If I could choose one member in Congress to run for President it would hands down be Rep. Jeff Flake (R)-AZ. A man of integrity. Check out his floor speeches on youtube.com if you can.

Clinton as President and Obama bin Laden as V.P. It'd be a cold day in hell when a Clinton is the #2 guy. This is going to call for something stronger than Oxycontin; Immobilon.

in the unholy union of Clinton and Obama...!

Rudy Giuliani.

Sorry... had to swallow the whole bottle myself!!!

Who do you think -- *cough* -- will be the one on top -- *retch* -- in that picture you've painted?

Jameson, hand me that bottle, please.

I'm throwing my support behind Rudy Giuliani, unless a better candidate comes along. Political elections are about having to choose the "evil of two lesser's" (yes I inverted the phrase on purpose). I have a major issue with Fred Thompson. He was one of the masterminds behind the 'Campaign Finance Reform' bill, or as it should be correctly called 'Restriction of Free Speech' bill.
Romney blows like a reed in the wind. He's a chronic flip-flopper, flip-flopping in the name of political expediency. Romney is all about Romney and popularity amongst the conservative ilk, he could give a rats ass about integrity and principle. I don't trust the guy at all.
McCain; he has no chance. (He's another supporter of Camp. Fin. Ref.)
On the Peikoff side (that would be the Democrats) if I were a betting man, I'd say watch for the eventual teaming up of Obama and Clinton on the same ticket.

A vote for the Romney! Wonders will never cease! Would the admirer of the Latter Day Saint like to comment on why you think he's worthy of your support?

She said that the "plot to dismantle minds" was primarily built on inertia with no driver, no beneficiary and that's what makes it so fucking scary. It would actually be comforting if someone within the gov't had planned 9/11 you get rid of them problem solved. What's scary is that there are people out there in the world that simply don't value life and use whatever stolen means necessary to do so and the men charged with protecting us are incompetant.

That is really scary. I wish I could believe in something as comforting as a conspiracy theory.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

I will most likely bring down the hell fires of SOLO for saying this, but the front-runners of both camps are planted puppets. The war was planned long before Sept. the 11th (those on high just needed an excuse and CREATED one) and Ron Paul is the only man of unparalleled integrity running in this farcical race. He is not a puppet (which, unfortunately, will deem him un-electable).

Ayn Rand was dead on in stating that there is a systematic and deliberate plot to destroy the minds of individuals. You are not going to find truth in the national media; neither regarding wars, nor the political and economic reasons behind them. We have been duped, folks. Unfortunately, those with the facts and the evidence have been successfully labeled "conspiracy theorists." The problem is, few have the courage to even look at the evidence, either for fear of finding the truth, or being labeled in turn.

As an objectivist, I find it very difficult to see the mass digestion of lies and disinformation, especially from those who are supposed to question served-up "truth." I too do not WANT to believe what I have had to accept as true about those running the western world, but to do so, I would have to blank-out facts and pretend they don't exist (as Kant did). Well, I refuse to close my eyes.

Antony Reed

RationalEgoist@hotmail.com

"I lean niether left, nor right... I prefer to move forward."

Neville Paul had this to say, regarding his “nay”…

“Having already initiated a disastrous war against Iraq citing UN resolutions as justification, this resolution is like déja-vu. Have we forgotten 2003 already? Do we really want to go to war again for UN resolutions? That is where this resolution, and the many others we have passed over the last several years on Iran, is leading us. I hope my colleagues understand that a vote for this bill is a vote to move us closer to war with Iran.

Clearly, language threatening to wipe a nation or a group of people off the map is to be condemned by all civilized people. And I do condemn any such language. But why does threatening Iran with a pre-emptive nuclear strike, as many here have done, not also deserve the same kind of condemnation? Does anyone believe that dropping nuclear weapons on Iran will not wipe a people off the map? When it is said that nothing, including a nuclear strike, is off the table on Iran, are those who say it not also threatening genocide? And we wonder why the rest of the world accuses us of behaving hypocritically, of telling the rest of the world “do as we say, not as we do.”

He's a cut and run appeaser... end of story!

Solo Ron Paul supporters - be ready to vomit. Hopefully.

On June 21, only two members of the House of Representatives voted against the resolution to charge Iranian President Ahmadinejad for UN violations in regards to his threats against Israel. And they are both running for president.

edited

Joe Lieberman says bomb Iran. He'll do me!

Not so good, Duncan. He's dropped somewhat in my estimation, but still remains my pick in this list of candidates. Fred would be my second choice.

"Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it."

Orwell fans might recognise that idea as one of the principles of Ingsoc: Slavery Is Freedom.  Clearly Giuliani is an Orwell fan too - only not in the sense that most SOLOists are.

Might I suggest that those pledging their support for Giuliani should read Libertarians, Beware the Rigid Reign of Rudy?

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

"Sounds like a Hsiekovian dichotomy to me. Berate Bush for not doing enough, vote for those who make it impossible for him to do more."

That's not the Hseikovian position. The argument is that Bush is in fact not doing anything. Further, that he is creaing Islamic Republics that will just radicalize over time. And he is doing it in the spirit of Christian/Kantian altruism. The Linziskis see Iraq as self-interested in its essential nature. Hseikovians do not.

Proud Member Of The "Bomb-Them-Into-Oblivion" School Of Foreign Policy

In Boston Legal the other night, when Denny and Alan were cogitating on the balcony with cigars and whiskey, Denny said he was thinking of voting for (cut-and-run) Obama bin Laden. Then he agreed with Alan's depiction of his (Denny's) position on nations that hate America: "Blow them up." Sounds like a Hsiekovian dichotomy to me. Berate Bush for not doing enough, vote for those who make it impossible for him to do more.

Linz

Thompson & Giuliani are neck and neck, tied on 24%! The difference is, Fred hasn’t even formally announced his contention or spent a cent on campaigning! In the meantime McCain’s numbers are in free fall, down to almost single figures along side Romney. As for Cut-and-Ron Paul... fuggedaboutit!!

There’s been a lot of noise lately around Fred Thompson's excellent “Ronnie” qualities, the pundits pointing out that unlike most Republican candidates he has three solid legs of the Reagan stool: fiscal responsibility, social responsibility and strength on defense.

I don't think he's the best candidate, but he sure as hell would make a better and more entertaining President than any Dem-scum. Take a look at his short sharp shot at Michael Moore's new anti-American doco "Sicko"... Fred vs Moore

Expected to announce his candidacy in July, Fred’s already making his mark on the polls, despite his absence in the Republican debates!

He launched his website yesterday… www.imwithfred.com

Below: This should send a shudder through most of you… take a look at the yellow worm (perfect epithet).

No vote for me in 2008, how sad for you yankees.

No joke, if I was blessed with US citizenship, I would vote like hell, I would vote all the time. Up here, we only get to vote rarely and we don't even get to vote for our leaders, just the local guy or gal, and our Head of State gets picked by the party honcho alone, since only one party can 'win' Canucki election night bingo and we just get the one card with only three or four electoral choices, depending on region (NDP, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc).

Mind you, our present Head of State is a smart, gorgeous, quintalingual black lady who found refuge in our country as a child of Haiti death-squad targets, Michaelle Jean. The closest you all southern-fried yanks get is gonna be Hillary Rodham Clinton. And some a you don't seem to like the idear of her sitting on the throne (whereas we and some of the world just loves us our MJ, see here (saucy french video-spoof tribute), and here (spoof), and here (dancing with goats in Mali).

Yet further horror, as I wrote to Casey Fahy backstage, there is a stark choice for those who bother to get out of the underclass or off the couch and to the poll.

WSS

+++++++++++++++++

[to CF, today:]\

Anyhow, season of the Demscum and Repscum, huh? I am only impressed with two people in the whole panoply of presidential timber on tour down there in the States. I like the wacked/doomed Ron Paul, and I like Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama. If you apathetic yankee voters can get her in the White House, we Canuckis will be rather pleased.

I think your choice is between Guliani's psychops fifteenth blonde girlfriend and the portly First Gentleman Clinton. Think about it (in Canada, luckily you get no title for life. Our Governors-General become Mr and Ms and our prime ministers become Mr and Ms on leaving office. We don't get first ladies and gents, no spousal roles except for the husbands of the female heads of state. On high state occasions like the opening of Parliament, they have to sit on the throne and hang around for the speeches and look good, and that's about it).

But joking aside, if Clinton gets in, hubby will still be offered the honorific "Mr President" to accompany his "First Gent." I don't rightly know how you yankees survive . . . argh! Peikoff was right -- if if if your choice is between a Fatal Attraction blonde and Bill the Bear, you are going to have to choose the smart black lady. Oh my..

+++++++++++

See Michelle Obama yak at a women's meeting in Chi-town: Youtube. She will be the best First Spouse and has an actual chance of sleeping her ass in the top bunk of your society. I would rather see her ass there than Bill Clinton's. I'm happy at least that you have voices and faces like the Obamas in the big ring, finally, no matter how your billion dollar electoral circus comes out . . .

Is this the next First Family? -- or is it Scum?

There we go... spoke too soon! Care to offer a reason why you're voting Dem-scum, Dem-scum voter?

Since the second coming of the Hsiekovians (am I still allowed to use that epithet?) no more votes for the Dem-scum...

I agree with your comment that Iraq is not the best target now. I think the Americans are wasting time there when their troops could be better deployed kicking shit out of the Islamists in Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Jordan and/or Libya. The campaign in Iraq is costing billions and we still haven't got Bin Laden's head on a pike.

I'd love to see a privately funded mercenary army kick some hermit kingdom ass in North Korea any time soon. Even Ron Paul would support that.

Richard

I've enjoyed this thread as well for what Jameson mentions - the defining aspects. I'd say some SOLOists are a mixture of those four 'strains' Jameson mentions. I'm a mixture of the last three - I want to kick jihadist ass throughout the globe, and believe that getting out of Iraq strategically and carefully in favor of pursuing jihadism elsewhere makes the most sense as Iraq was IMO was not the best target; I also believe the fight against jihad abroad AND the fight to preserve liberty 'at home' ARE ONE AND THE SAME FIGHT AGAINST FASCISM and can't place a greater priority on one or the other, which may just keep me from voting for even a non-Harry-Browne-ish Libertarian candidate, let alone a semi-libertarian Repbulican.

Good discussion on this thread, all the way around!

I see where you’re coming from (assuming you meant the “Second Coming of Rand” doesn’t have a snowball’s chance and therefore voting for him would secure Clinton’s inauguration and equal a vote for Jihadism.)

Given the context of the world today I would still vote for Giuliani, who has the best chance of winning the Presidency and saving me from immediate danger, on the principle that right now I need a bodyguard, not a philosopher.

In other words, I still wouldn’t vote for the Second Coming guy or Ron Paul even if they did want to kick Islamic butt, on the principle that a bodyguard is higher in my hierarchy of needs than a lone-voice Objectivist or semi-Libertarian shouting protests from the benches of the opposition.

Of course, your hypothetical is flawed: an Objectivist politician wouldn’t join the ranks of the Republicans unless he was a pragmatist himself.

I get you... I do understand that you wouldn't vote for either candidate in "the real world." I'm taking this straw poll for what it is: a simple litmus test on where SOLOists stand in US politics.

The poll isn't worded Who would you like to see as the next President of the USA, but rather which candidate would you support. Perhaps this is open to interpretation and I’m the one getting lost in the semantics, but I’m assuming this wasn’t a completely hypothetical poll, that we were talking about the ideal candidate for today, in the today’s world.

I think it's been quite defining. We have some here who, like the Hsiekovians, support the withdrawal from Iraq, and those who think American economic policies are more important than foreign ones. There are those who think Iraq has been a complete disaster but don’t want to back out just yet. Still others who wish the current administration would just on with it and kick more Islamic ass. And then there are those who would abdicate assessing the imminent dangers facing the America, not bother to order them into a logical hierarchy, and decline to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

May I suggest the next poll be RANKING THE HEIRARCHY OF THE TOP FIVE THREATS FACING AMERICA. Perhaps then finding the ideal candidate to implement measures to combat these threats would become self evident.

What I'm getting out of your post is that a voting decision should be based on a balance between principle and pragmatism? So, a question...

Who would you vote for if (and assuming they had a snowball's chance in hell of beating Clinton) "Second Coming of Rand" was added to the Republican candidate list?

Remember, a vote for "Second Coming of Rand" = a vote for Hillary Clinton = a vote for Jihadism.

I firmly believe that one MUST vote entirely on principle. I support Guiliani on principle because he is committed to eliminating the Jihadist threat. If Ron Paul grew some balls and adopted a reasonable foreign policy, I would support him over Guiliani due to his libertarian instincts. The fact that Guiliani has wider public appeal and a better chance of beating evil Clinton is a side issue.

Another semantics thing, Jameson. I know I'm doing this a lot, bear with me...

I read the thread title "Which Republican Candidate/Hopeful Would You Support" to mean "support" and not necessarily "vote for" - I still can't get myself to *actually vote* for any of these GOP OR Demscum geezers. Where I *will* vote for Dr. Paul is on a poll like this one - 'cause I like him the best of the lot of GOP candidates and 'support' more of what he says than any of them. I like Rudy, too, just not as much.

I may have misunderstood the purpose of this poll - if it was a poll of who you're *actually voting for* I would have joined Duncan in the 'Other, I'll Explain' selection. The whole 'lesser of two evils is still evil' cliché plays out too much in my mind when I see words like 'strategic' and 'candidacy' used together.

if there was another poll with the highly hypothetical question Which Republican candidate would you support as a peace time President?, then most of us would be behind Ron Paul (excluding, of course, those two unidentified tunnel-visional losers who are voting Dem-scum).

This is a poll about whom you'd support as a candidate... which, in the race for the Presidency, is entirely strategic.

The poll is who you'd support for president, and I take that to mean who you'd ideally want, not considering various pragmatic voting strategies. As for the real vote for president, for most of us it simply will not matter how/whether we vote. The Republicans could nominate Rudy, Ron, Newt or a dented can of Spam and still win Georgia.

Do I think Ron would be a less-bad president than Rudy? Easily. However, do I think Rudy (assuming he doesn't come out of the closet as an atheist) would have a better chance of getting elected? Easily.

Unless you believe the 2008 Presidential election will happen after the war against the Islamic Jihad is won, this is a contradiction.

and yet, on this poll, that's precisely what you did, Michael!

"That's like saying you should vote National instead of Libertarianz because they don't have a hope of beating Labour. Spot the error? Don't get me wrong here, I think Guiliani is the better candidate, but that is hardly the right argument in support of him."

In New Zealand the only thing separating our two parties is the shade of socialism: Helen Clark's Red Socs and John Key's Blue Socs.

In the US there is a chasm between the two major parties on one particular issue: the war against the Islamic Jihad. If you can agree that Jihadism is the biggest and most imminent threat to civilization then there is one party that clearly deserves your vote – the Republicans.

In Objectivist circles there are those who support the Republican’s war against the Islamic filth (though not necessarily their methods) and the Hsiekovians who are backing the Democrats who want to abandon it.

The question therefore becomes: who has the best chance to defeat the Democrat nominee who’s looking more and more likely to be Hillary Rodent Clinton?

Those who’d appoint Ron Paul are backing a guy who doesn’t have a hope of winning the Presidential election – and therefore a vote for the goodish doctor is a vote for the Democrats. My syllogism is an attempt to get all the Ron Paul supporters to see the futility in their vote for him. They all seem to be missing the most obvious reason for not voting for him, namely that Ron Paul, like the Hsiekovian Dem-scum Saddamites, wants to abandon the war.

Whichever way you look at it... a vote for Ron Paul = a vote for Hillary Clinton = a vote for Jihadism.

By the way, if Giuliani were leader of the National Party I'd vote for him because the Libz don't have a chance and he is by far the lesser of two evils currently in contention.

Or Rudy or any Republican or any Democrat. I'm with Duncan who said effectively he would never vote for anyone who would remove liberty, by ANY degree (apologies, Duncan, if don't have that quite right). Ron was merely the only one of the Republican (OR Democrat) candidates who DIDN'T SEEM LIKE HE WAS GOING TO LET THE BILL OF RIGHTS GO IGNORED ANY LONGER. For that, Dr. Paul has my support, but not my vote.

Ron had my vote in 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian. If the Libertarians run anyone like Harry Browne again they won't have my vote either.

Last night I finally had a chance to see the last debate instead of just reading snipped transcripts, and also got to see a Giuliani speech before a New York Republican meeting. I take back 'pragmatist' with respect to Paul. Though he dumbly and sloppily used 9/11 as a consequentialist argument against playing world police, he didn't come across as a true pragmatist, nothing like most politicians. In his speech Rudy seemed a powerful and passionate speaker, too bad for his content. He argued not only for an unsupported and unclarified (how do we know when we've won? or at least saved enough face to leave?) 'staying the course' in Iraq, but also for expansion of the 'Patriot' act.

Do I think Ron would be a less-bad president than Rudy? Easily. However, do I think Rudy (assuming he doesn't come out of the closet as an atheist) would have a better chance of getting elected? Easily.

That's like saying you should vote National instead of Libertarianz because they don't have a hope of beating Labour. Spot the error?

Don't get me wrong here, I think Guiliani is the better candidate, but that is hardly the right argument in support of him.

Michael: "I think Dr. Paul's biggest weakness on top of being a religious nutter is a distinct lack of political savvy."

Aaron: "Rudy is undoubtedly more of a natural politician than Ron."

Ross: "Fact is, Ron Paul, barring a miracle, was never going to be a serious contender, if for no other reason than he just ain't slick enough, and no one's going to buy his position on Iraq."

Why are you supporting a man who doesn't have the slightest chance of beating Mrs. Slick Willy? You might as well vote with the Hsiekovians.

Richard, Al Qaida and the global jihadists et al, do not care about people dying from sanctions in Iraq. They are not touchy feely lets save the children types. This is evident by such acts as stopping buses that are loaded with children and basically slaughtering them all.

The following is lifted from Wikipedia - I wonder if the deaths of half a million Iraqi children (attributed by UNICEF to U.S.-sponsored sanctions), and then the Secretary of State's utterance that this was effectively acceptable collateral damage, might have inflamed one or two Islamists...

.....................................................................
The United Nations economic sanctions were imposed at the urging of the U.S. to remove Saddam Hussein from power... [I]n as much as the economic sanctions were designed to topple Saddam they were a failure, however the sanctions caused the death of between 400 000 and 800 000 Iraqi children... UNICEF has put the number of child deaths to 500,000.[9] The reasons include lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and especially disease owing to lack of clean water. Among other things, chlorine, needed for disinfecting water supplies, was banned as having a "dual use" in potential weapons manufacture.

On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions. Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied "we think the price is worth it", [10] though she later rued the comment as "stupid."[11]

......................................................................

Don't get me wrong here, I think Saddam Hussein was a monster; and that the 9/11 terrorists who flew planes into the twin towers, along with their political masters, deserve retaliation without mercy. But I think it needs to be acknowledged that Ron Paul was factually correct when he reminded his fellow Republican hopefuls of the conclusions reached by the CIA and 9/11 Commission into the reasons thought to be behind the 9/11 terrorism. He most emphatically did not say that America deserved 9/11, he was trying to explain why it happened.

Richard

I think Dr. Paul is out of his political league, and his comment left him wide open for a counter attack for exactly the reasons Aaron indicates - the semantical difference between the words 'motivate' and 'justify'. I also have looked into some of the writings of Ron Paul's where he, according to some people not on this site who have emailed me, supposedly reveals hints of anti-semitic beliefs. I did not find this to be the case, either. I think Dr. Paul's biggest weakness on top of being a religious nutter is a distinct lack of political savvy. Some would say that's NOT a weakness, however...

"Having a friendly government under which folk have freedom of expression in such a strategic locale, having taken out the previous dictatorship, and taking out the Islamo-Fascists, does weaken Islam,"

How exactly does it weaken Islam?

I wish I had time to get into this thread again with thorough responses to Bill, Jameson, Mark, etc. concerning 'forward strategy', quotes, the presidency, etc., but have to cut to minimal responses.

The claim that 9/11 was motivated by the US embargo/bombing of Iraq was not a creation of Ron Paul. It was explicitly stated as motive (along with bases in Saudi Arabia and opposition to Palestine) by Bin Laden himself in audio and video tapes. Of course there is valid reason to debate whether OBL said his real reasons (on the one hand why would someone bankroll killing 3300 people and then not tell his real demands - while on the other, take everything said by someone who bankrolled killing 3300 people with a salt lick). But in any case, Paul was quoting a reason given by arguably the best living authority on the topic. Giuliani was either poorly informed or dishonestly posturing in claiming he never hearing of this before.

I also figure everyone really understands the difference between 'motivate' and 'justify', even if bashing a certain Republican candidate makes it fun to conflate the concepts. Had Paul really said Bush I/Clinton/Bush II Iraq policies justified killing the victims of 9/11, then certainly fuck him and his horse. What he did say wasn't that offensive, strong or even interesting though. It was rather meandering and pragmatist and weak speaking, but not claiming the terrorists' motives justified their actions. Rudy (and others) made political hay responding to him regardless, and I'd say based on the debate that Rudy is undoubtedly more of a natural politician than Ron.

You and some others here are putting forth the best arguments for "persistence" that I've seen O'ists make. I'm not sold on them but I'm less contemptuous of them than I used to be.

I don't want Iraq to fail, if for no other reason than the fact that so many have died to see it succeed. I hope you and Tracinski are right and we somehow "muddle through" and do enough to set the Middle East on a better course. I'm still skeptical, but I'm getting out of this that this might be raionalism on my part so I'll keep track of it and see.

Although on an emotional level, I still want to nuke the fuckers. Old habits die hard.

Proud Member Of The "Nuke-Them-Till-They-Glow" School Of Foreign Policy

If we're talking about realism, I don't think it's realistic to aim for the eradication of Islam. That's a longterm philosophical battle, as is the one to eradicate Christianity. It's not so much a process of eradication as death by polemical attrition. I think it is realistic to hope for a regime in Iraq dominated by non-virulent Muslims. For instance, take a look at this guy, an Iraqi MP and Muslim cleric. The media on whom you rely don't report on the enormous amount of goodwill there is in Iraq towards America, nor the extent to which so many Iraqis hope America will stay the course. (I'm glad you didn't come back to me with "nuke 'em till they glow.") It bums me out that Hsiekovians have been so unnerved by Islamo-Fascist propaganda, faithfully echoed in your media, and by Dem-scum, that they contemplate retreat. Even retreat to the oilfields. Why, for Galt's's sake? You're just agreeing with Dem-scum Reid that the war is unwinnable. It ISN'T!!!! Everyone, including Bush, should get a grip and steady his nerves. If only we had a Churchill now.

Bill, I also respect that you've hung in here and been prepared to distance yourself from the Hsiekovian position after all the tumult and shouting and flouncings by your colleagues. You're made of sterner stuff, and that really excites my admiration. And I so appreciate that you get my love for America. One of the highlights of my life was singing America the Beautiful on a balcony in Carlsbad, San Diego, at the Limbers' July 4 party last year. It was ho-hum for the rest of the guests, but it meant the universe—my universe—to me.

As for Ross's trying to pin the "wimp" label on me—I really don't know what to say, and it's probably just as well.

Linz

"Having a friendly government under which folk have freedom of expression in such a strategic locale..."

Linz, I get you, but its this part that I think is unrealistic. Look, I'll give you this, and maybe this *is* the best that is possible at the moment, but lets say that Iraq can be sustained for a decade or so before the Islamic element overtakes the entire country (which I think is inevitable). Then maybe its worth it. Why? Because one of the points Objectivists like to make is "we need more time." Well, if Iraq and Afghanistan buy us a decade or two (which I doubt but lets give it that), than I will take a decade or two. This is why I will vote Republican (well maybe not if McCain is the candidate but I'll cross that bridge later).

But that doesn't change the essential altruistic nature of the whole affair. It just means that it is the least altruistic and thus the least destructive course we can take. But it is not good which is what I get from some here on Solo.

Now, given the tribalistic, mystical, collectivist nature of Iraq, I don't even think we can expect a decade or two of relative peace in the country. I still think that Hugh Fitzgerald's argument that we should let the Sunnis and the Shiites kill each other is a good one. Even conservative Daniel Pipes has recommended that the US fall back to strategic bases in the desert and limit themselves to protecting the oil wells and preventing any military threats from developing. That is better than this nation building crap which Fitzgerald mockingly call "tar baby Iraq" or the "light unto muslim nations" (God how I love his sarcasm).

Basically, you are of the belief that a highly compromised war effort can bring about a stable US ally in a region dominated by Islam. You apparantly feel that Islam can be contained by US largess and intervention and that some element of freedom can take root. Further, that this will counter the century long Islamic revivalism in that region (and the world) and stem the growth of the armies of Jihad.

This is where I disagree and I have a feeling that there are perhaps a couple others on Solo that would too. IMO, the wellfare mission known as Iraq will not stem the Jihad because it will teach muslims that if they threaten the US (and all infidels) then those same infidels will take every effort to build for them there very own Islamic republic, all paid for by infidel taxes. Those sweet and gullible infidels, good little Dhimmis. Did giving inner city criminals more wellfare end inner city crime? To me, this is the same model.

I respect your love of America and I know you want both America and Kiwi land down under to be safe and secure. But I respectfully disagree with you that Iraq fundamentally does anything to achieve that.

Proud Member Of The "Nuke-Them-Till-They-Glow" School Of Foreign Policy

We need to unleash hell on the muslim hotspots of the world to teach them the consequences of Islamic Jihad.

Couldn't agree more. When has that ever not been my position? It's not that long since I produced a FreeRad whose cover and editorial enjoined "death to Islam." Not genocide, but intellectual Jihad backed up by bombs where deserved.

Iraq does nothing to weaken Islam nor terrify muslims away from supporting Jihad. The Linziski's don't get this.

Having a friendly government under which folk have freedom of expression in such a strategic locale, having taken out the previous dictatorship, and taking out the Islamo-Fascists, does weaken Islam, or aggressive Islamo-Fascism at least. Yes, I want Bush to be much more KASS. How many times must I repeat this?! But what is it you're advocating precisely Bill? Nuking Iraq till it glows?

Seems to me ARI and Ross are advocating de facto cut-and-run, since Bush is never going to conduct the war as they would wish.

Linz

Holy Shit! I just orgasmed all over myself. Now that is KASS. And that is ARI's position and their line of argumentation. They don't go on and on about how Iraq is a "watered down version of an essentially correct approach." They say that its fucked from start to finish.

I keep saying that the Hseikovians have their flaws but the Linzinksi defense of this war is also flawed. We shouldn't cut and run because of the damage it will do to the image of our strength and our will to fight back not because we would be abondoning a worthwhile undertaking. As Richard Wiig has pointed out in numerous posts, a muslim republic in the Middle East does little to nothing of weakening *Islam* which is our real enemy not some nameless "terrorism." We need to unleash hell on the muslim hotspots of the world to teach them the consequences of Islamic Jihad. Iraq does nothing to weaken Islam nor terrify muslims away from supporting Jihad. The Linziski's don't get this.

As for Ron Paul, Jameson is right. He has an anti-American approach to foreign policy precisely because of his libertarianism. Yes, its nice to hear that the IRS should be abolished, but that statement comes from the same man who believes America deserved 9/11 (just like Harry Browne did). Its good to have Paul as a potential candidate though so his free market rhetoric can at least get some air time.

All the Republicans suck but they suck 20 times less than any Democrat and some of them have good elements to them. Right now Gulliani seems to have the most to offer in a legitimate contender.

Proud Member Of The "Nuke-Them-Till-They-Glow" School Of Foreign Policy

playing behind that speech! I think you're position is bang on, Ross!! Not sure about the icky "blow-cum-warning" but I like what you've said here!

However, that is NOT Ron Paul's position. Nothing like it in fact. And since this post is about who we think is the optimal Republican nominee, I'll ask again, are you prepared to change your mind on your vote for the goodish doctor, or are you joining the Loony Lennies in advocating surrender in Iraq by your choice of candidate?

It's pathetic, and it's soul-destroying. Proud, magnificent American soldiers are asked to stand out in the sand with their cocks in their hands like target dummies while the wimps in Washington fuck them in the ass and talk about consensus, self-determination and nation building, all the while watching civil war and balkanisation gather steam. Those troops, and all Americans, deserve more. Much more.

The US has the planes, the missiles and the technology to deliver a swift, zero-loss, devastating blow-cum-warning to the criminals in Iran and their camel jockey associates. What's lacking is the moral certitude--the courage--to do it. While Bush worries about not queering the pitch for his successor, and the Republican presidential candidates fret about making the natives too uppity, and the Democrats chatter to deceive, the troops are being asked to suffer the indignities of playing chicken with suicide bombers and IEDs, and taking some for a proto-Islamist state.

The "surge" is horseshit. It's like throwing more money at a welfare program when it's the welfare program that's the problem in the first place. A vote for the surge is a vote for more of the same. It's a vote for a compromise position, for the status quo, for conservatism. And it's a sure vote for eventual defeat. Freedom fighters are radicals, not conservative sissies who pontificate about staying the course from safe & far-off lands. If you back the surge, you're backing a lost cause, and you're a wimp, like some cuckold who early on shot his load and is now frantically doing the housework for fear of being accused of doing nothing.

Japan would never have capitulated without being nuked, and like them, the Islamists will go on and on, breeding enough sacrificial animals and reciting enough corrupt mantra to endure *and* gain strength from years of endless guerrilla warfare. Like the degenerates they are, the indignant & terrible violence of a free nation is the only thing they will ever understand and respect. You either hurt them so bad they wish they'd died as children, or you stop pretending you're serious about winning.

You get tough, or you get out.

Are my eyes deceiving me or did someone else just vote for the Dem-scum?!!

Ross, have you completely capitulated?

..."Who is suggesting otherwise? And which of the candidates would reduce America to serfdom?"
That's a dumb *and* disingenuous question. It should be: which candidate will help *save* America from serfdom.

Uh-huh. Anything you say, Ross. But you raised the issue thus:

And there's no point in eliminating the collectivist threat outside your borders if the threat inside your borders reduces you to serfdom.

Since we were discussing the Rep candidates, I wondered which of them you thought might be intent on reducing America to serfdom. Seems to me they'd all at least halt, if not begin to reverse the slide domestically. Except that mad anti-abortionist whose name I forget. And in the hierarchy of menace, Islamo-Fascism is #1.

Do you discredit Rand's views on almost everything else because she was woefully incorrect about homosexuality? No.

I don't discredit Rand because of her nutty views on homosexuality. But they were inconsequential. Ron the Saddamite's views on Iraq and terrorism are of gravest consequence, or would be were he elected. There is no comparison.

Linz

because we like some of the liberty-loving comments Ron said, however 'naive' (more like libertarian wishful thinking - which in the case of his IRS comment I happen to share - I'm not really big on instrumentalism as the best that comes out of it is a tennis match of incremental back and forth), we're 'advocating surrender in Iraq' - c'mon now!!!

But Ron lost me also with the 9/11 comment - and I think he may have some kind of Christian Patriot cultish thing going on with his pro-life stance coupled with the appearance of apologizing for the terrorists (though again I think that was more just bad presentation of the case against the constant military interventionism the U.S. has engaged in).

Every time I hear someone, libertarian or otherwise, complain about U.S. involvement overseas there is part of the complaint I find quite legitimate and another part that can, depending on the individual issuing the complaint, sound like veiled anti-Semitism (meaning they don't like the *U.S. support of Israel* specifically). I haven't explored it, but Ron's comment rubbed me wrong in this way as well. I've heard he's been known to use the term 'Zionist' in a *negative* fashion in some of his comments and writings, and I'm going to look into this a little further.

..."Who is suggesting otherwise? And which of the candidates would reduce America to serfdom?"

That's a dumb *and* disingenuous question. It should be: which candidate will help *save* America from serfdom.

"They're not just "incorrect," they're vicious. America brought 9/11 on itself? Fuck him and the horse he rode in on."

Well, you fuck him and his horse if you want, but I'm quite capable of *not* throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and calling his views on Iraq incorrect, while supporting his stance on the proper function of government.

Do you discredit Rand's views on almost everything else because she was woefully incorrect about homosexuality? No.

Ron Paul declaring he'd abolish the IRS the day he became President is like saying he'd declare world peace – it’s naïve!

I suggest your hierarchy is dangerously inverted here, Ross: Islamofascism must be attended to immediately - before domestic policies. You should give credit where it’s due: Giuliani has a proven track record of lowering tax in a tangible way, making him the only candidate who would implement parallel strategies for a better world inside and outside America.

While Ron Paul might be closer to our ideology in some respects he flies in the face of others. Are you prepared to change your mind on your vote for the goodish doctor, or are you joining the Loony Lennies in advocating surrender in Iraq by your choice of candidate?

And there's no point in eliminating the collectivist threat outside your borders if the threat inside your borders reduces you to serfdom.

Who is suggesting otherwise? And which of the candidates would reduce America to serfdom?

... let's not piss on Paul because he did say what was right, even if his views on Iraq are incorrect.

They're not just "incorrect," they're vicious. America brought 9/11 on itself? Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

Linz

If Rudy was the president and Ron was the VP candidate? Pro-choice Pro-war centrist-conservative as President and anti-war anti-tax pro-life libertarian-conservative in a 'bully pulpit' VP position?

Interesting to think about, albeit impossible to have happen...

"Not much point advocating the abolition of the IRS if you're going to deliver your country up to the Islamo-Fascists!"

And there's no point in eliminating the collectivist threat outside your borders if the threat inside your borders reduces you to serfdom.

As I said, "Paying attention only to the Islamic threat while losing the battle for freedom at home is as dumb as obsessing about the religious right while the enviro-Nazis suffocate capitalism."

You give credit where it's due, and the truth is the truth no matter who says it. Paul's position on Iraq and 9/11 may be untenable, but his statements on the IRS, income tax, etc., should be applauded. I'd have more respect for Giuliani's position if he had the guts to declare, like Paul, those things unconstitutional and un-American, even if he admitted it would take some time to put the situation right. But he won't say that, and he won't say it because he doesn't believe it. Well, you wouldn't expect anything else from a conservative, but let's not piss on Paul because he did say what was right, even if his views on Iraq are incorrect.

The leviathan state is the result of bad philosophy. The half-assed prosecution of the war in the middle east is the result of a lack of moral certitude. One stems directly from the other. If you can't get it right at home, it's pretty damned hard to get it right anywhere else. Would Hiroshima and Nagasaki be bombed today? Like hell, they would. And *that's* the problem.

I just looked at the full transcript of the debate. The following exchange between Paul and Giuliani would have settled it for me:

___________________________________

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

MR. GIULIANI: Can I have 30 seconds, please?

_________________________________________________

Unfortunately Rudy didn't get his thirty seconds but I hope he would have kicked Paul in his yellow Saddamite solar plexus. Not much point advocating the abolition of the IRS if you're going to deliver your country up to the Islamo-Fascists!

McCain, Romney and Giuliani had already furnished an answer of sorts earlier in the debate:

__________________________________

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Brit.

Senator McCain, you say that you are willing to be the last man standing for U.S. involvement in Iraq. But the Iraqi government has failed to meet one political benchmark after another for political reform. Why should Americans continue to fight and die while Iraqi politicians continue to do so little?

SEN. MCCAIN: We have to continue because it's not just the Iraqi vital national security interests that are at stake here, it's America's vital national security interests. If we fail in Iraq, we will see Iraq become a center for al Qaeda, chaos, genocide in the region, and they'll follow us home.

After we lost the war in Vietnam, we came home, they didn't follow us home. You read Zarqawi, you read bin Laden, you read al Qaeda, they'll tell you they want to follow us home.

I believe we have a new strategy and a good strategy. Only four of the five brigades that are -- that we need to implement the strategy are there.

It's long, it's hard, it's tough, it's difficult. Americans are frustrated because of the mishandling of this war. But our national interests -- the United States' national interests are at stake. I believe the Maliki government has got to improve. They've got to pass certain laws that we all know about. But we must succeed, and we cannot fail, and I will be the last man standing if necessary. ...

MR. WALLACE: Governor Romney, can you foresee any circumstances under which you would pull out of Iraq without leaving behind a stable political and security situation?

MR. ROMNEY: Well, I'm certainly not going to project failure, and those kind of circumstances that you would suggest would be projecting failure.

It is critical for us to remember that Iraq has to be considered in the context of what's happening in the Middle East and throughout the world. There is a global jihadist effort. Violent, radical jihadists want to replace all the governments of the moderate Islamic states, replace them with a caliphate. And to do that, they also want to bring down the West, in particular us.

And they've come together as Shi'a and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda with that intent. We have to recognize that what we're doing in Iraq has enormous impact on what's going to happen in this global struggle, and that's why it's important for us to understand that if we were to just walk out precipitously, we could conceivably see the border with Turkey be destabilized by virtue of the Kurdish effort, we could have the Iranians take over the Shi'a south, and perhaps most frightening, you could have al Qaeda play a dominant role among the Sunnis and then have a setting where you'd have something far worse than Afghanistan on their hands.

And so we recognize that it's critical for us to provide the stability to allow a central government to survive and thrive. ...

MR. WALLACE: Mayor Giuliani, in our interview the other day you said that congressional Republicans who say they must see progress by September are, quote, "fundamentally irresponsible," and that in effect they are giving a timetable for retreat to our enemies.

Is your commitment to winning in Iraq open-ended?

MR. GIULIANI: First of all, that isn't exactly what I said. I was talking about the timetable for retreat that the Democrats passed in Congress, in which they did something extraordinary and that I've never heard of in the history of war, which is to give your enemy a schedule of how a retreating army is going to retreat. That was irresponsible, highly irresponsible.

What the Republicans did, or suggested, I don't think is the right approach either.

And I think Senator McCain is correct, these people do want to follow us here and they have followed us here. Fort Dix happened a week ago. That was a situation in which six Islamic terrorists, who were not directed by al Qaeda but claimed to have been inspired by them, were going to kill our military in cold blood at Fort Dix. It was a 16-month investigation done by the FBI and the United States Attorney's Office, and thank God they caught them.

But we have to remind ourselves that we are facing an enemy that is planning all this all over the world, and it turns out planning inside our country, to come here and kill us. And the worst thing to do in the face of that is to show them weakness.

_________________________________________________________

Aside from all that, it was refreshing to see the candidates trying to outdo each other as to how they would reduce taxes and spending. Delivery, of course, is another matter, but there was no quibble that Bush had spent "like a drunken sailor" and all the pork-barrelling had to stop.

The following exchange on abortion was interesting too:

__________________________________

MR. GOLER: You have said that you personally hate abortion but support a woman's right to choose. Governor Huckabee says that's like saying, "I hate slavery, but people can go ahead and practice it." Tell me why he's wrong.

MR. GIULIANI: Well, there is no circumstances under which I could possibly imagine anyone choosing slavery or supporting slavery. There are people, millions and millions of Americans, who are as of good conscience as we are, who make a different choice about abortion. And I think in a country where you want to keep government out of people's lives, or government out of people's lives from the point of view of coercion, you have to respect that. There are things that you can oppose, things you can be against; and then you can come to the conclusion, in the kind of democracy we have, the kind of society that we have, and the kind of society we have where we want to keep government out of people's personal lives, that you can respect other people's view on this. And I think everyone on this stage, including most Democrats, could probably very, very usefully spend a lot of time figuring out how we can reduce abortion.

It's going to take a while for the courts to figure out what to do about this.

And while we're looking at that, we should do what I did in New York, which is to try to reduce abortions as much as you can, try to increase adoptions.

MR. GOLER: Governor, has the mayor persuaded you?

MR. HUCKABEE: He has not. I have great respect for the mayor, and I -- let me tell you why I have great respect. He's been honest about his opinion. He's been honest about his position, and I think that's a healthy thing for our party and for this debate. But I'm pro-life because I believe life begins at conception, and I believe that we should do everything possible to protect that life because it is the centerpiece of what makes us unique as an American people. We value the life of one as if it's the life of all, and that's why we go out for the 12-year-old Boy Scout in North Carolina when he's lost; that's why we look for the 13 miners in Sago, West Virginia, when the mine explodes; that's why we go looking for the hikers in Mount Hood, because we value life, and it's what separates us from the Islamic jihadists who are out to kill us. They celebrate death. They have a culture of death. Ours is a culture of life.

Now, if something is morally wrong, let's oppose it. The honest argument is I don't think it's morally wrong, and someone could take that position and then justify abortion. But if it's wrong, then we ought to be opposed to it, and we ought to find ways to find better ways to deal with our respect for human life.

__________________________________________

Though I think Huckabee is wrong to say "life begins at conception" if we're talking about human life this was nonetheless the most philosophical exposition in the debate—a premise laid out, then an argument based on it. Rudy's waffle about joining with others to find ways of reducing abortions sounded awfully like trying to appease the RR to me.

Still, he'd have my vote if I were there. Ain't votin' for no Saddamite.

Linz

Jefferson fought to expand free market and the fledgling U.S. economy by military defiance of Muslim piracy in the Mediterranean, and yes, he bent some of his own rules. I don't think Ron (who as Ross said, never was a contender anyway - but I'll be dammed if he didn't get libertarian ideas on national/international television!) Paul had a chance, so I can forgive him for his ill-placed comment.

That being said, I could equally forgive his ignorance of realistic military strategy if he could do a thousandth of the damage he would clearly like to do to the rising police state in the land that Jefferson built.

I agree, Ross, that Giuliani won't start a "new freemarket revolution in the US." Nevertheless he's still the best candidate in this poll, if only because he has a better chance of taking down Hillary Rotten Clinton.

"My position has been, get tough, or get out."

Don't you mean, vote Paul and get out?

Jefferson kicked Arab ass! In the face of heavy criticism from his political opponents, and even within his own cabinet, he dispatched the US Marines to North Africa and brought the Barbary bastards to their knees!

The parallels with Iraq are interesting: no formal declaration of war; political opposition at home; passivity from European allies who stood to benefit from US military success; the troops inflicting an initial “shock and awe” (that caused Tunis and Algiers to capitulate); and an extended war that wasn’t without its humiliating mistakes (losing the Philadelphia and her crew).

Jefferson was no Saddamite!

Regarding Rudy: he is the tax buster! As NY Mayor he lowered tax 23 times and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus. I don’t think he’d abolish the IRS, but neither would Ron Paul – nobody wouldn’t let him.

"If Ron Paul is a "Saddamite", then presumably so were Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers...

Does anyone think Rudolph Giuliani would extend the focus of the "War on Terror" to include IRS terrorism of the American people? Ron Paul has said he would abolish the IRS in his first week of office (he could abolish federal income tax immediately as apparently there is no law which allows it); would Mr Giuliani do the same?

Paul has the guts to declare income tax and the IRS, and much else, unconstitutional. A fact that many may like to gloss over in their zeal to vote in another conservative, that is, someone who will preserve the status quo. Giuliani isn't going to start a new freemarket revolution in the US, and anyone who thinks he will is a cuckoo.

Now, as to Iraq, and for that matter, Jefferson. My position has been, get tough, or get out. The only grey area is how long you wait for the conservative altruists to actually put their weapons where their mouths are, stop sacrificing American soldiers in a half-assed manner, and start hammering Iran, Syria and anyone else who's misbehavin'. As I said, get tough, or get out. Anything less is a compromise, and voting for more of the same is voting for compromise.

Jefferson bent the rules when he wanted to, and I'm sure all the folks living in the Mississippi catchment wouldn't want to give it back to France just on general principle. Also, the Barbary Pirates were paid off for many years before Jefferson--without prior consent from Congress--got tough and took firm action in the Med. You could liken that to the current campaign in the Middle East--and like Jefferson's tangle with the pirates, another war against Islam--except that TJ rammed it home good and hard, and the current administration appears to have stage fright.

Fact is, Ron Paul, barring a miracle, was never going to be a serious contender, if for no other reason than he just ain't slick enough, and no one's going to buy his position on Iraq. What Paul has surely done, especially for those who understand the founding of the United States, is to show some real balls when it comes to domestic policy.

While I actually did *cringe* when Dr. Paul tried to blame U.S. interventionism and imperialism for 'inciting' the attacks of Sept. 11th, and I think Rudy was correct at chastising him, there is no comparing (by show of fist or otherwise) Ron's commitment to free market capitalism and defense of the individual AGAINST the STATE. Not the first time if heard Dr. Paul come off a little... 'off'... IMO, though, somewhat the reason libertarians earn some well-deserved criticism.

Ross put it perfectly as w