I tried to warn Megan that her earlier estimate that the Democrats were "95%+" certain to win in November was too optimistic. Now she's wisely revising that judgment. Hillary might win, but she lacks her husband's appeal. And, while she has made much of her experience in the primary, her resume pales in comparison with McCain's.
"...libertarians for Barak..."
It strikes me as very unlikely that Obama will hold a lot of appeal for libertarians or conservatives. He wants bigger government. It's that simple.
Does he seem like a nice fellow? Yes. Is he preferable to Hillary? Again, yes. But he's pushing for higher taxes, more spending and more regulation, and has been remarkably protectionist.
So those who want more freedom and less government can't support him.
MEH, I agree with you about Megan. Her "Libertarians for Barak" mantra borders on absurdity.
Lately she has been pushing for higher taxes, and criticizing both the flat-tax and the Fair Tax. Meanwhile, she rips into Ron Paul but leaves the Democrat candidates alone. And now she's backing Obama--a guy who boasts about his firm opposition to free trade.
One has to wonder, then, why does Megan insist on calling herself a libertarian?
Sorry, rwe, but there are some few of us long-time conservatives around who would take Obama in a heart-beat. McCain, or maybe Romney, would get a second look. But any of the other Republicans? Not a prayer.
Is that an ideologically-driven decision? Perhaps not. But it is a decision driven by trying to take an objective look at who has the best chance of leading the country out of the wilderness of the last 16 years.
On the one hand, Obama is relatively new and inexperienced and might be the least effective President (as in, doing little). This could be a good thing. On the other hand, he might get dominated by Congress and end up signing a bunch of bad laws.
Either way, he's hardly a Libertarian. The Democrats are almost by definition not Libertarian. Republicans can, in theory, appeal to Libertarians if they are small-government/fiscal conservatives. Unfortunately, none of the Republic front runners are that.
"Sorry, rwe, but there are some few of us long-time conservatives around who would take Obama in a heart-beat... it is a decision driven by trying to take an objective look at who has the best chance of leading the country out of the wilderness of the last 16 years."-wj
Look, if what you want is protectionism and big government, Barak Obama is a fine choice. But I don't why a libertarian or convervative would vote for him.
Is it his good looks? His oratorical prowess? It can't be his policy proposals, which are "overflowing with bad ideas," as the Cato Institute put it.
Incidentally, over the last 16 years Real GDP per capita has risen by more than a third. So maybe the wilderness ain't so bad.
Wow, I didn't know spencer was a real person worthy of a Megan_McArdle vidchat session, rather than just an internet pseudonym.
Hey, any change I could blogginghead with you, Megan_McArdle? I've got vidchat capability (MacBook) and you've seen my posts and probably have more respect for my intelligence than, say, brooksfoe, right?
Actually, rwe, what I'd really like is a government which supports the rule of law, and doesn't think that the law should be whatever the President of the moment happens to feel like doing. And one which manages to refrain from the delusion that acts for which the US prosecuted individuals for torture and other war crimes after WW II are now suddenly acceptable and not torture.
Who do you see, other than Obama and McCain, that you would be confident would do that? I sure haven't seen anyone else.
"Who do you see, other than Obama and McCain, that you would be confident would do that? I sure haven't seen anyone else."
McCain and 'rule of law' in the same post?
What about the 1st Amendment don't we understand (McCain-Feingold)?
Something tells me that by the time the (R) Convention rolls around, voters from coast-to-coast-to-coast are going to be asking that phrase that Aretha put so harmoniously: "Who's Zoomin' who?"
Just for clarity, I didn't write the post above (12:47 PM). I think it was wj. Perhaps he is trying to persuade people that I am a suffering from dementia.
Now, on McCain, I agree with some of the criticism Mark is leveling--and yet the Senator has been one of a very few in Washington tryng to hold spending down. That, combined with his honorable military service fighting Communists, persuades me to overlook his failings. "John Kerry got two Purple Hearts and never bled," Bob Dole said. McCain's service record was rather more impressive than that.
McCain is certainly better than any of the Democrats--to me at least. But enough of this.
Meanwhile, she rips into Ron Paul but leaves the Democrat candidates alone.
I believe she was being pestered on the cocktail circuit about why she wasn't supporting Ron Paul, he being a Libertarian in Republican drag. So as requested she detailed her objections to some of Paul's wacky economic proposals, and now we get "I can't believe she rips into Ron Paul and not any Democrats."
If anything, this is probably a wise choice on her part. Waiting until the field narrows a bit before continuing her promised in-depth looks at the various candidates' economic proposals has meant she hasn't had to worry about Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, Chris Dodd, or Bill Richardson (alas). If she waits until after Super Tuesday, the field should narrow even more.
Incidentally, over the last 16 years Real GDP per capita has risen by more than a third.
ROFL.
Fine print for today: "Results not typical. Your mileage may vary."
That was, indeed, me at 12:47. I have no idea how rwe's ID got on there -- but if it was my error, I apollogize.
Especially as I see the we agree on one point: McCain is the best of the Republicans on offer. On the other hand, perhaps he differs from my perception that a McCain-Obama contest in November would be a chance for the most civilized and mature election campaign we have seen in ages.
When you do Iron Chef Bloggingheads II: Crantastic Voyage could you have a shot of the finally prepared food. Last time was great fun but there was a cut right to the aftermath skipping the actual meal. A pan over all the food in its glory would be really great.
I find it appalling that you can have a civil discussion with such a person who throws around ad hominems with such abandon. Joining the Atlantic and moving to DC is really dragging you down Megan. you were classier before, but are associating with people who have no use for civility or useful debate. Yglesias, Klein, and now Ackerman.
You just sit there as he calls people with whom he disagrees psychopaths, fascists, and racists. OK so you think Giuliani is a fascist (you're now inline with Pat Buchanan...), but do you really accept people of the Left dismissing ideas like that? I mean, he could at least get the epithets right - Pipes would be a religious bigot rather than a racist, given the various ancestries of jihadis and the ancestries of the people they kill.
Truly a horrible piece and why I can't take the arguments of anyone on the Left seriously - though take the inherent danger of their actions and advocacy very seriously indeed.
Also, you need more media training! Keep your hands below your collarbone and don't use vocal pauses. Spence the logical fallacy was rocking back and forth, with a wildly vibrating camera, while you played with your hair, scratched your face, and had far to many instances of "like", "ah", and "um".
"I think McCain vs. Hillary--McCain wins."-MM
I tried to warn Megan that her earlier estimate that the Democrats were "95%+" certain to win in November was too optimistic. Now she's wisely revising that judgment. Hillary might win, but she lacks her husband's appeal. And, while she has made much of her experience in the primary, her resume pales in comparison with McCain's.
"...libertarians for Barak..."
It strikes me as very unlikely that Obama will hold a lot of appeal for libertarians or conservatives. He wants bigger government. It's that simple.
Does he seem like a nice fellow? Yes. Is he preferable to Hillary? Again, yes. But he's pushing for higher taxes, more spending and more regulation, and has been remarkably protectionist.
So those who want more freedom and less government can't support him.
rwe,
But, you mis-understand, MM is from the pro-State wing of the Libertarian partay..
btw, would you have any likely running-mates for Sr. 'Keating 5' ?
MEH, I agree with you about Megan. Her "Libertarians for Barak" mantra borders on absurdity.
Lately she has been pushing for higher taxes, and criticizing both the flat-tax and the Fair Tax. Meanwhile, she rips into Ron Paul but leaves the Democrat candidates alone. And now she's backing Obama--a guy who boasts about his firm opposition to free trade.
One has to wonder, then, why does Megan insist on calling herself a libertarian?
rwe,
this: "One has to wonder, then, why does Megan insist on calling herself a libertarian?"
may truly be one of Life's great imponderables..
though, more amazing, to me, anyways, is that so many take it, at face-value, that she is a Libertarian..
seemingly, another proof of GWB's maxim: "if you repeat it, often enough, you can catapult the propaganda.."
Sorry, rwe, but there are some few of us long-time conservatives around who would take Obama in a heart-beat. McCain, or maybe Romney, would get a second look. But any of the other Republicans? Not a prayer.
Is that an ideologically-driven decision? Perhaps not. But it is a decision driven by trying to take an objective look at who has the best chance of leading the country out of the wilderness of the last 16 years.
On the one hand, Obama is relatively new and inexperienced and might be the least effective President (as in, doing little). This could be a good thing. On the other hand, he might get dominated by Congress and end up signing a bunch of bad laws.
Either way, he's hardly a Libertarian. The Democrats are almost by definition not Libertarian. Republicans can, in theory, appeal to Libertarians if they are small-government/fiscal conservatives. Unfortunately, none of the Republic front runners are that.
"Sorry, rwe, but there are some few of us long-time conservatives around who would take Obama in a heart-beat... it is a decision driven by trying to take an objective look at who has the best chance of leading the country out of the wilderness of the last 16 years."-wj
Look, if what you want is protectionism and big government, Barak Obama is a fine choice. But I don't why a libertarian or convervative would vote for him.
Is it his good looks? His oratorical prowess? It can't be his policy proposals, which are "overflowing with bad ideas," as the Cato Institute put it.
Incidentally, over the last 16 years Real GDP per capita has risen by more than a third. So maybe the wilderness ain't so bad.
Wow, I didn't know spencer was a real person worthy of a Megan_McArdle vidchat session, rather than just an internet pseudonym.
Hey, any change I could blogginghead with you, Megan_McArdle? I've got vidchat capability (MacBook) and you've seen my posts and probably have more respect for my intelligence than, say, brooksfoe, right?
C'mon. A lady gets her hair done and none of you social inept commenters don't have the sense to compliment her.
I like you hair, Megan.
Actually, rwe, what I'd really like is a government which supports the rule of law, and doesn't think that the law should be whatever the President of the moment happens to feel like doing. And one which manages to refrain from the delusion that acts for which the US prosecuted individuals for torture and other war crimes after WW II are now suddenly acceptable and not torture.
Who do you see, other than Obama and McCain, that you would be confident would do that? I sure haven't seen anyone else.
"Who do you see, other than Obama and McCain, that you would be confident would do that? I sure haven't seen anyone else."
McCain and 'rule of law' in the same post?
What about the 1st Amendment don't we understand (McCain-Feingold)?
Something tells me that by the time the (R) Convention rolls around, voters from coast-to-coast-to-coast are going to be asking that phrase that Aretha put so harmoniously: "Who's Zoomin' who?"
Just for clarity, I didn't write the post above (12:47 PM). I think it was wj. Perhaps he is trying to persuade people that I am a suffering from dementia.
Now, on McCain, I agree with some of the criticism Mark is leveling--and yet the Senator has been one of a very few in Washington tryng to hold spending down. That, combined with his honorable military service fighting Communists, persuades me to overlook his failings. "John Kerry got two Purple Hearts and never bled," Bob Dole said. McCain's service record was rather more impressive than that.
McCain is certainly better than any of the Democrats--to me at least. But enough of this.
I believe she was being pestered on the cocktail circuit about why she wasn't supporting Ron Paul, he being a Libertarian in Republican drag. So as requested she detailed her objections to some of Paul's wacky economic proposals, and now we get "I can't believe she rips into Ron Paul and not any Democrats."
If anything, this is probably a wise choice on her part. Waiting until the field narrows a bit before continuing her promised in-depth looks at the various candidates' economic proposals has meant she hasn't had to worry about Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, Chris Dodd, or Bill Richardson (alas). If she waits until after Super Tuesday, the field should narrow even more.
ROFL.
Fine print for today: "Results not typical. Your mileage may vary."
shout out to muhammad spencer ibn akerman, allahu akbar!!!
That was, indeed, me at 12:47. I have no idea how rwe's ID got on there -- but if it was my error, I apollogize.
Especially as I see the we agree on one point: McCain is the best of the Republicans on offer. On the other hand, perhaps he differs from my perception that a McCain-Obama contest in November would be a chance for the most civilized and mature election campaign we have seen in ages.
When you do Iron Chef Bloggingheads II: Crantastic Voyage could you have a shot of the finally prepared food. Last time was great fun but there was a cut right to the aftermath skipping the actual meal. A pan over all the food in its glory would be really great.
I find it appalling that you can have a civil discussion with such a person who throws around ad hominems with such abandon. Joining the Atlantic and moving to DC is really dragging you down Megan. you were classier before, but are associating with people who have no use for civility or useful debate. Yglesias, Klein, and now Ackerman.
You just sit there as he calls people with whom he disagrees psychopaths, fascists, and racists. OK so you think Giuliani is a fascist (you're now inline with Pat Buchanan...), but do you really accept people of the Left dismissing ideas like that? I mean, he could at least get the epithets right - Pipes would be a religious bigot rather than a racist, given the various ancestries of jihadis and the ancestries of the people they kill.
Truly a horrible piece and why I can't take the arguments of anyone on the Left seriously - though take the inherent danger of their actions and advocacy very seriously indeed.
Also, you need more media training! Keep your hands below your collarbone and don't use vocal pauses. Spence the logical fallacy was rocking back and forth, with a wildly vibrating camera, while you played with your hair, scratched your face, and had far to many instances of "like", "ah", and "um".