Meanwhile, with Obama touting 1 million new jobs from $787 billion in spending, a mathematically-inclined friend of mine notes that we’d better hope each of those jobs has a $787,000 salary to make it worthwhile. And on Conan O’Brien, there was a bit (pointed out to me by Katherine Taylor) suggesting what it might look like if another group of math and number fans, the Muppets, were to turn against Obamacare. Let us hope they do so quickly and vocally, as there is talk healthcare “reform” may pass the House tomorrow, which will leave us all feeling like we live in Massachusetts, and not in a Cape Cod way.
TODD SEAVEY author of Libertarianism for Beginners and writer of/speaker about many other things
Friday, November 6, 2009
Obama vs. Ron Paul
Of all the interpretations made of a few Republican victories this week, my favorite is that in The Hill proclaiming Ron Paul the real winner, in so far as GOP candidates are largely sticking to an anti-government, anti-spending, anti-socialism message — as they should. If they continue in this direction, I say keep purging moderates, let the Paul Krugmans of the world keep screaming that the party is becoming too extreme, and let a more coherent — and thus ultimately more appealing — message emerge from a party that’s been too mushy for too long, with little to show for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
How about a debate on whether Lou Dobbs should be Ron Paul’s running mate? So far, only 2 percent at this poll say yes, but I’m ready to defend the proposition.
You know, it didn’t even cross my mind that this means _your_ old boss (Dobbs) is fighting with _my_ old boss (Stossel).
Our Dec. 2 and Jan. 6 debate slots are indeed open (with things more carefully advance-planned for Feb., March, and Apr., I promise) — but are you offering to argue against open-borders immigration or merely proposing that Dobbs-Paul makes a logical pair? The latter, I’m sure you’d agree, may be too obscure and narrow a subject.
(And when can we have tickets whose two members differ only on the question of whether _spending cuts_ is a higher priority than _deregulation_ or vice versa? That’s a range of opinion I could tolerate in the interests of coalition-building. All else is a distraction fit only to mesmerize the smelly masses.)
Yes, I was arguing they’re a logical pair, on not just immigration but also conspiracy theorizing and having no chance to win. And no, nobody wants to see this debate. But I’ll let you know if I think of any other topics.
Purge the neocons. They’re not moderate in the spectrum of coercers.
The world needs more of the people in that VP list (most of them anyway)
Post a Comment