Category: Uncategorized

Jeanne writes: Bush will lose to a Kerry/Edwards ticket. I am going to say that the conservatives and libertarians are screwed. They are not enough of them to make an difference on there own. Because of Bush’s big government tendencies and the resulting loss of his conservative base, we unfortunately are going to be stuck with John Kerry. As I have argued before, lose any notion that somehow a Kerry administration with a Republican Congress will somehow be better. That is extremely illogical. We may not spend as much as the federal level, but in every other area regarding societla issues, we will have liberalism at its best (and therefore scariest) unleashed.

Sometimes the logic is more complicated than you might think. As it turns out, history shows that a Clinton hamstrung by a Republican Congress worked out rather better than George Delano. For that matter, Clinton with a Democratic House worked out better than the three-headed Republican monster. Here’s the basic point: libertarians don’t care if it’s George Delano or John Francois screwing the country. In fact, seeing it done in the name of conservative Republicanism only makes it more unpalatable. If the car goes over the cliff at 200 MPH or 30 MPH, it’s still going over the cliff.

I’m not sacrificing my principles for a slower car crash.

Randy Barnett posts in NRO’s Corner: It seems to ordinary folks like my Dad that Bush has completely abandoned all conservative/libertarian principles on the domestic front. If the White House does not wake up and realize the damage it has already done by triangulating, it will indeed undercut Bush’s chance to survive to fight the war in a second term. Any single transgression can be explained away but the sum total cannot. For example, the problem with the campaign-finance bill is not that it was a bad bill. It is that it was unconstitutional and Bush ran against the bill–then flipped. The problem with the education bill is not just that it was written by Ted Kennedy, but that it abandoned the principles of reform that the President campaigned on–then flipped. Ditto the prescription-drug bill–another flip. “Compromised” away were the principles that made candidate Bush better than Al Gore for many who voted for him.

I am not sure what the White House can do about this at this late date. Complaining about conservative/libertarian complaints will not get it done. Ask Bush I. Conservative/libertarian pundits are merely the messenger.

There is, of course, the official Republican Party response. Put your hands over your ears and chant “Na na na, Kerry is worse.” I don’t find that the least bit convincing. If worry about the undeclared and unconstitutional war is your only hang-up, remember that plenty of Democratic presidents have won wars too. Kerry even voted for it. I still believe Bush will win, however, thanks to the Massachusetts court and the “marriage” issue.

Mogambo snarls: according to a report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics released last week, the average salary a U.S. worker can expect to make has dropped from $44,570 to $35,410 since 2001. Fabulous. People are making less money. I can’t WAIT to hear how the government weenies put a positive spin on THAT!

Wages dropping while inflation spirals. Yeah, I don’t think this plan of run the economy at Warp 9 until November is working so well. But then, you couldn’t really expect much, considering that one of the members of his Council of Economic Advisors has a dog named Keynes.

Now, if the guy had named his toilet paper after John Maynard, I’d have some hope.

I did a little research on Gary Nolan, Michael Badnarik, and Aaron Russo, three of the Libertarian candidates competing for the nomination. I hope to speak with each of them before making an endorsement. I have no qualms, however, about saying that each of these three men are VASTLY superior to either George Delano or John Kerry. I’d summarize my impression of their positions on the issues as based on their web sites as follows:

Gary Nolan: organized and articulate, sincere but appears to be somewhat of a comparative lightweight where the deeper issues are concerned. Has a blog of sorts, so he’s got Doug’s vote sewn up.

Aaron Russo: multi-talented dilettante. If elected, could be the only President to get bored halfway through his second term and resign. You’ve got to like that. Definitely a citizen-legislator sort. Rock solid on the issues.

Michael Badnarik: thoughtful, probably the most seriously intellectual. I liked his willingness to address abortion as well as his honesty in how he came to reach his position. Focused strongly on the highest priority issues.

At this point, I’d say that I’m leaning towards Mr. Badnarik, who appears to be cut from the same economically aware, highly principled cloth as Ron Paul. I encourage you to check out all three of their sites. However, I warn Republicans, it can be a little depressing to read these candidates on the issues and then realize that you’ve got George Delano leading the charge for the GOP, such as it is.

Since interest in the Libertarian Party appears to be growing, here’s where and how to join the party.

*Yes, I’ll be providing similar information on the Constitution Party this week too.

From the Washington Times: Episcopal Church officials yesterday announced a $3 million shortfall in the church’s 2004 budget, caused chiefly by parishes and dioceses withholding funds to protest the ordination of a homosexual bishop. The shortfall equals 6 percent of the $48 million in revenue the church had expected this year. Church officials, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times, have revised the budget to $45.1 million.

I’m only surprised that it isn’t more than that. Of course, they only went off the rails in November. Over the course of the next year, that 6 percent would compute to a 36 percent drop. Since I know some very unhappy Episcopalians who plan to leave but haven’t found their new church yet, I suspect it may be even more.

The Fleckmeister writes: …the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), whose job it is to compute the Gross Domestic Product each quarter, has “stopped reporting the real computer hardware shipment figure used to calculate real GDP growth, though it is still used in GDP calculations.” The BEA, which is part of the Commerce Department, made this readjustment because it is “concerned the rapid price declines for computers made the figures misleading.” Let’s stop and review the bidding for a second. Remember: GDP is the measure of goods and services produced in this country. The government decided that certain of its data series involved in calculating GDP were misleading. So, what did it do? Simply stop breaking them out. Makes sense to me; how about you?

Better yet, the government has decided to begin applying hedonic calculations to health care costs as well. So, you see, health care isn’t actually more expensive even if it costs you more to go to the doctor’s office than it does to rent an apartment, because the care is better. Doesn’t that make you feel good? Maybe you aren’t going anymore because you can’t afford it now, but if you did have enough money to pay for it, it would actually be cheaper because the quality is higher.

Hedonic calculations may sound superficially logical, but they are nothing more than a smokescreen designed to hide inflation.

AW responds to today’s column: “Indeed, one wonders that women have sex at all after plodding one’s way through this morass of marital misery.” Because it’s the surest and simplest way to pay for your meal ticket if you have no other talents or skills. As my first wife once said to me, “I don’t enjoy sex with you, I’ve never enjoyed sex with you, and now that I’ve got two kids, a house, and a new car, I don’t have to fake it any longer.”

“Perhaps women have been spoiled by a lifetime of freely saying things to others that would have earned a man doing the same a black eye.” Backed up by legal system that operates on the principle, “First, handcuff the man.” Never mind saying the most venomous things without fear of reprisal, even if she’s throwing crockery (see wife 1.0 again), it’s the man’s fault. The wonder is that more men don’t say “forget this” and decide to turn gay. Or maybe this explains the remarkable strides made by a certain agenda in the last decade…

“People… who don’t need people… are the ha-a-appiest people.”

– Dilbert

Someone asked who is in the running for the Libertarian nomination. I only know who one of the candidates is. I’m going to look into that and into the Constitution Party’s nominee and make a primary endorsement for both.

We apologize for the shoddy service.

John Podhoretz writes: As a frustrated White House official told me last week, everything the president has done to anger conservatives arises from proposals he made while he was running for president in 2000. They accepted his advocacy of the proposals then, so why are they complaining now? He did not run for president as a small-government conservative, and yet they backed him to the hilt four years ago. So why the enmity today?

It’s a good question, and a sobering one. Recall that conservatives backed Bush in 2000 without knowing just how dreadfully he and this nation would be challenged by the events of 9/11 and their aftermath. They supported him, in other words, when he was merely promising to be a big-spending conservative. The president they got turned into a great wartime leader, and now some conservatives are griping about how he is actually fulfilling some of the promises they were willing to overlook when they wanted to back a winner four years ago.

Yeah, see this is precisely why some of us on the Right didn’t vote for him then. And it’s why we won’t vote for him in 2004. What I’d like to know is why no one ever lies when they run for office and then governs to the Right of their campaign promises.

GNC writes: blah blah blah…if you believe in what you say, why dont you go and teach a group or middle school boys how to deal with their change bodies…what a windbag you are.

Not really hysteria as per (4), but the spelling grammatical errors suffice, especially with just a dash of (3) thrown in for spice.

UPDATE: We finally got our long almost entirely pointless rant about (1) women not respecting men, but it’s both too long and too uninteresting to bother posting. Still nothing on (2) though. Hmmm.