Top local libertarian endorses Obama

Despite his writing for the nation's top libertarian magazine, Reason magazine science correspondent and occasional Hook contributor Ronald Bailey announced today that despite the fact that he backed George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, that he's voting for the Democrat in this presidential election. His rationale for voting for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)? "The Republicans must be punished, and punished hard."

6 comments

Arin Sime isn't the top local libertarian? What makes one top?

Dear Cville Eye,

I didn't mean to imply there was only one "top" libertarian. Certainly Sime's a big deal. In fact, we wrote a Hotseat about him last year when he ran for State Senate:

http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2006/07/27/HOTSEAT%20sime-B.doc.aspx

All I meant to do was highlight Bailey's relative importance in the national libertarian scene, for those unfamiliar with Reason. But "Relatively important local libertarian endorses Obama" seemed like too much of a mouthful for a headline.

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,
Lindsay Barnes

Is there any more to the article than this one paragraph? Why must the republicans be punished?

Thanks for the clarification. It's funny but I had just listened to the podcast of his Sime's interview with Coy Barefoot and remembered that he had run for office recently. We'll use "prominent" perhaps. Sime mad sense. This guy doesn't. You and I do not know any Republican that's going to suffer because of his vote.

Why would Libertarians want to support or believe more Republican lies?

...and hypocrisy? Such as BIG SPENDING aka Republican Socialism

--"spread-the-wealth" stimulus checks,
--creating a Medicare [socialized] Drug Plan,
--spending hundreds of billions on war,

and let's not forget Bush's initiation and push of the...
--$700 billion dollar bank/Wall Street bailouts/government [Fannie/Freddie] takeovers using tax dollars that Republicans close their eyes to and think it isn't "Socialism" when it actually is.

As far as "spreading the wealth" ahh, that's actually "Capitalism" and in Obama's case he's NOT handing out welfare checks to non-workers -- his plan is to let middle class WORKERS aka "Income Earners" KEEP what they have EARNED. That is not "Socialism".

As far as the wealthy, they would be at Clinton era tax rates, when the rich were actually able to make money because the economy was pretty good.

Capitalism includes workers providing services in exchange for money AND then spending the money "THAT THEY EARN".

Businesses NEED customers with money to spend on their services and products, otherwise they are out-of-business.

Capitalism IS about "spreading-the-wealth" and circulating cash and making loans -- NOT billions sitting in some billonaire's vault collecting dust.

What good is that?

Otherwise see what you have now, NO MONEY CIRCULATION, NO loans, NO job growth, No income to buy things and grow businesses.

And most "Voter Fraud" is committed by the Republican Party -- using "VOTER SUPPRESSION" and hacked "Voting Machine Programs" not ACORN or Mickey Mouse actually voting.

When intelligent Libertarians examine Barack Obama, they see his high intelligence and intellect as an asset, conducive to rational [libertarian-style] thinking.

Combined with his background as a civil rights lawyer and a constitutional law professor who is favorable to voluntary, free community organization, and who as a Senator, took a daring stand against the Iraq War ââ?¬â? it becomes easy to see that Barack Obama is more ââ?¬Å?libertarian” than not.

McCain is highly ââ?¬Å?pro-war” which would mean at least another four ââ?¬Å?Bush Years” of endless billion dollar [war] occupations, plus more BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING, ââ?¬Å?taxes-from-the-middle-class-to-finance-wealthy-tax-cuts” and ââ?¬Å?socialized” corporate profits/bailouts with little, if any ââ?¬Å?trickle down” effect of job growth which, by the way, has NOT happened in spite of Bush’s tax cuts provided to big corporations and the Warren Buffet wealthy.

Just as bad, is voting for Bob Barr, who would be a dangerous ââ?¬Å?wasted vote” this year. After all -- he’s NOT going to win.

ââ?¬Å?Wasted Votes” and [conservative] Libertarians who voted for G. W. Bush,[2000/2004] helped Bush win two terms ââ?¬â? and those ââ?¬Å?Neo-Con Libs” helped enable the incompetant, religious conservative, G. W. Bush -- to take us from a ââ?¬Å?Democratic Budget Surplus/Thriving Economy” to a ââ?¬Å?Republican Record Deficit/Expensive War/Economic Meltdown.

Obama is the best [major] candidate to work on these top libertarian reforms:

1) Iraq withdrawal
2) restoring the separation of church and state
3) easing off victimless crimes such as drug use
4) curtailing the Patriot Act.

...and favoring
5) a ban on torture
6) gay rights
7) privacy
8) free speech
9) pro-choice

but also...
10) against a ban on flag burning

Libertarians living in the real world know that only Obama or McCain can actually win.

And in that real world, Bob Barr is an ex-CIA Republican -- and on that basis he is questionable as being truly ââ?¬Å?Libertarian”. Because Bob Barr spend most of his political career as a rather right-wing conservative Republican, many long-time Libertarians don’t see him as a ââ?¬Å?true” Libertarian but some sort of right-wing conservative Republican infiltrator.

With a history of hostile right-wing conservative Republicans infiltrating the Libertarian Party over the years, and it confirms my point when Bob Barr's LP VP, Mr. Root is featured on a "Libertarian Republican" blog. They have driven out long-time, true Libertarians and founders.

This hostile LP take-over by conservative Republicans is not easily forgotten � and well, as a backlash � I can see a lot of Libertarians wanting to get Republicans out of power.

And the best way to do this is by voting for Obama and a straight Democratic ticket.

"When intelligent Libertarians examine Barack Obama, they see his high intelligence and intellect as an asset, conducive to rational [libertarian-style] thinking." And this proessionally-produced ad was paid for by..."
True Libertarians are so repulsed by anyone that gave $700B to a bunch of filty rich people that they wouldn't dream of voting for anyone who supported it. How many decades will it take for Obama's tax increase to pay the tax coffers back for this almost-thre-quarters-of-a-trillion-dollars-gift-with-few-strings? How does this action compare to "ââ?¬â??'spread-the-wealth' stimulus checks...?"