Update: Read iMonk’s Whine and Sheesh Party.  Excellent stuff, from someone unenthusiastically voting McCain.

Bob Barr is not a candidate to get excited about.  At least, I’m not excited.  I’m kinda lethargic about the whole thing.  I haven’t listened to his speeches, read his press releases, watched him on YouTube, or read the blog.  If something unexpected happens, preventing me from getting to the voting booth, I won’t cry about it.  But I’m certain I’ll get there, and I’m fairly certain I’ll be voting Bob Barr.

What I’m absolutely certain about is that I won’t be voting for John McCain.  Ready for something shocking?  Gun to my head, forced to vote for one of the two major parties, I’d vote Obama.  No, I don’t like his policies. I don’t think Obama with a hugely Democratic Congress is a good thing.  But there’s no way in hell I’m rewarding the party that’s supposed to be representing conservatism with my vote.  

And least of all for John McCain.

I can’t understand the reasons conservatives are contriving for supporting McCain.  I can’t.  I don’t get it. He is manifestly not a conservative, and the fact that some people have figured out ways to convince themselves that he is just shows how far the definition of “conservatism” has shifted.  

I mean, come on.  He complains about Obama’s economic policies.  Are you kidding me?  The man whines about socialism, redistribution, and earmarks, but he supports bailouts and the government buying up bad mortgages.  One blogger complained recently about Obama’s Kenyesianism, citing it as one of the reasons he’s voting for, you guessed it, John McCain.  I can respond with just three letters:   W.T.F.

Complaints from McCain supporters about Obama’s tax policies are equally shocking.  I mean, after all:

The Republican argument of the moment seems to be that the difference between capitalism and socialism corresponds to the difference between a top marginal income-tax rate of 35 per cent and a top marginal income-tax rate of 39.6 per cent.

Beyond his obvious silliness in trying to make some actual distinction between himself and Obama on domestic policy, his foreign policy is beyond frightening.  Should he win, I think we’ll see a Lieberman Secretary of State.  And then that dynamic duo, along with Palin who seems to think we’re already at war with Iran, we’ll be changing our national anthem to “Bomb Iran” and taking over the whole Middle East.

And speaking of Palin.  Come on, folks.  She’s … nevermind.  I’m not even going to start.  If you don’t get why this woman can’t ever be our president (including, but not limited to, her complete misunderstanding of the simplest part of the First Amendment), and why her selection by McCain was reckless and demonstrated terrible judgment, I’m not going to convince you with anything I write here.  Yes, the media has been biased and vicious toward her.  But still.  

John McCain is a man who served his country honorably, but who dove head-first into Rove-style politics as soon as he got the nomination.  He is bad for conservatism, even if I do believe his desire is to honorably serve his country.

So I’m voting for Bob Barr.  He isn’t a great candidate, but he’s the only one who’s close to what small-government conservatism actually looks like.  

And because the Republicans deserve an embarrassing defeat on Tuesday.  And I hope they get it.

A couple days ago, when the Obama “redistribution” audio clip came out, I braced myself, considered responding how I really want to respond, and withheld.  Look, Obama’s policies scare me.  But there’s nothing quite as disingenuous as McCain criticizing Obama on this point, or Bush-supporters doing the same.  Jacob Sullum of Reason goes ahead and says it:

…there’s no difference in principle on this issue between Obama and McCain. Both want to take money away from people who work for it and give it to people they believe deserve it. How else would you characterize McCain’s plan to rescue reckless lenders and borrowers by using taxpayer money to buy “bad home loan mortgages”? Medicare, Medicaid, progressive income taxation, and Social Security, to name just a few redistributive programs that both candidates support, also entail taking one group’s earnings and giving them to another group, and in some cases the beneficiaries are more affluent than the people compelled to subsidize them. McCain’s outrage over “redistribution of wealth” is awfully selective.

(Can you tell I’m a bit upset with conservatives?)

Sarah Palin, that is.  I really, really did.  I tried very hard.  I kept telling myself that maybe she just got into this too early, and that might be true.  I held onto this vague hope that, really, she’s not like McCain, and she’s just using him to get to office and do something different – and good – for conservatism.  I’m not against folksiness, and the fact that she’s a small-town sort of person works in her favor, in my opinion.

But what I’m seeing is exactly what I suspected.  She’s not ready for this, and she’s acting like she is.  She’s not ready for this, and she’s adopting views that crossed the absurdity line about 8 exits back.  

And then there’s Peggy Noonan’s recent comments, which floored me.  

She is not a person of thought but of action. Interviews are about thinking, about reflecting, marshaling data and integrating it into an answer. Debates are more active, more propelled—they are thrust and parry.

I’m sorry.  What?  Um…give me someone who thinks for my president, please and thank you.  We’ve had 8 years of a president “not of thought but of action,” and it’s got us into a LOT of idiotic action that a little bit of thought could have prevented (Exhibit A: Iraq; Exhibit B: insane spending; Exhibit C: growth of government; Exhibit D: Bailout).  

Combine Mad Bomber’s temperament with Sarah Palin’s “action,” and you’ve got 8 more years of disaster for conservatism.

We’re SAVED!  Nobody panic, nobody fear.  John S. McCain has suspended his campaign to rush back to Washington to save us all from the … um … from the free market.  Wait…

Did you ever dream that the sitting Republican president would propose the most socialist plan in recent memory, and that the current Republican nominee would suspend a campaign because the government needs to fix a financial problem?  Anyone have any questions as to why I’m voting third party this year?

I got an email from a former fellow blogger.  (BHT readers will remember “JackAz,” I assume.)  It’s a nice summary of the problem of a bailout and a call to action.  Here it is:

Many of you know I follow financials and market information very closely, which is why I happen to know about this $700 billion bailout Hank Paulson is trying to ram through Congress.

This email contains:
1) What this new law entails (without the details which are still being worked through in a panicked 2 day session)
2) What is about to happen, if we don’t act
3) A request to inform your fellow Americans this is about to happen
4) All contact information for every Senator and House Representative for the entire Unites States.

The New Bill (as yet unnamed) in plain text.

This is a bill – not yet passed – but if it passes, it will become law. Keep this fact in mind. The bill is sold to us as one designed to help the American taxpayer who is losing their home. But, that is not what it does.

Now, read this part of the bill:

“Sec. 8. Review: Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

Take a moment to re-read that. This new LAW would place the Secretary of the Treasury ABOVE THE LAW.

So, this bill is being sold to us, the taxpayer, as if it would protect the American public. Ask yourself, if this new law is so helpful to the American taxpayer, why are we not allowed to review the decisions he is making with OUR tax-money? Why aren’t courts or oversight committees allowed to see what exactly it is he will be doing? So far, the bill doesn’t include anything to actually help those whose homes are in foreclosure, or about to be in foreclosure.

Now, this is what it DOES do:

1) Creates a NEW TAXPAYER FUNDED account, called the “RTC.”
2) In this account, trillions in bad debt is funneled from companies who failed due to irresponsibly risky decisions
3) In this account, billions in loans is dumped related to STRESSED COMMERCIAL real estate
4) In this account, financial institutions will compete for how little they will accept for their bad debts
5) With this law, the secretary will decide how much of your money he will pay for bad loans, regardless of the true market value.

To make this crystal clear: this account will be used to take YOUR money and then with that money (taken from you), PURCHASE the very liabilities that Wall Street can’t sell to any other business or country. And why can’t they sell them? Why can’t they sell them? Because everyone who has looked at them has decided they are not worth buying. 

In a free market, these companies would fail. They made risky bets that blew-up, and now they are weak. From the ashes, new stronger companies would emerge to fill the void. Yes, it would hurt for a while – but that is the nature of a free-market. This bill spits in the face of the very foundation on which our great country was built. It is designed to bail-out bankrupt institutions that ruined the fiscal health of the country! We are told that this bill is the lesser of two evils then I guess the greater “evil” is allowing the free markets to work as designed. The greater evil is apparently allowing the market to punish these blockheads for their stupid decisions.

What is maddening about this situation is that the U.S.A already has rules and regulations in place – rules created because of the Great Depression – to prevent this from happening again. So why is this happening again?

It’s simple really: it’s because the people you elected turned a blind eye and chose not to enforce the law while everyone was making a killing. For example, you may have heard recently that the SEC is “banning illegal naked short selling” in the market place. Well, here’s a news flash – Naked Short Selling has always been ILLEGAL. Why are you placing a ban on something you are supposed to ARREST people for? (Will their next ban be on STEALING?)

Clearly, this bill does not represent the best interests of the American taxpayer. It represents the best interest of the Wall Street bankers who made stupid business decisions that have ruined their companies.

1) This new Law places Secretary Paulsen above the law; “Decisions… non-reviewable … agency discretion …may NOT be reviewed by ANY COURT OF LAW OR ANY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY”
2) Wall Street, where “Greed is Good”, is getting YOUR money, to ensure they keep their 5 mansions, private jets, multi-million dollar yacht, and bonuses: (Goldman Sachs, alone, paid bonuses of 18 billion in 2007 and 16 billion in 2006)
3) The U.S.A – the BASTION of “free market” capitalism – is utterly preventing the free market to actually WORK. If you think America is a free-market economy, stop that false belief right now. Even SOCIALIST GOVERNMENTS would not embark down this path of socialist “financialism”. 

So, what can we do at this point?

First: Forward this email. No matter how embarrassed or worried you might feel about it, forward it to other Americans so they can at least be AWARE this is happening. If they get irritated with you, they are choosing to live in ignorance.

Second: Call your representatives. They are the people who are supposed to do YOUR bidding. Call them, make them justify this new Law. Don’t believe them if they tell you, “this is the best we can do.”

This law is not good for you, it will not prevent a crash, it will not cause home value to suddenly turn around. It will cause a short term rally in the stock market, it will allow rich bankers to off-load bad debts, and it will allow Wall Street to recover catastrophic stock losses while the big money sells into the rally (while they work hard to convince you to leave your 401K invested).

I can assure you this: if this law passes, America will fundamentally turn its back on the very premise on which our country was founded: Free-Market Capitalism.

The markets will correct themselves regardless of any action the government attempts to make. It is unavoidable. Nothing goes “up” forever, and we all recognize this.

Ever wonder why congress and our government makes these panic changes over weekends? Well, I’m not sure about you, but I’m not usually watching the markets or the news right now. I’m usually outside playing with my son or enjoying time with my friends and neighbors. Tomorrow I’ll be watching the game. Frankly, I’d rather be at my neighbor’s BBQ than sitting here writing this. But this time, there is something more important to do.

The good news is, some of our voice is being heard. It is not hopeless: Rep Marcy Kaptur, Ohio: http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=mbD62gNi9WE

You can get the contact information for your congressmen here:
http://www.house.gov
http://www.senate.gov

BTW, if they refuse to take your calls, make note of it and let me know. This is expressly illegal because they were elected to represent your interests in the government of the United States of America.

For more detailed information, please visit: http://www.fedupusa.org/

The McCain campaign is pretending to be all in an outrage over Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” statement.  Apparently, that was sexist, even though it wasn’t about Palin, and “lipstick on a pig” is a commonly-used idiom.  

Here’s McCain on Hillary’s health care proposal just last year:

When asked about Mrs. Clinton his speech, he said her proposal was “eerily” similar to the plan she came up with in 1993, when she headed a health care reorganization effort during her husband’s administration. “I think they put some lipstick on a pig,” he said, “but it’s still a pig.”

Ugly.  Really ugly.  The only hope I held out about an Obama/McCain race was that we might be able to get past Rove politics for just one election and talk about issues.  Obama is doing that.  McCain is not.  

You couldn’t pay me enough money to vote for McCain.*

*I live in NY State, where a vote for McCain wouldn’t matter in the least.  So that statement is not true.  Go ahead, pay me.  I need the money.

I found this image at this news report, and decided to doctor the caption a little.

Senators Joe Lieberman (left) and John McCain (also left) 

Jessica Hill/Getty Images

Larison gets it.  

How can we not get behind Palin?  Because she has agreed to work for John McCain, that’s how. 

Is it too late to nominate just Palin, and kick McCain off the ticket?

Thomas Woods of the Campaign for Liberty makes an interesting point about the Palin pick:

And now that Palin has the VP slot, Joe Lieberman will likely be our next Secretary of State. That’s even scarier than a Lieberman VP.

Thoughts?

Remember that “comeback” I was talking about for this blog?  Here it comes, and politics will drive it.  Coming down the final stretch, I figure it’s time to start blogging politics again.  Lots of stories lately, and here are the brief summaries:

Obama’s Acceptance Speech:  I’m not voting for Obama, and I didn’t think this was his best speech.  But his shots at McCain were bang on.  I’m not sure about the complaints that Obama didn’t mention enough policy.  He did what every candidate does at this stage of the game: he gave a broad overview of the policies.  But there’s no time in an acceptance speech to deal with particulars, counterarguments, and rebuttals.  Of course the speech raised questions.  It was one speech.  Nevertheless, despite the fact that I think he’s less big-government and more personal-responsibility oriented than 90% of the Democrats I’ve heard, he’s still too big-government for me.

McCain’s VP Pick – Sarah Palin:  It’s a brilliant pick, and I’m mad about it.  I like Sarah Palin, and having read more about her today, I wish she was representing the next generation of Republicans, and not attaching herself to the Bush-McCain neocons.  I think, though, that I’ll be slightly less disappointed about a McCain win with the Palin pick.  Slightly.  There’s always the possibility that Palin is nothing more than a two-month political move, and that McCain will brush her quickly to the sidelines if elected.

Rally for the Republic:  I wish I could be there.  Despite the fact that I’m 99% sure I’ll be voting for Bob Barr, I can’t seem to get enthused about him like I was about Ron Paul.  Paul had an energy about him that Barr doesn’t have.  If you’re libertarian-minded and haven’t joined the Campaign for Liberty yet, do so now, so they can reach their 100,000 goal by September 2!

Rush and other pundits kept saying that this upcoming election was not going to be about the Iraq war. They’re wrong. And they’re especially wrong if it’s McCain vs. Obama. Sullivan makes the point well today. McCain doesn’t want to talk about the wisdom of going into Iraq in the first place. Hillary will go along with that just fine. Obama won’t. I keep trying to find a silver lining about this upcoming election, and one of them is definitely this: McCain vs. Obama will make us revisit the notion of pre-emptive war, which is a good thing.

Oh, and here’s Buckley on Bush:

Bill Buckley had come to recognize the degraded state of American conservatism. In 2006, he deplored Bush’s “absence of effective conservative ideology – with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending.” And he noted the failure of Bush’s expansive, interventionist foreign policy.

“If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign,” Buckley told CBS News. No “successor would reenunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious.”