Oh, great….he’s a freakin’ college-graduate.

He knows EVERYTHING now…..

Of course, Cindy McCain might be just as good, what with her own experience abusing prescription drugs, getting busted, and spending ten years in jail, after which she became a passionate advocate for the injustice of sentencing laws. Oh wait, no. Only the first thing happened.

At this point I think I’d rather vote for McCain than Hillary. But it’s really all about the war for me. It’s not about just constitutional law, it’s about international law as well.

Biggest government spender ever: Bush II.
Second biggest: Reagan
Third biggest: Bush I

Clinton, for his myriad faults, actually lowered the deficit.

For the last 30 years, the Republicans have been the party of big government, the party of huge government spending. Sure, they don’t raise taxes because they’re the party of “borrow from your children”, aka “spend deficit money like a drunken sailor.”

If you don’t like big government, vote against the Republicans. They are, quite literally, the biggest “big government” builders in the history of humanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7150u9sfCo

Enjoy,

That said, back in the day, many people said Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we ever had. Remember that? He just took Republican ideas and made them his. Someone else already mentioned welfare reform. I tend to think the parties are in the midst of a Dixiecrat-style swap when it comes to fiscal prudence.

And as for the growing size and scope of the government, the fact that ANY of you are still fooled into thinking Republicans are better with money than Democrats, is rather remarkable, considering the history of the federal budget in the past 30 years or so. How the Republicans have managed to keep that meme out there is simply beyond me. The Democrats are completely inept at talking about economics, I guess.

For that matter, I’ve long said that if ONE Democrat would just embrace real tax reform, a flat tax being my preference, then this country would be on its way to some serious progress. Sigh. I’ve written Obama about it, but he hasn’t answered. :)

Walter Williams? Get off your fat can and run….

The first black president will be a republican not a dem.

I think Ochressandro has a very good point here. From a libertarian perspective, Obama in the White House with a Republican controlled Congress could work out pretty well. Whereas neither a Republican nor Democratic Congress would do much to check Clinton or McCain in their lust for foreign adventures and the expansion of executive power, I could see a Republican Congress giving Obama a lot of trouble with his more odious domestic measures. Even if the Republicans took back either the House or the Senate it might be enough. But I guess this is probably a moot point after all, you don’t hear a lot about how the Congressional balance is shaping up this early in the election cycle, but I’d bet it isn’t good for Republicans. And of course if Obama sweeps in decisively, there will probably be a coattail effect for the Dems in Congress.

But there’s always 2010 and the prospect of a six year stalemate…Hell, that’s already happened once in my young life. Not that Bill in the White House and Newt controlling Congress is exactly my vision of libertopia, but it doesn’t seem so bad compared to what we could wind up with…

Huh? Is this a lame try at a tired 90s Quayle joke? Quayle was VP UNDER Bush, not “instead of”.

To prevent further pedo-oral juxtapositions, I recommend at least a cursory glance at Wikipedia, Encarta, or your local library’s World Book Encyclopedia…

One thing Democrats are going to find out is that it’s not that important to most voters either, and certainly less than it was in the last election.

By the way Kukulkan GHW Bush was only VP for 4 years. Quayle was the first term VP under Reagan.

I gotta say, other than Obama being anti-war, there’s really not very much to distinguish these three from each other. And the war in Iraq is not as important to me as I think it is to Radley or most of his readers.

What it “is”, so far, is a politician moving his lips.

– Now if he were to stop being such a chickenliver and actually *talk* about the WosD, he’d be more than just another socialist politician selling himself as the 2nd (or 3rd or 27th or….) Coming of JFK or MLK.

1)Con law professor. My con law professor once had us watch a random episode of ‘Cops’; then we were to write what the civil rights abuses we had seen were. Speaking from experience, most con law professors share Radley’s opinion that the pendulum has swung way too far towards authoritarianism. Most worship the Bill of Rights; that’s how they ended up teaching that subject in the first place.

2)One of the things I’ve seen in some of Obama’s stump speeches is a line about how we’re incarcerating at a faster level than ever before and we need to stop. If that’s not a threat towards the drug war, I don’t know what is.

3)He was a community organizer in South Side Chicago, where a lot of victims of the drug war come from. Obama has seen the casualties with his own eyes, from the perspective of those most affected. That’s going to play into his decisions.

4)I’d point out that the one of the biggest expansions of the war on drugs happened during the Reagan and Clinton years. You think Reganite McCain or Hillary are going to help reverse that trend?

Yeah, right. I’ll put my money on the black guy from Chicago who’s knows the 4th Amendment, knows what habeas corpus actually is, and has seen first hand what the drug war does.

One reason Radley supports Obama is because he thinks, with very little evidence, that he might be the least hardcore drug warrior of the bunch. That’s also wishful thinking.