiosyncratic definition, but I have explained why you are misinterpreting this from a libertarian perspective.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080505/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_growing_the_green_zone;_ylt=AuEoCMz34ABmC9wS9hiTEres0NUE
"Forget the rocket attacks, concrete blast walls and lack of a sewer system. Now try to imagine luxury hotels, a shopping center and even condos in the heart of Baghdad.
That's all part of a five-year development "dream list" — or what some dub an improbable fantasy — to transform the U.S.-protected Green Zone from a walled fortress into a centerpiece for Baghdad's future."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352375,00.html
"A California company is working to turn a 50-acre swath of land in Baghdad into an amusement park, complete with rides, a skateboard park, a zoo, a concert theater and a museum, according to a report in the Thursday edition of the Times of London."
In the spectrum of current human political thought and practice, there is not a gnat's whisker of a difference between the three of these. Anyone propose ending the war on terror? Anyone propose ending the income tax? Making the Death tax infinite? Curbing corporate power? Fighting Climate Change? Privatizing the army? Rolling back the Supreme Count decisions to 1934?
In fact - none of these candidates have even suggested the OBVIOUS - Nationalizing health care. No, just mandating insurance policies, and furthering the case of for-profit health care.
Now, there may be many reasons why any (or all) of the above ideas are bad - but it would be nice to see some actual ideas from a "relevant" candidate once in a while...
Dammit! Sorry, Mike, I thought for sure this would work. I've in fact never seen it NOT work. I blame your handle. And Eraser X.
The question, obviously, is which perspective is useful for making a judgment. The Neptunian perspective is a pretty useless one for the question I outlined. I guess from an agrarian separatist point-of-view, there might be very little difference between the candidates (see Daniel Larison's struggles, and extremely tepid Obama support). What's your perspective such that the obvious differences between the candidates don't matter to you?
But what if government uses its power to constrain people's ability to exercise what they view as a democratic right of citizenship to influence what we typically think of as private matters? Suppose a state passed a law requiring that people prove they had read the Democratic Party Platform before they could vote? Or requiring that in order to vote people must agree -- voluntarily -- not to carry a concealed firearm? Wouldn't many libertarians consider that an extension of government power designed to influence (previously) private decisions?
Everything that the government doesn't require you to do in order to vote remains private. This can be in the form of disclosures of private information, or requirements on what you do with your time and energy in your own life. Registering or voting can include more or fewer requirements, which can add more or less intrusion into a person's life and privacy.You keep saying this, when obviously I'm not talking about a realm in which government does not exist. Would it help if I said that government was extending its power "within" the realm of voting? Cause it would mean the same thing to me.
The government has the power to audit people based on their tax returns. If the government suddenly quadrupled the funding of the audit division of the IRS, would libertarians really be making the distinction between the "use" of the power and the existence of the power?
The distinction that Nieporent is making is a different one, I think. He's saying that because voting is collective, it by definition does not involve privacy, and by definition is wholly invested with government power. Thus, voter registration laws are unrelated to libertarian concerns about privacy because of issues that are peculiar to voting. You're saying, here, that once government has a certain power, how it uses it is no longer a question of hte "extension" of that power. Nieporent would disagree, except in the realm of voting.
I'm trying, in my discussion with Nieporent, to show him how the realm of voting does involve relative extensions of government power, just like any other.
If you'd like to find a citation of me making some version of this argument do so. If you can't, don't suggest obliquely that I do.
The fact of the matter is that voter fraud is a made up "issue." There is no driving impetus to "fix" voter fraud because voter fraud, especially in the manner addressed by the Indiana law, is non-existent. Yet you and David (who admittedly can be a lot loonier than you when he tries), stalwart defenders of individuals and individual rights against all instrusions of big, bad gubmit, are perfectly fine with a pointless extension of government regulations into the most basic rights of the republic. (No, I'm not going to operate on the level of David's lunatic notion that the government adding unnecessary restrictions to voting access isn't an extension of government power.)
What real world problem does voter ID solve? (Ignoring for the minute that the 24th+precedent makes it patently unconstitutional. Let's operate on the leve of strict theory.)
It gives you something to put in one of those countless pockets in your wallet.
(*) Yes, Andy, that's a deliberate phrase choice.
Specifically, which rights are those?
Note that I am certainly not saying that a libertarian must approve of increased voter ID requirements. All I'm saying as far as libertarianism goes is that it isn't incompatible with libertarianism -- the original charge here on BTF -- to require someone to show a photo ID before voting.)
I wouldn't say that they're unrelated to libertarian concerns about privacy; I would say that they're unrelated to libertarian concerns about liberty.
The problem is that Nixon ran as an economic moderate and for the end of the war. If McCain were to do both of those things, he would be a very strong candidate, probably the favorite. I just don't see that happening, and I don't see how he could after his primary campaign.
That's a straw man. Arguing that we shouldn't have to prove eligibility to vote before voting because it could lead to people being forced to turn in their handguns or vote Democratic is like arguing that we shouldn't be able to prosecute rape or incest because it could lead to the government banning homosexuality or adultery.
If you'd like to find a citation of me making some version of this argument do so. If you can't, don't suggest obliquely that I do.
Bob Dernier did.
What real world problem does voter ID solve? (Ignoring for the minute that the 24th+precedent makes it patently unconstitutional. Let's operate on the leve of strict theory.)
What makes it unconstitutional? By definition, it currently is.
It's way to long to look but is there any reference in this thread to the amusing ad at the bottom of this page? I just noticed it.
I have StratOMatic right now. Mostly I have seen "Over for Obama?" and "Should Hillary Quit?" and earlier there was one for the Ann Coulter Newsletter.
if I were McCain, i would just totally throw Dubya under the bus at this point and run to grab as many moderates as possible. What are the righties going to do, try to teach him a lesson and vote for Hillary or Obama instead? The hardcore righties don't like him anyway and it's not like he needs to suck up to them anymore now that he has the nomination. If anything, they need to suck up to him, or he can threaten to roll the ############# back on all the #### they've gotten presidential orders on the last 8 years.
I do not think that any of the three candidates will end the war in Iraq in a particularly satisfying manner. Both options are bad - some sort of phased withdrawal vs. stay the course for a couple more years, then partial withdrawal or whatever. No one is going to escalate the war substantially, because there is no more volunteer man power to call on, and I don't think that the Military wants a draft (not even discussing political reprocussions). I suspect that a democrat will get us out of Iraq slightly sooner, saving some coin and US lives at the expense of (possibly) Iraqi lives. (That's just the short term 3-5 year perspective, I really have no idea what the best long term solution is)
I do not think that any of the candidates will propose any legislation that will significantly change the health care system in this country. And if they did, Congress would never pass it.
I sincerely doubt that any of the three candidates election will have a substantial (re: +/- 5%) effect on the tax burden of most people and/or corporations.
1000 posts back or so, I posted the 2007 federal budget. I do not think that any of the 3 candidates will substantially move any of those pie chart slices around.
I have no opinion on flag burning vs. flag lapel pin wearing, but perhaps these crucial issues will be effected.
I do, however, think that election of a minority candidate (especially one who is 1/2 black) to POTUS will have a lasting, positive effect on race relations in this country.
Considering the manifestation of Ws ineptitude was pretty dang apparent in 2004, this does not bode well for the electorates decision making ability in 2008 or the future. Do you think they (we?) learned anything?
(*) Yes, Andy, that's a deliberate phrase choice.
Someone has already pointed out the obvious reference to the 1968 Nixon, which would add to the number of Presidents that McCain would wind up being "associated" with in terms of unpopular wars. I would think that he might have enough problems as it is.
And more to the point, nobody's going to be able to make that sort of a risible claim these days---a "secret" plan to end the war? Yeah, and trust me that this beat up wheelchair is "secretly" a brand new Corvette underneath the five years' worth of rust. Just the reaction on SNL alone might force a hasty retreat on that one. It's just way too used car salesmanish to fly.
I suppose if the public can fall for Richard Nixon's "secret" plan, they can fall for anybody's. So you never know. However, the success of that gambit would depend to a rather uncomfortable extent on the performance of the Iraqi army, and the demonstrated willingness of it to fight on in the absence of American combat troops. If those two elements aren't present, the whole plan will look like a scam. We all know that the American military might is more than enough to hold the insurgency at bay, so long as we keep combat troops in sufficient numbers. But that's what we have now, and two thirds of the country isn't buying it. Do you really think that John McCain wants to tie his electoral fate to the spine of the Iraqi army?
The bottom line here is that both candidates are going to have to answer tough questions about the war, and I think we'd agree that both of them (or all three of them) are arguing positions that can possibly blow up in their faces after January 20th.
To put the greater burden on the Democrats, McCain is going to have to rely heavily on the fear factor, which has admittedly worked to an extent in the past. And yes, it does dovetail with his persona as the "strong" candidate. No question about that, and it will pose a problem for the Democrats, who would be foolish to try to ignore it.
But at least as of now, the Democrats know that Bush has already been playing the "fear" card for five years, and after five years it's also pretty evident that it's not working in terms of gathering public support for the war. At some point, the public seems to have built up a rather healthy immunity to these sorts of scare tactics. And unless McCain can think up some new ones, or unless the war takes a dramatic turn towards Iraqi-led stability---and it's not just a continuation of the Americans propping up a Potemkin village facade which will collapse the moment we leave---it's hard to imagine that the main result for the Republicans will be little more than a lot more SNL parodies. I think they'd be better off hoping that Wright shows up in a video next to Osama Bin Laden.
Second, if you think that the difference between withdrawing from Iraq and not withdrawing from Iraq for several years is minor, I don't really know what to say to you.
EDIT: clarity
I don't know this Bob Dernier person, and he most certainly didn't write the text you quoted immediately prior to making your claim.
What makes it unconstitutional? By definition, it currently is.
Again, the 24th amendment. Once this is challenged under the 24th it will be overturned, assuming the vaunted "constructionists" actually read the text of the document (as if.) Now, answer the question that I asked explicitly exterior to reference of constitutionality.
As a self-described libertarian, what problem does voter ID laws solve? If you can't name an existing, real-world problem that it solves, how do you square your hands-off theory of government with such a pointless intrusion of individual rights by government?
Well, if they're reading this board they might. Didn't I show everyone how to cut something like $219 billion out of the federal budget in just my first pass through the different expenditures? I don't see why the candidates think it's so difficult to cut spending; took me all of 90 seconds.
All these things have in common the fact that they have mechanism of security in place all out of proportion to the possibility of "bad" occurrence. And a dedicated perpetrator will find away around the security anyway.
That being said, a free id card hardly seems odious. It would be great if the free id card/drivers license would suffice without any sort of pre-registration at all. You could just eliminate voter rolls all together!
Why do you say that, Andy? The ARVN army was a joke but Nixon got away with it anyway.
I remember a forward that Stephen King wrote to one of his story collections, he mentions having been a VERY gullible young adult, said his wife used to make fun of him at parties telling people that Steve voted for Nixon because Nixon had a secret plan to end the war and that "Steve ACTUALLY BELIEVED HIM!"
Again, the 24th amendment. Once this is challenged under the 24th
it will be overturned, assuming the vaunted "constructionists"
actually read the text of the document (as if.)
I'm missing where the 24th Amendment mentions ID cards at all. This
isn't a tax so the 24th Amendment shouldn't apply. Especially under
a strict "constructionist" interpretation.
As a self-described libertarian, what problem does voter ID laws solve?
If you can't name an existing, real-world problem that it solves, how
do you square your hands-off theory of government with such a pointless
intrusion of individual rights by government?
What individual rights? It's not really a privacy issue, because you're
already required to prove your identity to vote. It's not a property issue.
It's not a speech issue.
It's an administrative requirement. The reason I'm opposed to national
ID cards is because I fear the expansion of their requirements to places
where they will actually trample on individual rights.
The MAJOR damage (to the Iraqi peoples and economy) is already done. Iraq is already shattered into warring factions. Unless I am wrong (probable) then even the most radical of proposed withdrawals are not going to be instantaneous - so at most - you are talking about starting a 2-year process in 2009-10 or 2013-14 (since we can then decide again who the president is)
Second of all - the withdrawal is going to kill many Iraqis. Just as "greeting us with flowers" was a Neoncon pipe dream, so is the supposition that the country will heal itself instantaneously once the last American is Saigon'd out. There is something to be said for the US to own up to it's mistake an attempt to fix the problem it created rather than abandoning it.
Finally - whomever the next president is, they will probably take the exquisite scalpel that is the US Military machine and inflict it on someone else. One can only hope that it would be applied in a more competent manner.
That said - it (the Iraq war) is expensive and bad for foreign policy in general, so I am inclined to leave too early rather than too late.
I don't. I think it will lead to further polarization along racial lines, especially among the less fortunate. There is a fairly substantial subset of the Obama supporters who support Obama because they expect that he will push for the restoration of preferences for African-Americans and the granting of additional preferences to minorities (never mind that there is nothing in Obama's record that suggests he'd do that).
-- MWE
Thanks for the assist Ray, demonstrates my point quite nicely.
I've lost the thread today -- haven't been able to keep up -- but I'm glad to know that I served whatever argument you were making :-)
This is wrong. The critical point is that the United States, no matter how long it stays in Iraq, will never bring stability to that country. And, since we can't afford an occupation that goes on another 5 or 10 years, let alone another 50 or 100 years, the question isn't whether we leave, but under what circumstances we leave. A two year time frame for withdrawal, during which time our Army and budget are stretched, rather than broken, is far preferable to a bankrupt, chaotic withdrawal five (or nine or fifty or a hundred) years from now. It's better for the Iraqis, and better for us.
Another parallel to Vietnam: the re-invoking of the domino theory, as applied to the persian gulf, to scare off those who want to withdraw.
personally, I'd love for the Iranians to try to intervene in Iraq. Then they'd be the ones who got in without a plan on how to get out after they realize they've bitten off way more than they can chew. That would teach those mullah ##### the dangers of promoting international terrorism.
Meh, maybe. But it's really all about the perception of a black president, rather than reality of what he accomplishes as president. If the perception becomes that he is an Uncle Tom race-traitor, yeah, I could see how that could be divisive.
Since every jurisdiction already has some method of registering voters and laws to punish them if they vote fraudulently, more obstacles add more hassle, more expense (even if "free") and more opportunities to challenge and harass people at the polls. As always, the hung-over ABD (Congratulations, Matt) says it better than anyone else:
Adding a voter ID requirement is obviously an extension of government power. Any law that requires people to do a thing is an extension of government power. The question is whether the extension of power is commensurate to and effective against the problem it exists to solve. Given, as posted above, there is no evidence of widespread fraud, I see little utility in the law (MCoA in #3028)
The system is working OK now; almost no cases of fraud get investigated, let alone prosecuted. Add a photo-ID into the mix and all you are doing is preventing more qualified people from voting by putting another stumbling block in their path. Voter-ID doesn't protect anyone's voting rights or facilitate anyone's voting.
Why do you say that, Andy? The ARVN army was a joke but Nixon got away with it anyway.
Chalk it up to one of the more positive aspects of the Vietnam syndrome, which has been reinforced by the Vietnam II known as Iraq: There will be too many people who remember Nixon's "secret plan" not to hang it around McCain's neck, and draw the analogy. Not to mention that the "Vietnamization" you allude to wasn't spelled out until after the election---all we really knew about his plan before that was that it was "secret."
And Saturday Night Live wasn't around in 1968.
All that said, it's entirely possible that McCain could frame a position on the war that would be able to convince enough voters of his gravitas that he might be able to tip the election his way. While it's true that nearly 70% of the public disapproves of the war, it's not necessarily true that they agree on much beyond that general distaste for American casualties. And there hasn't been a successful "peace" candidate since Eisenhower, who had a fair amount of gravitas of his own.
But McCain ain't gonna win them over with any "secret" plan. That bus left the station with Nixon.
That fairly substantial subset would more than likely be drowned out by a far greater number of people, including many of the less partisan Republicans, who would be rooting for him to succeed. If he makes it past November, this Wright bullshlt would quickly be relegated to the "Who Promoted Peress?" basement of the Joe McCarthy Museum, as the fear of some sort of a hidden black nationalist agenda would dissolve in about fifteen minutes.
And that doesn't even take the rest of the world into consideration, the vast majority of which is non-white, and the vast majority of which would view Obama as a breath of fresh air after the cancer of the Bush Administration. That sentiment undoubtedly rankles many Americans who resent any ferriner's passing any sort of judgment on their past electoral wisdom, but it's an indisputable fact.
And of course if you did have a loud subset of people complaining once again that Obama wasn't "black enough," I don't think that that would exactly hurt him in the long run. In fact I think he might right now be looking back on that part of his campaign with a certain amount of nostalgia.
I absolutely agree with the above statement.
The goal is to leave in whatever way/timeframe/process will cause the least further damage and suffering.
Ark, I agree with you most of the time, but this is a strawman. Who argued that we should withdraw chaotically in 5/9/50/100 years? You could at least bridge the logic gap for us and try to support the claim that the longer we wait, the more chaotic and shattered our army will be and the greater vacuum will be left behind.
One could also argue that stretching a withdrawal out from 2 years to 5 years might be better. I actually don't know - Frankly I think it's pretty fubared no matter how you slice it.
I would like to make it clear that I do not think the war in Iraq is "winnable" - just that I am not totally 100% certain that cutting and running is the best plan. Nor do I think McCain-as-president is capable of (even if he actually wishes) of forcing us to occupy Iraq for 100 years. Or 50. Or 10. And realistically, or 4. I think if McCain is elected, he will wait a year or two and see what happens. If (like many people suspect) their is no prospect of the situation improving or stablilizing with continued US presence, I think he will initiate the withdrawal, or possibly be forced by Congress. Or he'll withdraw to the East.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main