lamoose, You had me at "[his] glasses are off the g--dammed charts".

Hipster look? Maybe among the other engineers at Lockheed-Martin. I'm tellin' you he looks like D-FENS, except he's rockin' an offbeat tie.

I thought Matt was excellent in this diavlog. His unstintingly brutal assessments of the Bush administration and Republicans, delivered in such a matter-of-fact style was pretty impressive. And I am someone who has been inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

“Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual — uninvolved, uninformed.”

Quoting Cain: Hipster look? Maybe among the other engineers at Lockheed-Martin. I'm tellin' you he looks like D-FENS, except he's rockin' an offbeat tie.

Matt looks like the Michael Douglas character in the movie "Falling Down." It's about a nerdy engineer type with the same glasses who goes berserk in Los Angeles and takes his anger out on foreigners and other types he deems undesirable. John

Am I missing something, or was this rather naive of Mark: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/131...5:11&out=46:24
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/oba...byist_line.php:

Obama’s Web site says he doesn’t take money from Washington lobbyists or political action committees,and the Center says that if his campaign finds that the money came from registered Washington lobbyists, it does get returned.

How meaningful is this? “It’s a politically smart position for him to take. It sounds profound,” says Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. “But in fact neither PACs nor lobbyists give a lot to presidential campaigns. He’s not leaving a whole lot of money on the table by eschewing PACs and lobbyists.” PAC money represents only about one percent of all the money in a presidential race because, Ritsch says, so many people donate that their contributions dwarf PAC money.

Significantly, the Center’s lobbyist sector excludes in-house lobbyists who work solely for one company, union, trade association, or other group. These people may lobby, but their contributions are grouped in the totals for the various industries they represent, along with contributions from other employees in the sector, their relatives, whatever PAC money has been raised, and donations from trade and professional associations which, of course, carry lots of weight in

Quoting look: Am I missing something, or was this rather naive of Mark:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/131...5:11&out=46:24

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/oba...byist_line.php:

I think you're missing a little something with that comparison. Granted, the lobbyist financial contributions may be small, but Mark seemed to be trying to make a point about Obama not being beholdened to special interest groups in a larger sense; e.g., bound to agreements to carry water on pet issues.

Quoting bjkeefe: I think you're missing a little something with that comparison. Granted, the lobbyist financial contributions may be small, but Mark seemed to be trying to make a point about Obama not being beholdened to special interest groups in a larger sense; e.g., bound to agreements to carry water on pet issues.

I think an obligation is formed in the sense that if he seeks re-election he'll need to go back to the well. Especially if he's not so popular next time around. Same with the Israel mega-pander tour. Forty whole minutes, with no joint statement afterwards, with the Palestinians. What will he be able to do for them if he's looking for AIPAC support the second go-round?

Quoting look: I think an obligation is formed in the sense that if he seeks re-election he'll need to go back to the well. Especially if he's not so popular next time around.

What well? What go back? Isn't the claim that he isn't having to do that, because of the way he came up and the way his campaign is organized? Of course, he'll always have to make some special appeals and concessions. No argument about that.

Same with the Israel mega-pander tour. Forty whole minutes, with no joint statement afterwards, with the Palestinians. What will he be able to do for them if he's looking for AIPAC support the second go-round?

Cross that bridge when we get to it. Nice to hear that you've conceded the first win, though. ;^)

I think Obama's connection to the Chicago School economics is wishful thinking by my fellow libertarians: “I don’t think anything that went on in these chambers affected him,” said Richard Epstein, a libertarian colleague who says he longed for Mr. Obama to venture beyond his ideological and topical comfort zones. “His entire life, as best I can tell, is one in which he’s always been a thoughtful listener and questioner, but he’s never stepped up to the plate and taken full swings.”

Quoting Liberty1776: I think Obama's connection to the Chicago School economics is wishful thinking by my fellow libertarians: “I don’t think anything that went on in these chambers affected him,” said Richard Epstein, a libertarian colleague who says he longed for Mr. Obama to venture beyond his ideological and topical comfort zones. “His entire life, as best I can tell, is one in which he’s always been a thoughtful listener and questioner, but he’s never stepped up to the plate and taken full swings.”

Does this mean you're voting for Bob Barr?

Quoting Namazu: “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual — uninvolved, uninformed.”

But she wasn't addressing libertarians, as you are fully aware. She was addressing Obama supporters, and she was simply saying that Obama is going to encourage his supporters to be both informed and involved. I know, it's horrifying.

Please no more "Libertarians" - these PC, "open borders", Chamber of Commerce druggies have zero support in the country. Most live in D.C., N.Y.C. or comfortable suburbia U.S.A and have no connection to anyone outside their class. Matt seems like a nice guy, but his views are totally irrelevant.
.

Quoting rcocean: Please no more "Libertarians" - these PC, "open borders", Chamber of Commerce druggies ...

I don't think the libertarian view that supports open borders is based on political correctness. I think it's more based on the notion that the individual's rights should never be hampered by a state. There's also the belief that removing such hindrances is more economically efficient, and hence, (eventually) better for society. I don't want to debate open borders. I'm just saying I think you're wrong about libertarians having views that are driven by a wish to be "PC."

... have zero support in the country.

I think you're wrong about this, too. While there may not be huge support for the entire libertarian philosophy as an operating political stance, I think there is considerable support for many of the principles, and that this support draws from every part of the political spectrum. Just to take one example, NAFTA would not have passed otherwise. Recall also that the idea was given a big push forward by a Republican president (GHWB) and then picked up by a Democrat. Now, again, I don't want to argue for or against NAFTA per se. I'm just saying that there is considerably more than "zero support" for various

Quoting bjkeefe: What well? What go back? Isn't the claim that he isn't having to do that, because of the way he came up and the way his campaign is organized?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...aign_Financing
My bold:

On February 1, 2007, Barack Obama, through his Obama Exploratory Committee, asked[1] the Federal Election Commission "whether, if Senator Obama becomes a candidate, [may he] provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and [accept] the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party's nominee." Obama "used campaign donations generated by PACs and lobbyists to bankroll the birth of his White House bid -- though he's banning that money for his presidential 2008 race," Lynn Sweet reported[2] February 9, 2007, in the Chicago Sun-Times. "Obama's conversion to a laudable higher standard does not negate that money from sources he now disdains helped paved the way for his kickoff in Springfield [Illinois] on Saturday [February 10, 2007]. "Obama has been raising campaign cash for two political pots -- Obama 2010 Inc., his Senate re-election committee, and the Hopefund, another war chest. Obama, until his recent conversion on the eve of his presidential run, took more than $1 million from political action committees. "An examination

Quoting look: On February 1, 2007, Barack Obama, through his Obama Exploratory Committee ...

I'd like to see how fair you're being about this by you showing me some evidence of your looking into the campaign financing shenanigans pulled by John McCain. Remember that you have promised to scrutinize both candidates equally. If you would like to withdraw that promise, I understand. But I would like to know where you actually place yourself on this matter these days, if you don't mind stating it. Seems to me you're still looking for dirt on Obama exclusively. This is your right, as I shouldn't need to say. The reason I ask is this: if you're truly still on the fence, I'm happy to respond thoughtfully to your Obama quibbles; if you've gone fully into the other camp, I'd rather not waste the time trying to get you to change your mind. As to the specific point you're trying to make about how Obama got his campaign financing started, I'll say that I wish it weren't so. Politics is a dirty business and money is a big part of the problem. On the other hand, I admire him for moving away from such

BJK: Open borders and NAFTA were/are supported by the Chamber of Commerce, the Fortune 500, and Wall Street. And it's their support and political donations which led to NAFTA and 12 million illegals. They donate to both parties. And neither Wall Street nor the C-of-C is motivated by "Libertarianism" - only by money. As for "Libertarianism" in general its simply bogus. People like Matt say "The government should get off our backs, except for..." Strangely the 'except for' always either benefits the comfortable white elite or supports their deeply held prejudices. For example, why was "Reason" so upset at Ron Paul's supposed support for private racial discrimination? Shouldn't the "government get off our backs" and allow companies and real estate owners to discriminate? Why support legal drugs but not legal racial discrimination by individuals? (Note: I'm against drugs and private discrimination - but then I'm not a "Libertarian"). Their libertarian philosophy is just a fig-leaf for economic self-interest and pushing a set of personal prejudices. So, I don't think "libertarianism" serves a useful purpose - its a distraction from the real political battle.

rcocean: Can't really argue with much of that. One thing I will continue to insist, though, is that one need not be a hardcore libertarian, nor purely motivated either by greed or PCness, to be in favor of much more open borders. I consider myself fairly liberal with a few libertarian leanings, and I think we should be letting more people into the country, making the process easier, and, yes, having a new amnesty program for most of those who are already here. I just say that to let you know where I'm coming from, to reinforce my point about what drives people who don't want walls built around our country. I don't really want to debate the whole immigration issue, though of course you are most welcome to say why you don't agree with my outlook on the matter.

No, it's not just you. First, we libertarians are used to sitting in the back of the class while the conservatives and liberals vie for the title of Prom Queen. It fine tunes one's sense of wry detachment and irony. Second, we tend to love American pop culture, and business culture, and materialistic culture, which we see as the true heart of this country rather than the stuff that politicians tell us we're supposed to care about. So, we tend to be hipsters, into cool music and the like.

For example, why was "Reason" so upset at Ron Paul's supposed support for private racial discrimination? Shouldn't the "government get off our backs" and allow companies and real estate owners to discriminate? Why support legal drugs but not legal racial discrimination by individuals? Wow, that's a mischaracterization of what happened with reason and Ron Paul. Individual writers on the Reason blog expressed their disappointment that Ron Paul let several newsletters with racist statements be published under his name, and then stonewalled about how it happened.