I agree wholeheartedly. I don't know what they could possibly be thinking.

I'm going with Barr, but I have the luxury of living in New Jersey where McCain is not competitive. If I lived over in PA I'd have a much harder time avoiding a defensive McCain vote.

Obama's mild demeanor is indeed a large part of his appeal. It does cover his strong leftward lean, because it is hard to attach the word "radical" to a visual of him.

Well, it was predictable that such would happen someday. Villains don't really twirl their moustaches. This is a natural consequence of the media PR era, when impression matters more than substance. We saw much the same in the Clinton era.

The phrase "media-friendly" has two distinct meanings, but I think they overlap enormously. People who work in media like candidates who play well in their field. This only makes sense - it allows journos to collect some PR for their particular medium. A good sound-bite candidate is going to provide them with stuff they can use to do their job, which helps their sector of the industry.

Perhaps - and this would be worrisome - we elect the candidate who looks better on the screen, regardless of ideology. The movie 1984 portrayed the face of Big Brother large and intrusive, an artistic effect that works to communicate omnipresence but deceives by suggesting that tyranny will be that unsubtle and easy to spot.

CS Lewis wrote in the Prologue to The Screwtape Letters, "The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid dens of crime that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern."

Well, look at what some of the Obamacans have said: essentially, they "hope" that he will govern as a centrist (see C. Buckley). He's not given any hints that he would do so, so why the wishful thinking? I have to assume that the Libertarians are operating under th same mis-placed notions. This is doubtless why Barry has no record to speak of, the better to fool the fools among us.

A.V.I. & ginsocal

I have an honest, non-snark question for both of you: what positions of Obama's do you find to be "radical?"

I have an honest, non-snark question for both of you: what positions of Obama's do you find to be "radical?"

"I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everyone."

Will that do for starters?

Never mind his requirement that nominees for the Supreme Court are to be vetted based on how they "feel", and he intends to talk to Iran, president to "president" with no preconditions.

But that's not radical at all. Nope. Perfectly mainstream.

brian

Do you think that progressive taxation is, by definition, "radical?"

I'm not sure what you're referring to when reference how Supreme Court nominees should "feel."

With respect to Obama's position on direct diplomacy with Iran, I think you can agree or disagree its wisdom, but I do not think you can reasonably consider it "radical" given that a significant portion of foreign policy experts/officials/commentators from both Republican and Democratic administrations of the past basically agree with Obama's position.

There's an interesting clause in the Zywicki article comparing/contrasting Obama with Howard Dean: "he doesn't come across as a Howard Dean crazy type." It's an interesting comparison, because I believe Obama is the polar opposite of Howard Dean. Howard Dean governed Vermont as a centrist, balancing the budget through cheapskate policies, pro-Second Amendment. Howard Dean may talk like a radical, but he walks like a centrist. Obama, on the other hands, talks in the dulcet tones of moderation, but is at his core a hard-left radical.

Now, to answer the polite question from DND, why do I consider Obama a radical?
1. The born-alive act. He has staked out an extreme position on abortion.
2. Unafraid of defeat in Iraq. We can differ on whether toppling Saddam Hussein was a smart policy, but, once we were in, the game had changed.
3. His casual "citizen of the world" anti-Americanism. It's not just the flag pin, or failing to stand at attention for the national anthem.
4. He has managed to be even more extreme in his anti-First Amendment, anti-free speech attitude than even John McCain (one of my biggest criticisms of Sen. McCain). Criminal libel laws threatened to be enforced in Missouri. "Get in their face" in response to media criticism, and the resulting thug tactics in Chicago of Stanley Kurtz's appearance.
5. He is a misogynist, "sweetie."
6. His failure to object to the black liberation theology preachings of Rev. Wright.
7. His involvement with William Ayers on "education reform" spending the Chicago Annenberg Challenge money. I'm not talking about Obama consorting with a "domestic terrorist." I'm talking about the fact that Obama was chief executive of a project that was trying to finance radical education reform by radicalizing students, instead of teaching readin' writin' and 'rithmetic.
8. Card check unionization.

That's enough for starters. I'm not going to include his tax-n-spend policies, because he's been all over the map on that. I will admit that there's a chance that Sen. Obama is merely a canny politician, who used the radical left in Chicago as a means for advancement, like any political riser uses whoever he can as a launching pad. But we don't know. We don't know vis-a-vis Obama more than any other presidential candidate of my lifetime.

Rhodium Heart

I didn't really ask why you thought Obama was a radical. I asked what *positions* of Obama's are radical.

Most of your laundry list is so and ill-defined that they can't really be considered "positions" so, I'll disregard #'s 2-7 because they don't actually mention a policy position that Obama has espoused. If you want to discuss whether a specific policy proposal within those broad categories is "radical" I'd be happy to oblige but I'm not going to guess at what you're actually talking about.

I'll also leave #8 alone because, while I don't really agree that the position is "radical," I'll chalk that up to subjective opinion.

#1, however, is rather disingenuous. If you spend a few minutes reading something other than press releases from Jill Stanek regarding this issue, you'll see that (1) the act in question was generally acknowledged at the time of its introduction as a back-door attack on Roe v. Wade, (2) addressed a fictional scenario, and (3) did not provide protection to the infants in question to any greater degree than already provided by law. And, the fact that the bill was also opposed by the Illinois Hospital Association and the Illinois State Medical Society doesn't really support your "radical" label.

I've seen comments by a number of self identified libertarians who initially proclaim it is McCain's or the Republicans' lack of fiscal restraint that is their reason for supporting Obama, but in time it becomes apparent that at least as important is their abhorrence for anything that remotely smells of the religious right.

NTTAWWT, just that it smacks of intellectual dishonesty to costume one concern with another.

I'd just like to add my name to the list of people who are not buying Dr. dynamite's Obama approved talking points.

If you don't grasp the difference between progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth then I'm thinking your definition of 'radical' can never be met.

You have to remember that many libertarians are also radical isolationists. (See, inter alia, Ron Paul.)

I happen to be a domestic small-L libertarian who believes that it's a GOOD thing when an aggressive foreign policy, or even a war, can bring freedom to another country. Probably has something to do with coming of political age as I watched the Berlin Wall torn apart...

But many libertarians see strong foreign policy and especially the U.S. military primarily as reflections of a strong state.

Perhaps these are libertarians who came of political age during Vietnam or Iraq?

Unquestionably, a President Obama would slash our military effectiveness drastically and intervene little, if at all, in the affairs of other countries.

For me, that's a huge negative. For some libertarians, it's a huge plus.

Go figure.

Why have a number of surprising people come out for Obama? I have a theory on this.

I think it all has to do with Obama's appearance and presentation. He appears to be a successful upper-middle class lawyer. He appears and acts moderately. Several of the Obama supporters specifically noted Obama's calm and cool and unflappable presentation.

Bottom line, Obama doesn't sound or look like a raving loon.

However, he certainly has spent a hell of a lot of quality time with raving loons: Rev Wright, Father Pfleger, Bill Ayers and his lovely wife Bernardine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Frank Thomas Marshall, Marxist Professors, Structural Feminists and performance artists. Obama presents himself as a mainstream, conservatively dressed, moderately behaving American politician.

All style and nothing about the substance. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

Dr D 5:13,

You have awarded yourself the wrong degree, Doc. Philadelphia lawyer is more correct. Give yourself a big pat on the back for being the only one here able to misunderstand the Rhodium Heart 4:31 post. That takes some real talent.

"But voting for Obama is something else. He's not merely a statist, but he may be the most statist candidate who ever ran for president."

You've got some splainin' to do here, ricky? Well at least apart from that "voting for Obama is something else" part. It's something ELSE for sure.

Pardon my internet speak...WTF?

Eric, a paid "troll"?

And I trusted you because you were likable and your site was called "Classical Values" and, well? You seemed to love your dog, Coco, and no good human would NOT love all animals, particularly those who are misjudged in quite the way that pitbulls might be.

I am SAD. Sad for me and even you, eric, and all the rest of your regular readers.

Who the heck CAN we trust?

I have an honest, non-snark question for both of you: what positions of Obama's do you find to be "radical?"

Gee, "Doctor," isn't Obama's proposal that every single child in America should be conscripted into some ill-defined "national service program radical enough to be going on with?

(And please note that, unlike the Vietnam-era draft that polarized the politics of a generation, there would be no escape from the Obama Draft. In The Inevitable One's own words:

He believes that all students should serve their communities....The Obama-Biden plan sets a goal for all students to engage in service...

From p.3 of the .pdf file that I just downloaded from Obama's own campaign site; kindly note the repeated mention of all students.)

Now, I don't know quite what Obama has planned for America's children: Camp Obama, perhaps? Maybe they could pick up garbage along the highways, or empty bedpans in the retirement homes? Or he could always send them down to the sea shore with pumps to make good on his promise to slow the rise of the oceans. But this I know: if America votes in this man, America will have voted for a candidate who openly advocates forced labor.

So the question, "Doctor," is: do you believe that forced labor is a good thing?

You Libertarians are just trying to make selfishness a virtue. Ha! Aren't I clever. I can piss on you people, your heroes and your values....and you'll still vote for me!

Penny asks,

Who the heck CAN we trust?

Bill Ayers. Rev. Wright. Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid. Dr. Dynamite.

As to radical policy: Civilian Defense Corps. A 25% cut in defense spending in the middle of a war.

When intelligent Libertarians examine Barack Obama, they see his high intelligence and intellect as an asset for rational [libertarian] thinking.

Combined this with his background as a civil rights lawyer and constitutional law professor who?s favorable to voluntary, free community organization, and who as a Senator, took a daring stand against the Iraq War ? it becomes easy to see that Barack Obama is more ?libertarian? than not.

McCain is highly ?pro-war which would mean at least another four ?Bush Years?

By voting for Barr, it would be a truly dangerous wasted voted this year, after all he?s NOT going to win. And wasted votes helped Bush win two terms.

Obama is the best candidate to work on four top libertarian reforms:

1) Iraq withdrawal
2) restoring the separation of church and state
3) easing off victimless crimes such as drug use
4) curtailing the Patriot Act.

Libertarians living in the real world know that Bob Barr is an ex-CIA Republican and on that basis is questionable as a ?Libertarian?.

Because he?s spend most of his political career as a rather right-wing conservative Republican many long-time Libertarians don?t see him as a ?real? Libertarian.

And gangs of these hostile right-wing conservative Republican have infiltrated the Libertarian Party over the years pushing out long-time Libertarians and founders.

Well this hostile LP take-over is not easily forgotten and well, as a backlash, I can see a lot of Libertarians wanting to get Republicans out of power.

And the best way to do this is by voting for Obama and a straight Democratic ticket.

When intelligent Libertarians examine Barack Obama, they see his high intelligence and intellect as an asset for rational [libertarian] thinking.

Combined this with his background as a civil rights lawyer and constitutional law professor who's favorable to voluntary, free community organization, and who as a Senator, took a daring stand against the Iraq War, it becomes easy to see that Barack Obama is more "libertarian" than not.

McCain is highly pro-war which would mean at least another four expensive "Bush-like War Years"

By voting for Barr, it would be a truly dangerous wasted voted this year, after all he's NOT going to win. And wasted votes helped Bush win two terms.

Obama is the best candidate to work on four top libertarian reforms:

1) Iraq withdrawal
2) restoring the separation of church and state
3) easing off victimless crimes such as drug use
4) curtailing the Patriot Act.

Libertarians living in the real world know that Bob Barr is an ex-CIA Republican and on that basis is questionable as a "Libertarian".

Because he's spend most of his political career as a rather right-wing conservative Republican many long-time Libertarians don't see him as a "real" Libertarian.

And gangs of these hostile right-wing conservative Republican have infiltrated the Libertarian Party over the years pushing out long-time Libertarians and founders.

Well this hostile LP take-over is not easily forgotten and well, as a backlash, I can see a lot of Libertarians wanting to get Republicans out of power.

And the best way to do this is by voting for Obama and a straight Democratic ticket.

Weird? someone must have read and copied my blog posting from my blogspot or another site.

ufxba ewgvao qcty dnilers ylfhv nczeqaxbo nwjxfeymb

ufxba ewgvao qcty dnilers ylfhv nczeqaxbo nwjxfeymb

ufxba ewgvao qcty dnilers ylfhv nczeqaxbo nwjxfeymb

just4-sex.com provides you with natural products including penis enlargement pills and penis enhancement products.
We are a "TOP RATED" health and herb online store for penis enlargement pills and guarantee 100% Customer Satisfaction.
Here you will find the finest natural health supplements products, the best service, selection and low cost, worldwide Delivery.
http://www.just4-sex.com guarantee you will benefit from our natural and herbal supplements specially made for your needs