Another US Election Question

Who are the libertarians nominating this time - Harry Browne again?

Not voting or voting LPUSA are just about the only choices for someone who doesn't like Dubya for those reasons and doesn't like Kerry.

1) appease the religious right by taking strong positions in the cultural wars, but...

2) not allienate the old-school conservatives who are more interested in tax-cuts and fiscal conservativism (I have no idea how these coincide, but whatever).

If he loses either of these elements in the Republican base, he is probably in trouble.

I seriously don't know what I'll do voting-wise when November comes up. I suppose I might just cast my vote for the Libertarian party candidate, unless that person makes absolutely no sense to me. Out of all the political parties operating in the U.S., the Libertarians make the most sense to me, even though I think they're a bit too irresponsible. And just because they make the most sense to me, that doesn't mean they'll be the right solution for me. You see, I think the Libertarians are so gung ho on getting government out of every single aspect of human life that it sometimes feels as though they're just a bunch of overgrown little brats who dislike authority to the point where they want it completely gone from their lives, and I was raised to respect authority, even if I disagree with them. I will never get to the point where I want to reject all authority, and that is why I will never be comfortable with the Libertarians, even if what they stand for fits me more than the Democrats, Republicans, "Independents", Socialists, Greens, and "Constitutionalists" combined.

Fuck, the U.S. political system needs a "make better" badly, and not the kind that the "Queer Eye" fab five can deliver.

Please vote for Kerry. He may not be the ideal president for you, but I strongly feel that America would be better off with Kerry than Bush.

Ha. That's the same sort of twisted, stalkerish, "Be My Icon"ish Duranieism that I find wholly disgusting and something that would cause me to slit my wrists if I thought I was even coming close to approaching. Unless you were just kidding, in which case -- ha ha, ok, I certainly will. ;)

Debito (and please call me Dee), I was an active supporter of the Republican party for about ten years. It's only been within the last six months that I've stopped being an active supporter, and it's only been within the last month that I've been able to view the ABC World News Tonight on at least a semi-regular basis. It's taken me a lot of thinking to be able to arrive to this point. Don't worry, though. I will be looking at each candidate as impartially as I can and trying to figure out which one would fit me best. Seriously.

("hugh" -- *laughs*. My own personal reasons. Though I'm starting to warm up to him.)

The bipartisanship of the '90s Legislature (which for all intents and purposes consisted of Dems and Reps getting together to screw the little guy, so it wasn't exactly something to praise highly) can be pinned on Bob Bullock when he was in office. Even David Dewhurst kept things 'united' until Perry and the far-right forced his hand on redistricting.

I'm still pissed about Bush screwing the people of Arlington out of a few hundred million dollars, though.

But voting for the candidate from the party of Ann Coulter was okay in 2000? I'm sorry, your political rationalizations display a startling naivete, but at least it seems as though the wool has been pulled from your eyes, just a bit.

I don't get the Peter Jennings thing either - what is wrong with Jennings? DU is out of control, but you know, I don't think everyone in the Republican Party is to be held accountable for, say, the turn-the-Middle-East-into-a-sheet-of-glass crowd over at LGF.

Not to mention, just for instance, Haley Barbour's friends in the nu-KKK. I've never looked at Democratic Underground, but from what I've heard about it it sounds like the left version of Free Republic. I don't get the Jennings thing, either, but never mind that. What I'm really interested in is the Franken thing - what exactly about him don't you like? I'll bet if you spent a week, or at least a day or two, listening to his radio show, you'd probably hear a lot of whatever it is that turns you off, but you'd also hear some things that would surprise you and give you a very different perspective on him.

I thought the GOP had more of a problem with Dan Rather than that Canuck.

(Bush currently at 44%- according to CBS and Gallup.)

yeah, Jennings isn't much of a left-winger (though not a right-winger either), except on Israel, I thought.

wow, and I wasn't even trying that time, too. I just honestly didn't understand Deanna's rationalizations.

http://images.airamericaradio.com/images/FE/chain128siteType8/site70/show4_bucket_image.gif

.. I'm able to turn off the sound before she starts talking, thankfully.

Not to pander, but otm. In related news, some who have supported Bush now turn to Kerry.

From CBS News's Who's Who site:

A consultant for Giuliani Partners, Kerik has been on assignment in Iraq, where he is dubbed the "Baghdad Terminator" for his no-nonsense style in rebuilding the city's police force.

I'd say he's done a bang-up job.

(but not enough to watch too closely when their friends try to take unfair advantage of that market at the margin of regulation)

This is hardly the exclusive territory of Republicans.

Well, it's, as usual, a hastily-composed phrase, but generally the predictability interest dictates a preeminent desire for an economy in which, on the whole, investors can expect to rely upon what they are told about return, and actors can expect to rely upon what they are told is permissible.

This is hardly the exclusive territory of Republicans.

and yet, you would not deny that, as a general matter, Republicans favor less market regulation than Democrats?

I'd love to wholeheartedly agree, but in practice the Republicans as a whole have happily increased regulation since 1994 (and many signed off on Democratic initiatives for the decades preceding this era.) So yeah, I'd say the Republicans like to say they do not favor regulations, but when the rubber hits the road they pave it with more rules.

As for predictable market economies, your explanation isn't all that fulfilling but understandable. Much more troubling is your attribution of this interest to either Republicans or Libertarians--who in the market does not desire stability and predictability? In fact, heavily regulated economies do not necessarily produce significantly more stability because of a lack of concert in the world economy. "Just enough" is far too vague and in reality, subject to so much interpretation that it seems meaningless to me. I think I know what you were trying to say though.