These two guys are evidence of the proposition that libertarianism is appealing almost exclusively to the social/economic affluent.

Will usually does an excellent job with his interview style but in this one he was more of advocate than interviewer, not that I have a problem of advocacy, it just seemed to be piling on in this diavlog instead of his normal persona of impartial seeker. Will's characterizing McCain's advocacy of "serving a cause greater than ones self" as militaristic is a shallow interpretation of this. Yes the services reflect this point of view but then again so does President Kennedy's Peace Corp or Americacorps as does volunteerism and charity in general. Can private individual capitalist also minister to the concept of ""serving a cause greater than ones self?" There is no doubt that they have and still do. American history is replete with examples of the pillars of capitalism doing just that with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet being the latest and greatest examples of this desire inherent in this concept. Is McCain playing games with some of his rhetoric? You bet he is. But then again that's politics and had the left own arguments of the "evil of capitalists" not been so widely disseminated the power of McCain's argument would find considerable less fertile ground to grow.

I don't think I have ever heard McCain described as cool before. To me, he seems about as fun as a sack of hammers. Nevertheless, after 15 years of guys we would most like to have a beer with, maybe we need to change our categories of evaluation.

An out-and-out hatchet job, but now that Rudy's out of the running, I can't think of anyone who deserves it more. It's about time someone started pushing back against the MSM's endless crush on McCain. The "maverick" thing is as phony as Bush's "guy you want to have a beer with" image. I'm sick of so many people getting this so consistently wrong, especially because it causes "independents"* to vote exactly wrong. Don't know why this link was omitted from the sidebar,** but it's worth a look, if you missed this key point during the diavlog. Nice work, Matt. Keep it up. The rest of you: never forget. ==========
* Read: the even-more-clueless-than-average voters ** And what is up with all those book links in the sidebar? Is this the new revenue model -- referral fees from Amazon?

And Matt Welch is much better on Heroes.

Quoting bjkeefe: An out-and-out hatchet job, ...

I'm congratulate you for being willing to admit the biased nature of the diavlog though I don't believe that you would be so supportive if a "hatchet job" was directed at a candidate of your choosing. However it is politics so let the slings and arrows fly it makes for interesting entertainment.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm sick of so many people getting this so consistently wrong, especially because it causes "independents"* to vote exactly wrong.
...
==========
* Read: the even-more-clueless-than-average voters
...

Why is it that when individuals who support a particular issue or point of view loose, in a free and fair marketplace of ideas and, through the populaces expression called an election blame it on the "even-more-clueless-than-average voters" as opposed to the failure of their particular positions or point of view to garner enough support to prevail. Perhaps it actually should produce a reexamination of the beliefs by the looser as to the problems with their points of view so as to bring them more in line with what they can actually sell to the general populace. I know of no one that can eat an apple in one bite.

The fifth member of the Keating quintet that Matt forgot was the eminently forgettable Donald Riegle of Wisconsin. Just for the record.

pisc: My use of "clueless" refers to voters who choose candidates who are directly opposite to their own interests. It is not a matter of ideology. (People with the wrong ideology are "wingnuts.") I do not consider people who vote for candidates that reflect their interests "clueless," even if I disagree with them. For example, I know quite a few people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and then began to regret their choices shortly afterward. But the reasons they had for voting to re-elect were plausible; e.g., they felt Bush was better against terrorism, or they wanted to keep their tax cuts, or they believed in the Iraq invasion, or whatever. I wouldn't call such voters clueless.

Quoting david_d: The fifth member of the Keating quintet that Matt forgot was the eminently forgettable Donald Riegle of Wisconsin. Just for the record.

If you looked that up, I thank you. If you knew it off the top of your head, I also bow down to you.

While I know one or two voters that are single interest voters and will vote for the candidate that supports their single interest irregardless of the candidates other points of view. I agree that this makes little sense. Other than these single issue voters the vast majority vote based on a compendium of issues variously weighted. I've been voting since the sixties and I don't believe that there has ever been a candidate that lines up with my views and desires 100%. Some of those that I have voted for have held some views 180 degrees to what I considered in myself interest; generally my vote has gone to the candidate that, in my less than perfect judgment, on balance represented my personal interests. I can understand your frustration, with the last couple of presidential elections, as the results weren't amenable to the priorities that you would consider important and of highest weight. But I hardly think that the extremes of either the left or right (often the single issue voters) dictate the outcomes as they tend to balance each other out and it is the very "independents" that decide the

I had read Matt's op ed in the LA Times and was grateful to him for exposing McCain as the hypocrite, caricature of machismo and crazy old man that he is. Of a terribly dangerous bunch of Republican candidates, McCain scares me the most. We've got into a colossal mess with a pack of chicken hawk warmongers, but we could really got into a huge irreversible mess with a gung ho 100-years-in-Iraq, Ba-ba-bam-Iran superhawk. Not sure if I agree with Matt's sexology insight -- "Apologizing is a great way to get laid," but I'll file it away for future reference.

Wonderment:

Not sure if I agree with Matt's sexology insight -- "Apologizing is a great way to get laid," but I'll file it away for future reference.

No, I know what he meant by that. There was a certain type of guy that I knew while growing up who could always and repeatedly get away with being a total asshole one day and begging forgiveness the next, and the amount and quality of women who would fall for it never failed to distress me. I'm not saying I was ever a saint, but usually, if I screwed up more than a couple of times with the same woman, I'd be too ... embarrassed? Something ... to try to talk my way out yet again. Of course, now that I'm older, wiser, and much more mature, I no longer have any need to apologize for anything. Which explains the endless streams of brilliant hotties coursing through my house.