Obama and Fidel!

Now wouldn't that make Michelle proud!! And Mr. Riggenba'ath delirious?!

2009-2013 will merely continue the creeping, ratcheting advance of America's statism, which began IMO almost *200* years ago when Jefferson left office...

The 'major party' candidates coming to the front of this election seem to be the most uniformly and overtly statist I've seen in a long while. They get no points for honesty, either.

"At least four years of incredibly statist poison ahead, regardless of the flavor."

And that'll really distinguish 2009-2013 from the last eight years.

Uh huh.

JR

It seems that the people most concerned about the race/gender issue are the newsmakers. I think it is ridiculous to assume that black voters will vote for Obama and women will vote for Hillary. I believe the people of this country have a bit more substance than that.

Democrat – Republican? If I have to hear something about the far left or far right again I think I might just scream. People are so caught up in belonging on a “side” that they have lost sight of what is really important. Everyone wants to point a finger at what ever side they do not claim and state the most unsavory things in an accusatory tone. No one wants to listen anymore. Instead of beating each other up and yelling for one side or the other why not vote “American”.  

In the beginning of this race I was very unsure which candidate would be better. Some had a lot of experience and some next to nothing. I read everything I could about each person. I listened to media and the candidates themselves. I documented inconsistencies and any negative publicity. You know what I decided after all of that? I decided that we are in a world of hurt. At first I pushed Obama aside due to his lack of experience. Then after listening and reading more and more, I put him back in the consideration column. Perhaps one of the problems has been that we focus so much on how long someone has been involved in politics. That involvement could be the very reason so many politicians are corrupt. They have been in the game way too long, made too many “friends” and have gotten too much power. That could be a liability, not an asset.

In the end I am still unsure. We have a choice between three people that the majority does not wish to choose.  I am not Democrat or Republican. I am American. I vote for the candidate that I believe will do the best job for our country. I am not impressed by speeches riddled with promises or inspiring slogans. Results, results, results – not for a few, but for many. I will keep listening and watching to see which candidate seems to be telling less lies than the other. Then we will see. God Bless America!

It does not essentially matter.

This next election is going to be a fucking disaster, no matter who wins.

Obama is a demagogue and a charlatan. Is this news? He's like an old-time preacher peddling faith-healing and other intellectual snake-oil. He's also a traitor. But every reason not to vote for him is also a reason not to vote for Hillary.

Objectivists should learn something from Obama's success. If charisma can work so well in the service of evil, how much more could it achieve working for good? Objectivist presenters by and large have sticks up their asses. They are suspicious of, if not downright hostile to, passion. They buy into the reason/passion dichotomy. Their somnolent styles inspire no one.

I just heard Obama calling Americans back to the ethic of "I am my brother's keeper," soaringly. To wild applause from those in the crowd who hadn't fainted. Oh for the day when a politician delivers a line like "Each man is sovereign" with equal passion.

At least four years of incredibly statist poison ahead, regardless of the flavor. The *only* hope is legislative gridlock in the form of a more "conservative" Congress which *may* limit the left-statism of the three potential candidates, and I'm not holding my breath for that. Either way, individual liberty is in for another four years of beating.

For a fascinating account of American culture and its impact on elections, check this out.

At his rallies, Obama's latest move is to make a sympathetic big deal over the now somehow inevitable swooning female among the throng of cheering admirers.

"Would everybody make some room? Can we get an EMT down here?"

In a crowd of thousands who've waited for hours to see their candidate, fainting is not uncommon. Maybe it happens more often for Obama than for others, but one thing is sure: Obama is making his compassion for those seemingly overcome by his very presence and inspirational rhetoric a news item in itself.

Until her husband ran for President, America was a terrible place, possessing not a single noteworthy virtue, according to Obama's wife. It seems that for the first time ever, she's proud to be an American! Only he can fix America's "soul."

Obama enjoys selling himself as the new Messiah.

An Oist friend of mine here recently attended the Obama rally in Georgia to see what it was like. He said sadly Obama was a damn good speaker who really inspired the crowd who ate up every line of socialist crap he said. I take that as a frightening sign - but also don't know if there are likewise large groups of idiots who get sincerely inspired by Hillary or McCain. Does he stand out in having a sincere following, or is this a general political phenomenon?

Jody has a good point.  If the US collapses under a "capitalist", capitalism will get the blame like it always does.  On the other hand, if the US collapses under a socialist, socialism should get the blame.  However, historical evidence and reason haven't helped so far, capitalism will probably get the blame either way. 

Amongst the  three socialists which would I prefer?  Emigration. 

Anybody know where Galt's Gulch is? 

McCain is not popular but obviously he is the one selected because he has the most chance of winning the election.

America is F*&$^@ either way. I'd rather it be fucked under someone who is appropriately labeled.

People worship McCain and his POW resiliency. He's a piece of shit who does not have the courage to come clean with his convictions. I take that back...McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy...perhaps he does have the courage to be a piece of shit. And the next person who brings up McCain's military bravado to me(as he's done for years) will get a big ole middle finger. I don't give a damn if you had your nuts twisted by the Viet Cong. If your balls are so small that you co-sponser bills with the far left, then fuck you.

Why Obama's foreign policy adviser is going to
Damascus?

Obama is not a possible vote for me.

Should he win, the excitement will be much greater than with a Hillary win -- it will be claimed that he has a "mandate for change" with the new, probably still-Democrat Congress. He might get more done than Clinton could, Aaron.

And, just one little terrorist bomb can ruin your whole day.

Mrs. Clinton, at least, is dependably lying and more cautious in her rhetoric about precipitous inaction abroad.

Obama appears to be sincere about his Leftist ideas. Even, if I may, religious.

He can captivate a crowd with feel-good comments about as substantial as a soap bubble. Eesh! What substance we get is the worst collection of hard-core socialism to be peddled in American politics for some time. Indexing the minimum wage and make-work projects and really fierce censorship of political speech (he just hates lobbyists), etc.

With such a limited track record, there's little way of telling what we're really dealing with, anyway.

But he has that ineffable thing called "momentum" (and what a disgusting concept that is!) -- and he appears to be a demagogue of the very sort of which Thomas Jefferson warned us.

Yeah, he excites the crowd.

So did Hitler.

It really is turning into American Airhead. Responding to claims that he's all style, no substance, pretty boy and new Dem-scum frontrunner Obama, in Wisconsin, is trotting out detailed policy: subsidising uneconomic industries with money saved by surrendering in Iraq and reinstating tax levels on the "rich" reduced by Bush.

I think he should revert to all style no substance, quick.

The Reagan Difference: its how Linz talks and reacts to evil. He points at it, calls it evil, and does not equivocate regarding his love of the the USA, his commitment to the USA, and his opposition to her enemies, even if it means offending multiculturalism.

Ideas matter. America was exhausted spiritually. Inflation, Vietnam, an Iranian hostage situation with no solution.

He solved them by taking the oath and then doing what he said he would.

That said, what do Libertarians even stand for anymore? What's their message? The Party of Nutjobs?

Amongst the three, McCain in my mind is the clear choice. He has shown SOME character. Of the three, he is the strongest supporter of something other than an "announce our withdrawal date" policy in Iraq. Clinton is the clear choice for those infatuated with a fictional, rather than the real, Clinton Presidency. And those who do not care about character and honesty. Obama will very efficiently work towards ensuring that as many African Americans get to participate in government in as many ways and on as many levels as possible, step one towards paying trillions in reparations, institutionalizing racism, and accelerating the downward spiral we in the US find ourselves in. Ask residents of Detroit and Chicago how well that works out. He could change my mind with a single Bill-Cosby-esque statement, but he owes those who have placed him where he is. And I have never heard him say a single unequivocal patriotic thing, ever. He is the LAST person who I'd want in the White House. He is the candidate of appeasement in foreign policy even more than the other two.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

I thought it Which Democrat Will or Would you Choose (TO SHOOT)? I agree, Scott, McCain is just a Democrat with an admirable military record. But Hilton's Ringer-inspired post is also correct, there never really (especially after candidates are selected) has been any difference between Republicans and Democrats, other perhaps than the way Reagan (and sometimes GWB) spoke. The Libertarian Party, having eliminated their relatively principled platform, finally made themselves as utterly useless as the so-called 'major' parties.

If the Libertarian Party manages to scrounge up a half-way decent candidate like they did in the last election I may still yet 'throw away' my vote to them as my own personal middle finger to the whole corrupt and morally bankrupt political system. Or I may just sit it out. Either way, I've never been able to vote for even a perceived 'lesser of two evils' - my two cents.

Given those three, Obama - only because I think he'll be less effective than the other two in enacting his particular brand of evil.

Mark,

No, because of Hillary Clinton's lead in superdelegates, these victories mean that Obama has only very narrowly taken the delegate lead.

Jim

I just read this great article by Robert Ringer..erstwhile author of "Winning through intimidation" and supporter of Ayn Rand. I dont know what convictions he holds lately, but Rands's ideas still run strong in his writing. I dont know who coined "demopublican party", but he mentions it in this great little article on inflation.

Buying Into the Con By Robert Ringer

When government puts out propaganda on the “inflation rate,” it is really talking about the “consumer price index.” But the consumer price index is misleading, because it covers the prices of only a few hundred items out of thousands, and many of those thousands may play a bigger role in your life than in the lives of others.

More important, however, is that the so-called inflation rate does not tell you the rate of inflation at all. As previously noted in this series, the rate of inflation is the rate at which government increases the supply of paper money. And by referring to an increase in the consumer price index as the inflation rate, government avoids discussing its irresponsible and fraudulent increase of the paper-money supply.

Why is this little game of government-engineered semantics so important? Because it confuses almost everyone, so much so that all but a small percentage of the population does not understand the true cause of rising prices. And it is rising prices that people are concerned with — i.e., they are concerned with the result of inflation.

If most people understood that it is the inflation of paper currency that falsely increases prices, they undoubtedly would revolt against the reckless printing of money. Which is why the semantics charade — and the resulting confusion — is so important to the government.

So long as people can be led to accept false explanations of what causes prices to rise, they can be made to believe in false solutions. Which gives de facto power to politicians, because it is they who peddle the false solutions to increase their own power.

Why do prices rise when government prints too much money? Again, money is not wealth; money is only a medium of exchange. Wealth is television sets, automobiles, and whatever else you exchange the medium for. Wealth can be produced only by labor. Today’s money, however, is produced by simply printing pieces of paper.

The result is that when the Federal Reserve prints up money faster than people can produce wealth (products and services), the ratio between available money and available products and services increases. The supply of money, increasing faster than the production of goods and services, increases the demand for the available goods and services, which, per the law of supply and demand, stimulates prices to rise.

And whether Hillary, Barack Obama, or John McCain becomes the next head of the Demopublican Party, the one thing of which you can be certain is that the printing presses are going to have to roll faster than ever in order to meet their promises to Americans addicted to false prosperity — and thus increase their power over bewildered Mr. Main Street.

(In case you’re wondering why the government can’t just go back to the well indefinitely and continue to borrow its way out of Financial Judgment Day, even the Chinese are not dumb enough to fund such multi-trillion-dollar schemes as “universal health care,” given that they already hold trillions of dollars in U.S. debt that can never be repaid.)

Next: We’ll revisit the shoemaker and hatmaker mentioned in Part II of this article, and see how this massive federal fraud affects each of them.

Scanpro 1000

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

I've been having trouble understanding the import of the latest primary results: do the latest wins for Obama mean conclusively he is going to take out Clinton?

[Great to see you back posting Scott.]