I disagree with her assesment that there's so little difference between them, but let's for the sake of discussion, assume it's accurate and argue on tha basis.

At that assumption, there's only two questions by which we can make the choice:

1: Whose word we trust more.... (Bush, hands down, given Kerry's continual flip-flopping)

2: Who will be better at the WOT (Bush, hands down.)

And for 50 extra points, here's the bonus round: If there's so little difference between them, why are the Democrats so desperate?

Libertarians should advocate electoral reform. The reason we get 2 bad choices is because plurality elections only work when you have only 2 choices.

The 2 choices are always bad because they know you only have one alternative, and so they use every opportunity to steal votes here and there from the other side, knowing that their base is still stuck with them (witness Bush on the steel tariffs).

Condorcet, Approval, and IRV would all be huge improvements over this.

Ah, we like to think so. We tend to forget that while proportional representation would give us more power, it would give equal amounts of power to the folks who oppose us. It won't do libertarians much good to get a seat at the table if Uncle Ralph and Cousin Pat have seats at the other end.

The problem libertarians have isn't politicians, and it isn't the structure of the government; it's that the majority of voters don't agree with us. There's no good shortcut to convincing them, slowly and painfully, that we're right.

George W. Bush is the lesser of evils. I've been saying that for a long time. The President has wimped out continuously on free trade. He is no economic libertarian. I'm just convinced that John Kerry would be far worse. Lastly, this next election should focus primarily on the war on terrorism. This is still the number one issue. In that case, President Bush stomps all over Kerry, the proven foreign policy wimp.

I really disagree on the point that there is little difference between Bush and Kerry. Bush's spending seems to have the purpose of bribing the other side. The steel tariffs came and went. The Medicare prescription drug bill had medical savings accounts attached to it. No child left behind supports school choice. He supports things seek to give some decision making power to the individual, which is something that John Kerry would never do. On the issue of taxes, Bush is following the Friedman approach which has concluded that the only way to exert any control over federal spending is to take away the money. While Kerry and company were salivating over that huge surplus, Bush snatched it away from them. Bush is definitely our guy.

Libertarians don't need election reform. They need to become part of and exert pressure on the Republican party. Over the past 30 years I've noticed a significant movement from left to right. By aligning with the Republicans the libertarians can maintain that rightward trend.

I think that Megan misses a significant practical difference between the candidates (from a libertarian perspective): divided government. IMO the main reason that libertarians should vote for Kerry.

"The problem libertarians have isn't politicians, and it isn't the structure of the government; it's that the majority of voters don't agree with us. There's no good shortcut to convincing them, slowly and painfully, that we're right."

Bravo! That's one of the most honest comments about politics that I have ever read. It's refreshing for someone to acknoledge that their side loses, not because of some cosmic conspiracy as liberals and conservatives seem to thing, but because the voters don't like their positions. I sure wish more people would acknowledge that and work on persuading the voters rather than whining about brainwashing by a liberal or conservative media.

You are not libertarians. You are INDEPENDENTS.

Wow. Kerry may not be a very good choice, but I'm astounded by those who continue to operate under the deluded impression that there is no difference between either candidate.

The outcome of this election could be detrimental to civil liberties if Bush wins. Then again, if we forfeit our freedoms there'd be nothing for the terrorists to hate about us, right? So maybe that's the way to end the war on terror, re-elect Bush.

Larry M,

Let me get this straight: we should vote for Kerry because he and his fellow Democrats have failed to convince a sufficient number of fellow voters to give them a majority in either congressional chamber? Isn't that a bit like rewarding the biggest losers with the grand prize? Sorry, you'll have to come up with a better rationale for me to pull the lever.

I'm with Jane on the fatal flaws of proportional representation. In essence, we have much the same give and take between interest groups that occurs BETWEEN parties in some countries happening here WITHIN parties. That means that, tedious as it is, the national parties need to pay more attention to local politics and the care and feeding of littlewigs (and here the Republicans are better than the Dems in most places most of the time).

Frankly, if libertarians want to convert more people to their side they need to steal back the heart of their platform (small government, low taxes, personal responsibility) from the Right, which absconded with it many years hence and used it to justify a smash and grab of biblical proportions.

We might start by pointing out to Bush II that deliberatly bankrupting the treasury in order to shrink government some years down the line is not a fiscally prudent scheme. There's much more that could be said about Bush's problems, but that still leaves me with the unpalatable Boston Brahmin. Yeck. Could be sitting this one out in November.

The problem libertarians have isn't politicians, and it isn't the structure of the government; it's that the majority of voters don't agree with us.

You can say the same thing about smaller-government conservativism in general. If Bush actually reduced government spending comensurate with his tax cuts, he'd be voted out of office pronto. But as long as the money's available to borrow, hey, no problemo, just put it on the credit card. Of course this is irresponsible and unsustainable, but what does he care?

I'm continually astounded how conservatives can sit on their hands and watch as the budget deficit grows in an out of control manner with no end in sight. Suddenly, deficits don't matter. What gives?

Other than Starve-the-Beast adherents, does anybody really support this non-sustainable borrow and spend model? (and please spare me the rose colored glasses projections that show the deficit abating in the future - we've all seen by experience that these numbers are as phony as Enron's balance sheet - the 2005 budget doesn't even include funding for Iraq - DOH!.)

Clinton balanced the budget (with help from the Republican congess - credit where credit is due) because he believes government can make a positive difference and that in order to make a positive difference it actually has to work. Long term financial stability is essential for any enterprise to function, government or otherwise.

The Bush crowd just doesn't seem to care.

1) In my opinion, Megan McArdle and Ralph Nader are (a) a pack of morons too stupid to have an opinion, (b) a pack of liars or (c) both

2) I don't like John Kerry -- I think he's spineless and can't tell you what time it is without 20 qualifiers. Nonetheless, we're stuck with him. As a NRA member and a charter subscriber to Pat Buchanan's "American Conservative", I would have preferred Howard Dean.
However, S Daniel Abraham, a Jewish American plutocrat heavily involved in Middle Eastern policy, tossed in $100,000 to blow Dean away in the Iowa primary -- after Dean suggested to Joe Lieberman that the US policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian issue should be more evenhandled.

I believe in "a new broom sweeps clean". The Republicans have dominated all three branches of government for the past three years -- and the Supreme Court and Congress since around 1994. We have seen the results -- they should be obvious to all but the mentally retarded, the corrupt, and those who are terminally compulsive buttkissers to the rich.

Pace Megan McArdle, Bush is dumping $3.8 Trillion in new debt onto the 61 million households who can pay -- an amount equal to $70,000/household.
That's on top of the roughly $60,000 /household dumped on us by Reagan and Bush1 (remember the "free market" advocates crying for the $500 billion Savings and Loan bailout back in 1988?)
Maybe Megan is too stupid to realize it , but she owes that money as well as I -- and no bill collector gives a hairy rodent's posterior about bullshit myths that the the liberitarians sprout. Any future government WILL collect that debt -- whether it be Democrat, Republican, Liberitarian, or Communist. It may collect it by welshing on the IOUs Bush has given to our Social Security accounts. It may collect it by heavy taxes on our 401Ks/IRAs. But it will collect -- although, like any loan shark, it will let us pay heavy interest for a while.

Megan also seems too stupid to realize that Bush has created a "Department of Homeland Security" -- a damm facist term if I ever heard one. He claims --contrary to the COnstitution --that he has the right to throw any American CITIZEN into a Navy brig for years --with no hearings or legal representation. This from a President elected by an NRA leadership claiming --correctly -- that widespread ownership of unregistered firearms is a constitutional bulwark against a tyrannical federal government. You haven't noticed Charleton Heston waving an obsolete flintlock around lately , have you? The cries of "From my cold dead hands" have also died away. And while the sales of registered firearms remain brisk at the gun shows, I've noticed that all those useful manuals -- "Improvised munitions handbook",etc. -- have disappeared.

Ralph Nader, meanwhile, is senile loser who thinks that helping elect Bush --so that Bush could steal $Trillions from Social Security and Medicare -- is a blow for the Progressive cause.
News flash to Ralph -- that $2+ Trillion to the rich ain't coming back. The Fifth Amendment prohibits a tax on wealth --which means the poorest 40% of our population will suffer for decades from Ralph's massive ego trip. Another news flash for Ralph: In effect, there's not a sliver of daylight between Ralph and pathetic sellouts like Zell Miller.

Finally, maybe Megan could explain to us how Bush's spending of $450+ billion/year to create a global empire for Cheney's business buddies is part of the liberitarian philosophy.

I can understand people favoring a policy approach different from what I might support. But when people like Megan spew out idiotic gibberish totally divorced from the facts or reality -- why do Daniel Drezner and Glenn Reynolds link to them and solemnly intone "Indeed"?

I can see where a real, thoroughgoing libertarian would find it difficult to see either Bush or Kerry as a champion. But libertarianism as a comprehensive ideology is pretty much a dead end anyway.

There are specific situations (e.g. environmental regulations and air traffic control) in which libertarian-influenced ideas might be of real use, and personally I would welcome help from any quarter in fighting the inertia that keeps government programs rolling along after they have outlived their usefulness. Perhaps libertarians should evaluate the candidates based on their willingness to incorporate specific libertarianish ideas like cap-and-trade emissions schemes into their list of proposed policies for the next four years.

That's not too exciting either, I suppose. But Megan McArdle is quite right; libertarians are a small minority. Not only that, but they aren't very good at agreeing with one another as to what libertarianism is or in what policy areas it is most important. If I were a politician I wouldn't pay too much attention to them either, though I might listen to one of them if he or she brought real expertise to a specific issue.

I can't say that I disagree with most of the main points here, but I'll offer a few items anyway.

1. While many of you (or all of you for that matter) may have read Downs' Economic Theory of Democracy, I'll suggest it to anyone else interested in how a first-past-the-post electoral system encourages a two party system with little variation between the parties. One of the books that has allowed me to be a proud non-voter.

2. I'll throw my lot in with those that oppose alternative voting systems. I'm just not comfortable with the way most of these systems privilege various minority groups over the majority. What I find especially funny is when people (luckily no one here) bash interest group politics in one breath and then call for PR with their next. Aside from all the theoretical problems, I offer that the United States and Great Britain are the two most stable democracies in the world, as well as two of the most economically free countries. I'm not in any hurry to trade that in for the mess that is Israeli, French, German, or Italian politics.

3. I'm continually astounded by the way Republicans toss Milton Friedman's name as justification for their economic policies. To be honest, they don't follow his principals in any meaningful way. I've repeatedly seen Ronald Reagan described as one of the biggest Keynesians of our time. Bush, for his part has increased spending and cut taxes in an attempt to boost short-term economic growth (classic Keynes), and repealed estate taxes - Milton Friedman is an enthusiastic supporter of estate taxes and has even been known to propose 100% inheritance taxes.

4. Finally, where does this "Kerry is a flip-flopper" garbage come from? I have lived in Massachusetts (with a brief respite in Rhode Island) for the bulk of his tenure as Senator and have never found him to be an especially egregious waffler. Oh, I know that he has taken some contrary positions on the War in Iraq, but I think people often mistake honest indecision with a lack of integrity. There are several other examples of Kerry's doggedness and determination, such as his pursuit of the fragmented leads in the Iran-Contra affair. I know that it makes for a nice soundbite, but the Bush camp has a LONG way to go to prove Kerry is some sort of cynical liar who will say anything to win votes.

Besides, how does Bush explain that he originally thought an anti-gay marriage ban to be uneccesary but is now riding it for all it is worth? We won't even go into Cheney's oft-stated opposition to the ban in 2000 and prior or the sheer brazeness of claiming to be for "smaller government", while introducing another layer of governmental control in people's lives. (Please, this isn't meant to revive the gay marriage debate, just to point out some Bush flip-flopping on a significant issue in the campaign.)

5. I have trouble giving Bush too much credit as more qualified to fight terrorism. Aside from the numerous gaffes and the question of whether Iraq has been a distraction in fighting terrorism, I question the wisdom of giving too much credit to leaders for responding in times of crisis. I mean, if someone has objectively settled the age-old debate about whether great times make great leaders or vice versa, then please let me know. Until then, I'm not going to jump to any conclusions about Bush's response. Besides, like it or not, and as unfair as it may be, 9-11, Madrid, Bali, and several other large-scale terrorist attacks have happened on Bush's watch, so how can we say that Bush has been successful in any meaningful way? What evidence is there to suggest Kerry would have done worse (or better for that matter)?

6. Please stop with calling John Kerry a "Brahmin":
a) It isn't a useful differentiation between the candidates - The Bush family is just as old-New England as Kerry's and considerably wealthier and more powerful. While related to the Winthrops, Kerry was not especially privileged growing up and was clearly on the outside of New England society. Bush may have grown up in Texas, but they still summered in Maine and he went to boarding school here as well.
b) It is plainly not accurate - Kerry is Catholic. Anyone with a passing knowledge of New England society and politics knows that being a Catholic absolutely excludes one from truly being a Brahmin.

"I don't really care whether or not George Bush's marginal income tax changes are repealed or not."

-- There is absolutely nothing "libertarianish" about that ambivalence.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

George W. Bush, March 17, 2003.

"Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here."

David Kay, January 28, 2004.

George W. Bush. He may not be right, but he sure is consistent.

You can say the same thing about smaller-government conservativism in general. If Bush actually reduced government spending comensurate with his tax cuts, he'd be voted out of office pronto

And I'd be at the head of the parade.

Thing is, the tax RATE cutting actually increases tax take.

Anyone who thinks there isn't going to be much difference between a Kerry and a Bush Presidency should be committed since they clearly are psychotic.

This is the same b.s. the press core fed us in 2000. That there wasn't much difference between Bush and Gore. Even Nader took that line. Well after three years, I think we can all agree on one thing - that Gore's Presidency would have been nothing like Bush's.

Anyone muttering that there isn't much difference between Kerry and Bush is just buying into a static model. The above analysis fails to take into account reactions to "unexpected" events, which almost always drive the majority of actual Admin decisions.

Yes, compared to a silly trivialized slate of long term static issues Kerry abd Bush might not sound that differently. But in given terms of responding to any given event, which is almost the definition of a modern Presidency, well Bush and Kerry are worlds apart.

Some might argue that one is better than the other, but anyone who argues that they are the same is verging on delusional. Of course, just because they're different doesn't mean that one is good or the other bad. They might be equally unpalatable, and that would be a better statement than there seems to be little difference. As the old saying goes, damned if you and damned if you don't.

Like Kelli, I'm not that thrilled about either candidate but I'm not giving up yet. Even if this country seems headed for a collosal clusterf*ck.

P.S. It's amusing to see DT reduced to arguing that Bush is the lesser of evils.

"Thing is, the tax RATE cutting actually increases tax take."
---------
I must have misunderstood Bush's latest budget. I was sure that the Table on federal debt in the back showed a $3.8 Trillion INCREASE IN DEBT from what was projected only three years ago.. I must somehow have overlooked the column showing the $Trillions -- the MASSIVE wave of tax revenues -- rolling in from Bush's tax cut for the rich in 2001.

Bravo Patrick!!!!

Sorry, it was such a great post. Facts are always so much more exhilirating to me than name calling.

Thing is, the tax RATE cutting actually increases tax take.

You still believe that bullshit? It didn't work for Reagan, and it isn't working for Bush.

Oh, I forgot. It's April 1st. Silly me.

“I don't like John Kerry -- I think he's spineless and can't tell you what time it is without 20 qualifiers. Nonetheless, we're stuck with him.”

This is why I don’t see John Kerry getting the nomination. He does indeed have the required number of delegates. Nonetheless, a viable candidate needs enthusiastic supporters. Is it fair to describe him as a Brahmin snob? Whatever, the man fails to connect with the general population. The Democrats can’t hide Kerry forever. The man must make a public appearance once in awhile. He’s dropping in the polls---and Richard Clarke is still getting his last few minutes of fame. What happens to Senator Kerry if Condi Rice does well next Thursday morning? Do you know what a cooked goose smells like?

Thank God, the former Republicans Don Williams and the Oldman are on the other side this time around. We don’t need the Pat Buchanan style fanatics dragging down our party. Good riddance. Don’t slam the door on your way out.

“It's amusing to see DT reduced to arguing that Bush is the lesser of evils.”

President Bush is the lesser of evils regarding economic issues. Still, I enthusiastically support his war on terror. Senator Kerry is endorsed by Noam Chomsky, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, former Prime Mahathir Mohamed, Don Williams, and yourself. It’s obvious that he’s liked by some very questionable people. Will Charles Manson be next?

Galt: We tend to forget that while proportional representation would give us more power, it would give equal amounts of power to the folks who oppose us. It won't do libertarians much good to get a seat at the table if Uncle Ralph and Cousin Pat have seats at the other end.

I highly doubt Libertarian views are represented in government anywhere close to the proportion they are held by the populace.

Right now, all the power is in the two parties. This means extremists wield *more* control because all of them are stuck in one of the two parties and have a strong incentive to make that party do their bidding (much moreso than the moderates in the parties). Which is why you'll never see a Pro-Choice Republican Presidential candidate, despite the large number of socially liberal fiscally conservatives in the Republican party.

When you have an electoral system that supports more than two parties, only the people agreeing with the extremists will vote for them. Moderates won't have to cater to them at all anymore because they won't be in the same party. Libertarian ideas will be shared by politicans in the same proportion that they are shared in the populace (which isn't as much as we'd like, but still a lot higher than they are in Washington).

Also note that our two political parties are motivated, not by ideology, but by seizing power. This is why so many politicians violate ideology for political reasons. You cannot want to seize more power and also want to reduce the amount of power you can seize. That is why neither party ever reduces the size of the government, even though one pays lip service to it.

This means both political parties are less libertarian than the center, and they can stay there because you only have one alternative which is equally as unlibertarian, and they have as much motivation to stay unlibertarian.

1) I'm surprised that people have not had the wit to point out the most obvious ways in which Bush's Iraq adventure has hurt US security:
a) If 1 billion Muslims hate our guts for Bush's hypocrisy and aggression, who's going to tell us where Al Qaeda members are hiding. Anyone remember the marines beating the bushs in Vietnam -- because the local populace saw us as supporting the gang of predatory crooks in Saigon?
b) The National Guard makes up roughly 40% of our COMBAY personnel. Large chunks of the active Army and Army reserve are in support and combat service support positions --bridge builders, truck drivers,etc. Bush has stationed a large chunk of our militia in Iraq --when they should be here defending the infrastructure so our local/state budgets won't collapse under the heavy costs of police overtime.

It is one thing to mount a raid -- a "forced entry" such as Afghanistan --to destroy a definite enemy. But Bush's supporters here seem to be suffering from "cognitive dissonance". If they really think Al Qaeda is that much of a threat, then why do they want 150,000 of our shooters bogged down in a year-long occupation of Iraq?

Of course, Kerry et.al. may be waiting for an Al Qaeda strike here in the US before pointing that out.

Looking at Spain, my guess is that it might be a good idea to stay at home three days before the November election.

c) Finally, the National Guard and active Army are the best of our people. But they volunteered to defend our country --not to seize oil deposits for Dick Cheney's buddies. The National Guard, in particular, are to be called up only to address a national threat.

Given the way that Bush has screwed them, I suspect it's going to be damn hard to recruit -- or to convince existing personnel to reenlist --in the future. That will have a definite impact --anyone remember what morale was like in the US Army circa 1972?

1) I'm surprised that people have not had the wit to point out the most obvious ways in which Bush's Iraq adventure has hurt US security:
a) If 1 billion Muslims hate our guts for Bush's hypocrisy and aggression, who's going to tell us where Al Qaeda members are hiding. Anyone remember the marines beating the bushs in Vietnam -- because the local populace saw us as supporting the gang of predatory crooks in Saigon?
b) The National Guard makes up roughly 40% of our COMBAY personnel. Large chunks of the active Army and Army reserve are in support and combat service support positions --bridge builders, truck drivers,etc. Bush has stationed a large chunk of our militia in Iraq --when they should be here defending the infrastructure so our local/state budgets won't collapse under the heavy costs of police overtime.

It is one thing to mount a raid -- a "forced entry" such as Afghanistan --to destroy a definite enemy. But Bush's supporters here seem to be suffering from "cognitive dissonance". If they really think Al Qaeda is that much of a threat, then why do they want 150,000 of our shooters bogged down in a year-long occupation of Iraq?

Of course, Kerry et.al. may be waiting for an Al Qaeda strike here in the US before pointing that out.

Looking at Spain, my guess is that it might be a good idea to stay at home three days before the November election.

c) Finally, the National Guard and active Army are the best of our people. But they volunteered to defend our country --not to seize oil deposits for Dick Cheney's buddies. The National Guard, in particular, are to be called up only to address a national threat.

Given the way that Bush has screwed them, I suspect it's going to be damn hard to recruit -- or to convince existing personnel to reenlist --in the future. That will have a definite impact --anyone remember what morale was like in the US Army circa 1972?

fling93: This means extremists wield *more* control because all of them are stuck in one of the two parties and have a strong incentive to make that party do their bidding

I should elaborate that I meant extremists on the left and the right. Libertarians and those sympathetic to libertarian ideals tend to be split between the two parties depending on how heavily they weigh social liberty or economic liberty. Remember the whole Political Compass thing? Republicans on the right and Democrats on the left. Libertarians at the bottom, roughly equidistant from either.

Thus we have less clout in, say the Republican Party than the Religious Right, which, as I said, has a much stronger incentive to dictate party policy because the Republican Party is their only hope.

This plurality two-party system definitely hurts us. We need to get the message out to the populace as well, but without any elected politicians at all making our case in the government and with Presidents who are less libertarian than the center, it becomes even more of an uphill battle.

Megan McArdle's post sounds to me like the kind of white-washing libertarians have to enage in order to feel good about voting for Bush.

There is a big difference between Bush and Kerry on gay marriage: one supports a constitutional amendment to ban it and the other opposes it. To put it another way Megan: Kerry agrees with you that this issue should be left to the states. Bush doesn't. Oh yeah, no difference there.

Like it or not, Democrats are the party of conservative fiscal policy. Yes, I know Republicans like to think of themselves as living in the pre-Clinton world when Democrats loved spending. Fact is, though, that the last Democratic administration kept spending in check while the current Republican administration let it run wild. And Democrats have opposed every single tax cut of the Bush administration because -- wait till you hear this -- its fiscally imprudent.

But maybe you are actually right -- after all, it was Democrats who proposed all these big spending initiatives recently -- like a mission to Mars or expansion of Medicare...oh wait...

Actually, Kerry has dodged the whole question of gay marriage with his response that it should be left to the states. He has counted, successfully so far, on the ignorance of the media with respect to how the Massachusetts Supreme Court sought last year to change the legal definition of marriage not only for that state but for all others.

At some point Kerry may be asked whether what he means is that the issue should be left up to state legislatures, and if he believes that all states should have to recognize gay marriages sanctioned (whether by judicial mandate or legislation) by any one state. We'll see what he says.

Detached observer: might I suggest that you spend some time on Mr Kerry's web site? Any bit of the deficit he claws back in tax cuts, he runs right up again in spending, plus more besides, so far as I can tell. And since the current version of the federal amendment seems to be mostly a strengthening of the full faith and credit clause, plus has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, I don't see much substantial difference in actual policy.

Like it or not, Democrats are the party of conservative fiscal policy.

Only if "conservative fiscal policy" means solely and specifically balanced budgets.

Conservative economic policy generally means lower taxes & reduced spending.

And since the current version of the federal amendment seems to be mostly a strengthening of the full faith and credit clause

Which is why it's a distortion to suggest that supporting a constitutional amendment (that 38 states have to approve) is somehow "not leaving it up to the states".

This isn't a federal mandate upon the states. This is an attempt to prevent a judge in MA who sees legal gay marriage in VT and forces the state to recognize the marriage as legal in spite of the enactment of the currently proposed gay marriage ban amendment to the MA constitution that Kerry supports.

Jane,

Your point on Kerry's proposals is correct -- he has not made balanced budgets a centerpiece of his platform. Nevertheless, the economic advisors Kerry put in charege of his policy after winning the nomination -- Altman, Sperling, Furman, and Bianchi -- all come from the Clinton administration -- these are the very same people that worked on reducing the deficit.

We have here one team with a mixed record -- and one with an awful record. It makes no sense to argue theres no difference because both aren't good. One is worse than the other.

>and since the current version of the federal amendment seems to
> be mostly a strengthening of the full faith and credit clause

perhaps so -- i'm not up to speed on all the versions that have been circulating -- but lets note that bush supports those that would ban it outright, and not merely strengthen the full faith and credit clause

>plus has a snowball's chance in hell of passing,

ah, okay, that clarifies it. it makes no difference whether we support bush or not because he won't be able to implement the things he supports.

i'm voting for david duke. he has no support in the senate either!

Vote for Kerry. He is the lesser of evils. On the domestic side, neither party will have the 60 votes needed to get substantive things done in the Senate, and the GOP has a stable, but not large, majority in the House. Who knows, Kerry might find a coalition for a wave of fiscal sanity. The fruit of his "Benedict Arnold corporations" rhetoric is a corporate income tax proposal developed by adults from the Clinton era that actually lowers tax rates. Not bad.

Bush deserves a lot of credit for what he has done in the WOT after 9/11. Iraq was a big gamble, but it seems to be cracking the ice in the Arab world. But what is Bush's plan for after 6/30/04 in Iraq and elsewhere? Meaningful state sponsorship of terrorism, except for Iran and hezbollah, has been defeated; but the legacy is a lot of free-lance al Qaeda franchises or franchise wannabes. Both Iraq and Afghanistan could end up as failed states if more resources are not provided and those who have participated in remaking the government are not assured that their courage will be rewarded. Dealing with these issues will take more international cooperation.

I don't give a rat's ass for the EU and UN, but it does no good to piss them off out of spite. It wouldn't hurt for the next president to smile and make nice words in French or German about the need to cooperate in the common struggle.

Unfortunately, when a declared libertarian like Megan says, in effect, "a pox on both your houses", it sounds all very worldly-wise but doesn't really get one very far.

The honest position to take is that libertarianism, properly understood, is only supported by a relatively small fraction of today's intelligentsia and by a fairly modest chunk of ordinary folk. It is even worse here in Britain.

I personally would vote for Bush because of the WOT, but frankly much of his agenda is awful (tariffs, gay marriage, Ashcroft, pandering to the elderly, etc).

Kerry is straight out of the tax-and-spend drawer, although you never know, he might spring a pleasant surprise. His comments on foreign policy have rendered him unfit for the job, IMO.

Don Williams' comments about the Iraq war are plain wrong. Yes, the war may have annoyed a lot of people in that region, but that has to be balanced against the millions of Shiites and Kurds who have won back a semblance of liberty since last March, not to mention those freed from the Taliban.

It's amusing to see DT reduced to arguing that Bush is the lesser of evils.

Perhaps it would help to consider that government itself is a nessesary evil. Once you understand htat point, you begin to understand that any vote you make, for any office down to the lcoal dog catcher, is made with that choice foremost in mind.

Clem;

Tax rates? Of course I do. Do I really need to haul out the facts and figures?

Sure. Go ahead. Make my day.

In particular, I'd like to see some figures about how the Bush tax cuts increased revenues. Then maybe you can explain why these increased revenues increased the deficit.

Meanwhile, everybody else can sit back and enjoy this interesting little chart:
http://www.radiofreemonkey.com:8080/charts/img_budget.gif

Enjoy!

Obviously, Megan should vote for George Bush. A second Bush term will (if we're lucky) lead to more wars; more wars will produce more anti-war protests; and more protests means more opportunities for Megan to use her trusty 2x4.

She can't lose.

Emboldened by Kat's kind shout-out, I thought I might offer some thoughts on a few topics brought up since my last post:

1. Lowering tax rates does/doesn't reduce the tax haul - Basically, this comes down to how much of an impediment to economic growth current tax rates are. For simplicity, let's think about personal income tax rates. For the haul to increase with lower rates REQUIRES that people are forgoing earnings due to too-high tax rates. More plainly, one needs to believe that someone earning 75k won't change jobs/accept a promotion/etc. that would net them 100k, because they only pocket maybe 1/2 of the 25k increase. As far as I know, the only country to have marginal tax rates so high that there was empirical evidence for widespread forgone earnings was Sweden when marginal tax rates were around 80%; top rates in the US aren't even close to that level. The effect of changes in business tax rates is more complicated, but (I believe) that most of the empirical research suggests that our rates aren't high enough to significantly curtail economic growth. Again, when you are lowering the rates, the increase in the taxable base (i.e. rate of economic growth) must be sizeable enough to compensate. So put me in the skeptical camp that lowering taxes will increase the tax haul. If someone has good emprirical data (that effectively controls for the economic growth that would have occurred regardless of changes in tax rates) to refute me, I'm all ears.

2. The Democrats are "Tax and Spenders" - Sure, the Democrats are "Tax and Spenders", but the Republicans are "Borrow and Spenders." There is absolutely no evidence that Republican administrations or Congresses spend at lower rates than Democrats. In fact, the last time I looked (I don't remember the source) Republican administrations since 1950 or so have actually increased spending faster than Democratic ones. They definitely are the party of lower taxes, but they spend just as wildly. The Bush administration have been especially profligate. There are differences in what they spend the money on, but not the amounts.

3. Kerry is a weak candidate who can't appeal to the "common man" - I want to offer my memory of Kerry's Senatorial race against William Weld. Weld was an extremely popular governor in Massachusetts adn jumped to a huge early lead in the polls. All the same criticisms of Kerry were made then - he is too stiff, he is too liberal, he is Kennedy light, etc. Kerry, though was dogged, campaigning every day and facing his critics boldly and quickly. And then the debate came. Kerry absolutely humiliated Weld. It was like Tyson v. Spinks. It was ugly. Kerry won by double digits, I think.

I can assure you that, in Massachusetts, it isn't the Harvard professors that control the political strings, but some very old-school blue-collar "common men" from Southie and Dorchester. My point is that Bush (and his supporters) doubt John Kerry's political abilities at their own risk. I think his response to the "liars" brouhaha is a great example. Most politicians would have delivered some non-apology apology, claiming he didn't mean what he said, etc. Kerry told the Republicans that he calls it like he sees and to get lost. How, exactly, is that not a response custom-tailored to the "common man"?

Claims that he doesn't make public appearances are clearly not based in any sort of reality. He has been a tireless campaigner and has only recently taken a (very normal) break for a short vacation and shoulder surgery.

Moreover, I think the things that make Bush so appealing to the common man are under steady attack. The failure to find WMDs I think, especially damages his credibility as a straight shooter, which I always thought his best asset. Besides, Bush (and the Republicans) have as many credibility problems with the "common woman." The gender gap has been remarkably durable and Bush's failure to even approximate a "compassionate conservative" could very well preclude any significant closure of the gap in this election.

4. The Iraqi War has weakened our ability to fight terrorism - I won't debate this topic, but earlier this week, Joseph Nye wrote this in the Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34683-2004Mar29.html. The article is less about how the war itself has done damage and more about how the Bush administration's single-minded focus on "Hard Power" is not the way to fight terrorism. For my part, I think Nye is easily one of the best thinkers in International Relations today. His work on "Soft Power" and "Complex Interdependence" are some of the most important contributions to the field in the past 50 years. Also, I actually supported the war in Iraq, but would like to see a more effective use of the Soft Power Nye talks about in the post-Saddam Middle East.

Thanks to anyone still reading.

DT,

Thomson: "Senator Kerry is endorsed by Noam Chomsky, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, former Prime Mahathir Mohamed, Don Williams, and yourself. It’s obvious that he’s liked by some very questionable people. Will Charles Manson be next?"

Oldman: "Like Kelli, I'm not that thrilled about either candidate but I'm not giving up yet."

Kelli: "There's much more that could be said about Bush's problems, but that still leaves me with the unpalatable Boston Brahmin. Yeck.

You know DT, your attempts to smear me by associating my name with Manson, et al. might actually be insulting if they didn't literally contradict written text right in front of you.

I'm not sure how "not that thrilled" translates into an endorsement of Kerry, but I'm sure in that fevered little brain of yours there wasn't enough mental capacity to tell the difference.

Learn to read, DT, I've had better zingers from grade school kids. The kids have also shown better reading comprehension than you.

If the distinction between a realcon and a neocon is that the former knows how to actually read, I'll take that over the neocon village idiot disease you have any day.

DT: Senator Kerry is endorsed by Noam Chomsky, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, former Prime Mahathir Mohamed, Don Williams, and yourself. It’s obvious that he’s liked by some very questionable people. Will Charles Manson be next?

And al Qaeda has endorsed George Bush.

Now that we've established the hopefully obvious fact that a candidate has no control over who endorses them, perhaps real discussion can occur.

I'll add to Patrick's comments:

Democrats ike to blame reagan's tax cuts for the defict rising to $230 billion in 85/65, but the fact is, that fault lies with the Democrats in Cngress spending $1.65 for ever added dollar taken in.00

In fact, had the congress held the line on their spending, no reduction at all, there would have been no more defecit. As it was, even with the skyrocketing spending of the Democrats during the 80's the defecit went down to $150 billion. Now, think; if the tax take hadn't gone up as a result of the tax breaks, how in the world could we have seen the defecit fall by nearly 100 bilion dollars?

For all the claims about how tax cuts raise the defecits, nobody ever seem to ahve an answer for this question.

Democrats ike to blame reagan's tax cuts for the defict rising to $230 billion in 85/65, but the fact is, that fault lies with the Democrats in Cngress spending $1.65 for ever added dollar taken in.00

The fact is, this is a classic GOP lie. Reagan could have rejected the budgets that the Dem Congress sent him, but he didn't. Not once, if memory serves.

If Republicans were actually serious about the deficit they would have played hardball in the 80s, but they didn't. It's all smoke and mirrors. The GOP are no more fiscally responsible than the Dems. Both sides will spend us into oblivion.

I'm a former liberal, turned conservative. I respect libertarians and often agree with them in principle, but I honestly think they can make the greatest difference by joining the Right and trying to influence it. Many mainstream conservatives agree with large parts of the libertarian agenda, but my impression is that few liberals do.

As a staunch Bush supporter, I nevertheless worry about some of Bush's policies, especially his handling of the budget. I also worry that he won't follow through on his rhetoric that we need to bring fundamental change to the Middle East. But among liberals, Lieberman was the only one who had any credibility on the War on Terror, and even he doesn't stack up to Bush in my opinion.

The War against Islamofascism is THE critical issue on which the candidates need to be judged. Look, my family is Muslim and I can't even begin to express how much I hate and fear those Koran-thumping Neanderthals. When the Israelis killed Sheikh Scumbag Yassin, I was ready to break out the champagne. We cannot for one moment compromise with the Islamofascists; that's what we have to keep foremost in our thoughts this election year.

Bush may make mistakes in how he fights our enemies, but he WILL fight them. Kerry won't do squat, and like all good kneejerk liberals, may even have the temerity to lecture us on our "racist insensitivity" to the feelings of Islamofascist-Americans like the folks at CAIR, because of our refusal to trust them. So I agree that Bush is far from perfect, but he beats the living crap out of Kerry and virtually every other Democrat you can name.

The Democrats have degenerated from the party of John F. Kennedy to the party of Teddy Kennedy. They are as worthless as European leftists.

Even if we pretend there is little difference between the two, at the very least I see some benefit in having a divided government. The GOP controlling the executive and legislative branches hasn't done much in terms of advancing libertarian ideas - they're spending like drunken sailors, expanding entitlements, increasing subsidies, tariffs and corporate handouts, and running an authoritarian social agenda.

At the very least, having Kerry would put the breaks on some of this garbage.

I voted for Bush, but he's a major disappointment. Everything he has _said_ about being a fiscal conservative he's gone back on by _doing_ the opposite.

As a libertarian, I'm not giving Bush's first four years of anti-libertarian policies (or the GOP's last two years of it) my rubber stamp of approval by voting for him (them) again.

Palying hardball in the 80's?

Well let's see, here.
The Democrats had the majority in both houses of Congress, and all of reagans budget propsals were DOA at the Hill.

Tell us again.

There is an old law in Massachusetts that says no other states have to recognize marriages from that state. The attorney general has pointed out this law to show that 38 other states (probably 43-44 by next year due to all the nasty legislation in places like Wisconsin now) which have same-sex marriage bans will not have to recognize Mass. marriages. The other states probably won't either. Even if they do, the Supreme Court is not likely to overthrow DOMA.

You know, I respect many Republican viewpoints on terror issues, but the ugly gay-bashing, the new rule that says federal employees can be fired for being gay (a return to the gay witch hunts of the McCarthy 50's) the long string of judicial nominees who are chosen because of what they hate and who they get big business checks from, the pandering to extremist far-righters, has ensured that I cannot vote for that party. They don't want people like me. They don't need my vote anyway. Bush is going to win this year. The Republicans will maintain control of Congress. I just wonder if or when there will ever be a time that people who do not have fundamentalist viewpoints are not spit on by the Republican Party.

Patrick,

Great posts. You are not only outshining the other commenters here, but Jane and Dan, too. If you have a blog, I'll read it.

Well let's see, here.
The Democrats had the majority in both houses of Congress, and all of reagans budget propsals were DOA at the Hill.

Actually, the Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981-87. See here.

So the GOP had control of two branches of government for six years, during which the largest deficits were passed, and they still failed to deliver. All the whining from the GOP about congressional spending is nothing more than political theater.

When you're elected to the presidency, they give you a shiny little pen with which to wield your veto power. Reagan could have used his to demand a leaner budget from the Democrats from 81-87, and the GOP-controlled senate could have broken any tie in his favor. This didn't happen. Why? Because Republicans are just as spendy as their friends across the aisle.

Actually, the Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981-87

Yes, I know. I was there. I lived through it. But what you're not speaking on, within the context of that 'control' is people like Jim Jeffers, and John McCain. Which, incidently, was their margin of 'control '. A dubious 'control', at best.

Who the heck is Jim Jeffers?

OK, Jeffords.... (sheesh)
:B-D=