Thursday, October 30, 2008
Obama for President
Tom Smith
After some thought which I concede has not been all that deep, I have decided to announce that I support Senator Obama for President. I have been inspired to take this step, which I know some of my readers will find shocking and disappointing, by the several other famous conservatives and/or libertarians who have thrown their backing to the Senator from the Land of Lincoln. Allow me to explain.
https://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2008/10/obama-for-president-tom-smith.html
Comments
Check out this map of the ideological distribution of Obama, McCain, Hillary, and Bush.
http://www.singularity2050.com/2008/05/us-ideological.html
See who is really at the center.
Posted by: Tom | Oct 30, 2008 5:27:16 PM
I sense that you're not really an enthusiastic supporter.
Posted by: Benson | Oct 30, 2008 5:31:15 PM
LOL! I love satire, intentional or not.
Hey, if you could get me and academic position, I'd really appreciate it. I have a master's degree, and I understand there's no real work involved... which makes me ask, why would you want a second no-work "job"?
Posted by: Hucbald | Oct 30, 2008 5:32:01 PM
Honestly, Tom, you'll never miss that frontal lobe. And doesn't the world seem so much warmer and cozier now? At least until a Republican walks by.
Posted by: Mister Snitch | Oct 30, 2008 5:46:21 PM
Not sure how serious this is but reading the stuff over at "Reason" (those are irony quotes) solidifies my total disenchantment with libertarianism. With a straight face they all trumpet the blessings of the One. If it weren't for the likes of them, I'd take this as satire. Because of them, I wonder . . . and I wonder why libertarianism prostitutes itself to the likes of the Democrats.
Posted by: rrr | Oct 30, 2008 5:49:29 PM
The clocks aren't striking 13 just yet. We need an ad with Joe the Plummer throwing a wrench into a screen with Obama and Biden talking about wealth spreading and the proper way to pay your taxes (FYI, it's patriotically and without any backtalk).
Posted by: frege | Oct 30, 2008 5:51:42 PM
Boy, What some people do to avoid the re-education camps.
Posted by: Winston Smith II | Oct 30, 2008 6:03:04 PM
You can come over later and we can get baked and maybe watch O vids. I mean, I'm libertarian but I'm voting O because those Christians freak me out and are prolly gonna take our weed away and whatever.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | Oct 30, 2008 6:10:23 PM
you sound happier than Homer Simpson with a Soma donut.
mmm... donuts...
Posted by: mezzrow | Oct 30, 2008 6:12:02 PM
Let's hear from the "Fab Four":
Here comes the sun king
Here comes the sun king
Everybody's laughing
Everybody's happy
Here comes the sun king
Gotta deny-a racist-a sermon of Reverend Wright
"People" paparazzi take-a photo of Michelle
Obama charge-a more donations on-a Visa infomercial
Posted by: MarkJ | Oct 30, 2008 6:15:00 PM
You and this article illustrate perfectly why libertarians cannot come into their own as a political force -- and that reason goes far beyond "bad eclecticism," as it was once politely called.
Let us make no mistake: I loathe the politics of John McCain with all my heart and soul, but there is absolutely no comparison between these two, and nothing in the world could induce any true defender of liberty to throw in with a stated neo-Marxist, black nationalist, racist piece of shit, who believes, among other things, that "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.... didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution ... that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties ... says what the states can't do to you ... says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government MUST do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted, and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change...."
That you, pal, will throw in with someone who holds those conviction, and yet still call yourself a "libertarian" is an absolute joke.
At the very least, John McCain is not statedly anti-American -- let alone proudly so, like the brutal horse you and your "libertarian" buddies are backing.
You say "I have been inspired to take this step"
"Inspired" is certainly a curious choice of words.
You say "which I know some of my readers will find shocking and disappointing"
Try "embarrassing."
You say "Allow me to explain."
That's alright. There's really no need. You'd actually just be wasting your breath, because you've already said it all in your choice. And that choice is the reason libertarianism will labor endlessly under its disreputable chains.
Give you people enough rope, you hang yourselves every time.
Posted by: Thin king man | Oct 30, 2008 6:41:58 PM
You and this article illustrate perfectly the reason that libertarians cannot come into their own as a political force -- and that reason goes far beyond "bad eclecticism," as it was once politely called.
Let us make no mistake: I loathe the politics of John McCain with all my heart and soul, but there is absolutely no comparison between these two, and nothing in the world could induce any true defender of liberty to throw in with a stated neo-Marxist, black nationalist, racist piece of shit, who believes, among other things, that "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.... didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution ... that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties ... says what the states can't do to you ... says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government MUST do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted, and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change...."
That you, pal, will throw in with someone who holds those conviction, and yet still call yourself a "libertarian" is an absolute joke.
At the very least, John McCain is not statedly anti-American -- let alone proudly so, like the brutal horse you and your "libertarian" buddies are backing.
You say "I have been inspired to take this step"
"Inspired" is certainly a curious choice of words.
You say "which I know some of my readers will find shocking and disappointing"
Try "embarrassing."
You say "Allow me to explain."
That's alright. There's really no need. You'd actually just be wasting your breath, because you've already said it all in your choice. And that choice is the reason libertarianism will labor endlessly under its disreputable chains.
Give you people enough rope, you hang yourselves every time.
Posted by: Thin king man | Oct 30, 2008 6:45:29 PM
This makes perfect sense. Libertarians trust to the invisible hand of self-interest to set things right. As a libertarian, you SHOULD be concerned with your own self-interests and let everyone else worry about theirs. Thus voting for someone who gives you money makes perfect sense.
Republicans should also vote for Obama. Everyone knows that Republicans are primarily interested in making money. What better way to acquire money than to have someone give it to you?
Democrats, I shouldn't have to mention, will no doubt vote for Obama several times. Consider the rewards they shall receive. (You may want to change parties and think: why suffer from a Libertarian stigma that you can not possibly parley into victim status?)
Greens, Socialists, Communists, Methodists, Cut-throats, and Bull-Dykes all have something to gain, that being primarily a government check, from an Obama administration.
This is a beautiful thing, as you may have a little nuisance altruistic side to yourself that can be satisfied by the hope that everyone will get that change they deserve. If anything is self-evident, it is that Cash is King. Audacious!
Posted by: Dave from Nashville (Go 'Dores!) | Oct 30, 2008 6:51:08 PM
From Lincoln's First Inaugural:
At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Are you sure you want to do this? Lining up with James Wolcott?
Posted by: Stan Morris | Oct 30, 2008 7:04:35 PM
" I can no longer afford a trip to Israel anyway and I assume pictures of it will be archived on the internet."
Don't worry, the Ministry of Truth will delete all evidence that such a place called "Israel" ever existed.
You too will soon say things like "Israel? Is that a type of sandwich?"
Posted by: mockmook | Oct 30, 2008 7:07:48 PM
Uh, comment just disappears.
Can't you have a screen come up that tells us where it is: Moderation, Rejected, Deleted, whatever?
Posted by: mockmook | Oct 30, 2008 7:10:51 PM
Hey, you can flap around like a flag in the wind if you don't have any principles. I'm sure that's peaceful, too.
Posted by: TRO | Oct 30, 2008 7:39:32 PM
It is good you are getting with the program, comrade.
Comrade Obama will be pleased if you follow the example of His life and eliminate SAT's and LSAT's from the academic tyranny. Obamaviously unnecessary.
Posted by: james wilson | Oct 30, 2008 8:17:45 PM
Thank you Tom!
You'll see "BarryD" quite a bit over in the Comments on the Reason "Who will you vote for?" piece.
I tried to ask what a libertarian would see in Obama. I don't think I ever got an answer, thought I got a lot of moonbat-style reactions, you know, a lot of heat with zero light and nothing that answered the question. I did get someone who said "Transparency", so I asked why they believed that someone who has been as secretive as Obama, and who has tried to use legal action to silence his critics, would support transparency when in office. His answer? The bill Obama co-sponsored with Coburn. When I responded that McCain was a co-sponsor of the same bill, so I still wanted to know why that would weigh in Obama's favor, I got... crickets.
Thanks again, Tom. At least now I can smile about this stuff (though my contemplated subscription to Reason won't be happening).
My theory... Look at the geographic locations of the Obama libertarians. They live in Obama-land. This supports the assertion that's come up a lot lately: voting correlates with geography. Looks like a libertarian in LA, Chicago or DC will vote for a socialist, just like all their neighbors.
Megan McArdle keeps pointing out things about Obama that for me would be showstoppers, then follows up with "but I still support Obama." WHY? Shit, nobody HAS to vote for ANYONE.
Thanks for confirming that at least SOME libertarians still think for themselves, Tom. Thank you!
Barry
Posted by: BarryD | Oct 30, 2008 8:30:11 PM
Thank you Tom!
You'll see "BarryD" quite a bit over in the Comments on the Reason "Who will you vote for?" piece.
I tried to ask what a libertarian would see in Obama. I don't think I ever got an answer, thought I got a lot of moonbat-style reactions, you know, a lot of heat with zero light and nothing that answered the question. I did get someone who said "Transparency", so I asked why they believed that someone who has been as secretive as Obama, and who has tried to use legal action to silence his critics, would support transparency when in office. His answer? The bill Obama co-sponsored with Coburn. When I responded that McCain was a co-sponsor of the same bill, so I still wanted to know why that would weigh in Obama's favor, I got... crickets.
Thanks again, Tom. At least now I can smile about this stuff (though my contemplated subscription to Reason won't be happening).
My theory... Look at the geographic locations of the Obama libertarians. They live in Obama-land. This supports the assertion that's come up a lot lately: voting correlates with geography. Looks like a libertarian in LA, Chicago or DC will vote for a socialist, just like all his/her neighbors do. Priority one: don't jeopardize cred with the cool kids.
Megan McArdle keeps pointing out things about Obama that for me would be showstoppers, then follows up with "but I still support Obama." WHY? Shit, nobody HAS to vote for ANYONE.
Thanks for confirming that at least SOME libertarians still think for themselves, Tom. Thank you!
(Sadly, you've also demonstrated that some libertarians don't get jokes. But I guess we already knew that.)
Barry
Posted by: BarryD | Oct 30, 2008 8:39:36 PM
I'd call this "Buckleyesque", but it's the night before Halloween, and I'm afraid the original eponym would rise up and do something to me even creepier than his son's endorsement.
Posted by: bgates | Oct 30, 2008 5:24:17 PM