You may have heard the news that Kay Hagan has been accused of accepting godless money.
Everyone is truly shocked, but I find myself having to make a confession. I have, on numerous occasions, given entities godless money without informing them that it was anything other than good Christian money.
I’ll wait for the shock to wear off before continuing.
Since this is an important issue to all Americans, I thought I would help you out. Here’s a list of those entities to which I have funneled godless cash:
Barnes and Noble
Barack Obama & Joe Biden
That’s not a complete list. I’ll try to get it up to date and accurate. Also, Zoot Enterprises and Montana State University have been implicated in a scheme to launder money through me over the past several years, taking good American money and turning it into godless money. No doubt investigations will follow this bombshell.
I vote that the GOP use this strategy from now on. Stop campaigning and just think happy thoughts.
Incidentally, this would be a novel interpretation of election fraud. Oh my, that touchscreen voting machine just switched my vote from Obama to McCain! It’s a miracle! God has revealed his choice.
Biden says Obama isn’t going to turn the U.S. into Sweden.
Everyone put away your lederhosen, we’ll have to wait for the next election.
Over at The Corner:
Number of posts regarding the lack of security on Obama’s online donation page today: 10.
Number of Corner readers who made fraudulent donations to Obama: 5+.
The fact that it took 9 posts on the subject before Cornerites realized they were encouraging illegal activity: priceless.
So today’s major accomplishments were that they donated an unspecified amount of money to a Democrat’s campaign and successfully violated federal election laws. Gee, I wonder why their side isn’t winning?
The reaction to Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama is amusing. You’ve all seen Limbaugh’s reaction. Here’s Buchanan’s similar reaction:
Gen. Powell does not deny it, contending only that race was not the only or decisive factor. “If I had only that fact in mind,” he told Tom Brokaw, “I could have done this six, eight, ten months ago.”
Yet, in hailing Barack as a “transformational figure” whose election would “electrify our country … (and) the world,” Powell seems to testify to the centrality of Barack’s ethnicity to his decision.
For what else is there about this freshman senator, who has no significant legislative accomplishment, to transform our politics and to electrify the world, other than the fact that he would be the nation’s first African-American president?
It’s almost as if Buchanan didn’t hear Powell credit Obama’s ability to inspire people, the quality of intellect, and the inclusiveness of his campaign. But I’m sure he did, given that he said that just before the quote about him being transformational figure. Now it’s one thing for him to disagree with Powell’s assessment of Obama. It’s another for him to believe that he’s not arguing in good faith, that’s it’s not possible for him to honestly believe that those qualities, in addition to Obama’s race, drove that conclusion.
Buchanan’s not an idiot, but he didn’t even try to discount Powell’s explanation of his decision. Given the other prominent conservatives endorsing Obama, he’d really have to work to come up with a plausible argument. He and other Republicans are simply smearing Powell using the same identity politics they’re ostensibly condemning. It’s not pretty.
I made a lot over Congress not being able to pass anything better than the bailout bill we got. It seems that world events have conspired to push Paulson towards what looks like the favored solution of most economists (partial nationalization and recapitalization) sans Congressional sign-off. So, hurdle cleared, I guess. I didn’t see that one coming; he is a Bush administration official, after all (ambiguity completely intended).
This is pretty seriously over my head, but…good…I think.
I must say, there’s something I don’t get about sentiments like this.
Libertarians dislike coercion, meaning government compelling them to do something they don’t want to do. This typically involves taxes paying for various facets of the welfare state. And while most of our political discourse is pragmatic – involving solutions to problems and debating their effectiveness – this view includes philosophical arguments about how big government should be (using government as proxy for coercion, that is).
Here’s what I don’t understand. A society with rules acceptable (generally, not absolutely) to libertarians has never existed. Not only has it never existed, I don’t believe it’s even been attempted. Even if you regard this country at its inception as close, the current welfare state (or even a more minimal version of it) is hardly unconstitutional. Yes, I know people make those arguments, but I haven’t seen a convincing one.
Further, the prospect that such a society could exist seems dismal. We’re social creatures. We are equipped to exist in a society with inter-dependencies and rules of conduct for the benefit of as many members of that as possible. Put crudely, Doug may be annoyed that he’s coerced into supporting certain policies, but they don’t threaten his livelihood. Removing welfare state policies will threaten the livelihoods of people (whether you think that’s morally correct situation or not). A libertarian would probably take issue with that, but remember that all I really need for that argument is the perception or short term realization of a threat. And does anyone really think libertarians could win an election on a platform of abolishing medicare and social security? They’d be demagogued right out the door.
With that state of affairs, how can we get very far from the welfare state? There’s an upper limit (which is far from where we are, given that Europe is still rolling along) and there’s a lower limit (perhaps closer to our current state), but a libertarian society is not within that range.
So given that this is an exercise in futility, why the complaining? If your preferred model of society is simply an impossibility, doesn’t that suggest a problem with your preference? The end result of communism sounds wonderful, but given that it’s an unworkable model of society, why would you advocate for it?
It’s not like I’m saying libertarianism should be ejected from the public sphere. Arguing for smaller government policies will always be one side of an argument and it will be right sometimes (how often you think so would be a determinant of your political worldview). You could get fairly close to a libertarian model regarding social and cultural issues, given that there’s less in the way of direct negative consequences for removing coercion and the arguments seem generally fuzzier.
I’m just saying, if your philosophical starting point for a model of society is “get the hell out of my business,” you’re doomed to failure. It’s simply not workable.