rivka | (no subject)

Current Mood: amused

Entry tags:

dean for america

(no subject)

Vermont's poet laureate endorsed Dennis Kucinich.

The Dean campaign was asked for a response, and issued a haiku.

How can you not love a candidate like that?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

He doesn't want to raise your taxes, he just wants to cancel the projected tax cuts - cuts that the country couldn't afford in the first place, and which we can afford even less after Bush's deficit spending. But I don't expect that you and I will agree about taxes, so I won't even try to pursue that argument. :-)

I'm curious about whether you intend to vote for Bush, or don't intend to vote at all. This administration has arrogated sweeping new powers to the federal government and has rolled back civil liberties at unprecedented levels, yet there does seem to be a general assumption that libertarians vote Republican.

There's a blog post here (http://thatother.blogspot.com/2003_05_01_thatother_archive.html#200320107) from a libertarian who supports Dean. You (and others) might find it interesting, even if you don't agree.

The only candidates I've ever really felt good voting for have been libertarians. I do intend to vote (I haven't missed an election in the twenty-five years I've been eligible), and did vote for Bush last time. I don't regret it too much, because Gore made me ill (and still does), and I thought New Jersey would be more competitive than it was.

However, since whichever Democrat is nominated in 2004 will likely win New Jersey no matter what, I will likely vote for the libertarian candidate next November.

And you're right - we probably won't agree on taxes, though I respect you and your reasons for disagreeing. :-)

That said, in what I perceive as a close race between Republicans and Democrats, I vote for the candidate I believe is most likely to do the least harm to my take-home pay. In my fight against Leviathan, I aim at the purse. Most of the time, that has meant voting for Republicans.

One other minor note about Dean, though. I did see him with Tim Russert (I think it was "Meet the Press"), and I thought he waffled a bit on gay marriage. I, of course, good libertarian that I am, want no official recognition of marriage by the state. Let consenting adults (whatever sex, and however many) make any interpersonal contracts they wish. Still, I'm left wondering how Dean really feels, and why he wouldn't come out and say that he either supported or opposed gay marriage, period.

did vote for Bush last time. I don't regret it too much [...]

That said, in what I perceive as a close race between Republicans and Democrats, I vote for the candidate I believe is most likely to do the least harm to my take-home pay. In my fight against Leviathan, I aim at the purse. Most of the time, that has meant voting for Republicans.

I must not be understanding you properly, because this makes it sound like

(a) you don't object to deficit spending (a la Bush) as long as your taxes don't go up, and

(b) you think that expansion of Medicare poses a greater threat to individual liberty than secret prosecutions and the Total Information Awareness program.

If those things are, in fact, the case, then I don't understand your brand of libertarianism at all.

(a) I do object to deficit spending - dramatically so. But deficits don't exist because of tax cuts. They exist because spending exceeds tax receipts. I want taxes down, and spending down far more. Much, much more.

(b) I do think that the expansion of Medicare poses a greater threat to my rights (property rights, in particular, with which I am extremely concerned) than closed military tribunals for people caught on an Afghan battlefield (US citizens or not), or the offensive TIA.

There's an old saying that when you're buttocks-deep in gators, it's hard to remember that your first job was to clear the swamp. I value my civil liberties quite highly, but I also prioritize them. This is hardly unusual; I know many Democrats who admire Dean as you do, but won't support him because they don't like his positions on gun rights.

You won't hear me supporting many administration policies. But the greatest government impact on my life, right now, is found in the big subtractions on my paystub.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans are even vaguely close to being libertarians. I really don't have any viable candidates to vote for. So, to reiterate, in a close race, I vote for the candidate most likely to do me and my family the least harm, as I see it.

I have one word to say to libertarians who consider voting for Bush:

Ashcroft.

"*shcr*ft?" Such language! I was under the impression that

rivka was running a family journal here. :-)

The incumbent Attorney General of the United States was one of many disappointing cabinet choices made by the President - no argument here. He seems to have a rather proscribed understanding of the Bill of Rights. Though he scares me less than his predecessor, the architect of the Waco barbecue and the Elian betrayal. Pick your poison, I guess.

As I told Rivka, New Jersey is voting Democratic now regardless, so my vote won't matter. Hence, I will likely vote for the Libertarian candidate. If I'm voting for a loser anyway, it may as well be one I respect.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only