I thought Matt Copper (the reporter that wrote the article)stated that Karl Rove did not provide him with the name. I hope LP is not picking up on non effictive stratgies of the demcratic party on supstance lacking bush bashing.

opps...substance lacking bush bashing

No he didn't say "Valerie Plame" he said "Joe Wilson's wife"

Let's not play their word games.

There are really two different questions here. One: Did Karl Rove disclose the name to Matt Cooper, i.e. meet Bush's standard for termination? Yes. Did Karl Rove break the law in doing so? Given how narrowly construed the law is, most likely no. That said, I have to wonder if this is the sort of thing the national party really needs to wade into. I support our leadership, but this seems awfully inside baseball to really have resonance.

Don, so we should sit back and ignore more lies and deceit by the Republicans because it's too "inside baseball"?

Do you remember Clinton and his, "...it depends on what your meaning of "is" is"? I am guessing we are gonna see much of the same from Rove and Bush. "It depends on what your meaning of "I revealed the covert status of a CIA employee" is".

WTS!!!

What I remember most about Karl Rove is that he called libertarians "pissants" in the 2004 campaign....and how much I'd like to see a LP that would be so effective at political engagement that he would never dare call us that again.

It seems to me that the LP is on the right track - they just got a little ahead of themselves. Until there is no doubt left that Rove directly leaked Plame's name, the LP needs to take a more moderate approach of calling for intense investigation into the matter. I'm all for outing government wrongdoing, but only once we have the facts to prove the need for action.

Tito are you a dittohead or something?

From the Detriot Free Press:

"Recent news reports have identified Rove as the source of at least one leak to the news media in July 2003 that exposed undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity."

So are you questioning Matt Cooper notes or are you just trying to defend the Bush administration?

I was under the impression that this was under investigation and that no charges have even been levied against Mr. Rove yet? Who has said or proved that he was the source of the leak?

Also, what's up here, why does it seem like this website is becoming "Liberaltarian"?

Bush is a very flawed President but I think he's actually a step in the right direction from his father and Clinton. He is a president that by and large seems to be for de-regulation, privatized social security(a huge step in the right direction), judges that strictly interpret the constitution, and less taxation.

The man has his weak points(numerous weak points, actually), but he seems honest and I have full confidence that he would fire Karl Rove if and when Rove is actually charged and convicted of a crime. To fire someone on heresay would be irresponsible.

I think the Libertarians should spend less time bashing the president and more time saying what they would do differently and why it would work. What attracted me to the party was that they seemd to be above the fray. Dems were about moving to the elft, Republicans were about moving to the right, but Libertarians were about moving the country forward. Please don't join in political pie fights.

Sorry to take this off-topic.

Bush doesn't want to privatise Social Security. I'd love it if he did, but he doesn't. He wants to give us government-regulated "personal accounts". That's hardly privatisation.

There's Socialism, Capitalism, and Corporatism. The Democrats want to go the Socialist route, keeping Social Security as it is, and increasing taxes. Bush wants to go the Corporatist route (which is basically Corporate Socialism), letting us invest in certain government-approved corporations. Libertarians want to take the Capitalist route: true privatization, where we, the individuals, can control our own retirements without government intrusion.

Yes, Bush has given us less taxation. That's certainly positive. But, he's given us increased spending. The rate of government growth under Clinton (not to defend Clinton, he's just as bad in many respects) was about 3.6% annually, whereas the growth of government under Bush has been around 7% annually. The difference is that the Republican Congress doesn't hold Bush's feet to the fire in the same way they held Clinton's feet to the fire. That's where we come in. Even when the Republicans choose not to hold the Red Team's feet to the fire, figuratively speaking, the Libertarians are here to hold all of their feet to the fire. We hold everyone in government accountable, whether they're on the Red team or the Blue team.

I've got to go, but I'll be back later. :)

Paul P. wrote: "I think the Libertarians should spend less time bashing the president and more time saying what they would do differently and why it would work."

Did you see the exit strategy Paul?

Once again, I have to ask: Who is running the national LP?

Since when is someone assumed guilty before there's even an indictment let alone a trial?

Since when are something that's "believed by many" in Washington D.C. proof of anything?

Why isn't the national chair, the national vice chair or anyone in the ELECTED leadership of this party speaking for the principals of the Libertarian Party?

Who is running the LP?

No Chris, we should not ignore lies and deceit by politicians, but a politician lying and being deceitful is like a fish that breaths water. I'm suggesting that we need to pick our fights wisely, we have an unlimited desire to have an impact on politics, but limited resources. If we get in the weeds with the R's and D's on every time someone gets squeezed by the other side, then we dillute our message. The whole Wilson thing is indicative of what we already know, the Bush administration is corrupt and unethical. How is libertarianism or the LP advanced by pointing this out at a time when every news outlet in the country is doing the same thing?

Brian makes a fair point.

The Rove issue is going to be interesting to watch, but I really don't see how it's going to help the LP to comment on it one way or the other before all the facts come out.

After the facts come out, the story may become useful as an example of abuse of power by big government in general and the Republicans in particular. We can be patient in the meantime on this issue.

No, I agree with you Alex, it's not exactly privatization, but it is a lot closer to that than the current system, and it is a system in which it would be a lot easier to transition to a real end of Social Security. And I realise that Bush is making a lot of backwards steps that almost totally negate his forward steps.

I just think thus far he's made a lot less backwards steps than others would.

I think of the three branches, executive is currently the least offensive, though opinion on the war might change that drastically given each individual opinion.

I just find holding his feet to the fire for not firing Karl Rove yet when Rove hasn't even been charged with anything a little superfluous. If we wanna hold his feet to the fire, there's plenty of better reasons, like his crazy foreign aid expenditures.

And, in response to nameless above, yes, I read the exit strategy. I like it for the most part, except for possibly the foreign aid. I also thought the language was a little strong in places and made the situation in Iraq sound worse than it is. I think incremental pullout is a great move and I believe the figures that the Iraqis can now support themselves.

My main concern was the same of the above poster, Mr. Irving, though not quite to the degree he seems to be expressing.

My seemingly over-defensiveness of Bush is probably due to me listening to too much Sean Hannity. Sorry about that. The guy is just so dang charismatic.

By the way, I meant to acknowledge Don's last comment as well, since he's the one who first mentioned the lack of benefit to the LP.

Sean Hannity is charismatic? The mind wobbles.

Paul wrote: "No, I agree with you Alex, it's not exactly privatization, but it is a lot closer to that than the current system, and it is a system in which it would be a lot easier to transition to a real end of Social Security. And I realise that Bush is making a lot of backwards steps that almost totally negate his forward steps."

I don't think that's true, Paul. Bush's plan isn't really closer to privatization than the current system. It's more of a smoke-and-mirrors approach, which uses all the right buzzwords (a typical Republican way to rip-off Libertarian thought) but which doesn't actually accomplish anything positive. It only leaves people with a false sense of security and leaves them vulnerable to a terrible fall later on.

Having the government invest our retirement funds in the stock martet for us isn't even moderately close to what I think of as "privatization." It strikes me as being more in the line of insanity.

One of the biggest flaws with IRAs, upon which the Bush plan is founded, is that IRAs are restricted in terms of where you can invest the funds. For instance, when the stock market was collapsing just after the turn of the millenium during the tech crash, the only option you had was to put your funds in a money market. I did that, but what I really wanted to do was to put them in precious metals, something that isn't a viable option for most small investors. It's too bad I couldn't do it. My IRA would have doubled by now. Thank you, Uncle Sam. You've saved me yet again from greater prosperity.

Having the government invest my retirement funds is an even worse prospect, because then I don't even get to decide when my funds will get pulled out of the stock market.

"Privatized" Social Security under the Bush plan would thus become economic insecurity leading to poverty.

I think the best plan out their is the cato plan. We are allowed to invest the half of the payroll tax that we put in. I would like see an opt out attached to the plan that Rep. Flake from Az has brought to the floor.
Hey little hint for the National Party why not promote canadites. How about updates on the guy running for Mayor of San Degio. The polls showed him doing well. Political Party should be doing things to help that man to get elected not this brainless Bush bashing crap. Leave that to the democrats.

Like it or not, the Rove scandal is the #1 political story in the country as of right now. Reminding Bush of his promise is not bashing him, it's holding him to his word.

Since we already know his word is worthless, due to Cheney & Company ( George Bush, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cheney & Company, all rights reserved, copyright 2005 - excuse the legal disclaimer :D )
pulling the strings, it's a exercise in futility. Bush doesnt run this government, Cheney and his corporate buddies are mostly calling the shots. The reason I know this is becuase they are the only ones getting rich off the war.

Anyone that would send the nation to war based on lies and half truths deserves all the bashing they get. Where's the WMD's? Did Bin Laden stay at the Baghdad Hilton?

Bush deserves nothing but impeachment for his treason in sending thousands of young US mean and woman to die based on either lies or government ineptitude ( or a combination of both ) and Rove....I personally would like to give him a good swift kick in the arse for calling me a pissant. :D He's accused of a felony - outing a intelligence agent in time of war is not a smart thing to do. Lets hope he pays for it.

Since when does any libertarian think these big government stooges deserve better?

What is all this nonsense about "Bush bashing"? Is this neo-con complaint hour now? Bush IS the president. It is not bashing to hold him accountable for what occurs on his watch. I wonder how many of the folks complaining about "Bush bashing" also complained of "Clinton bashing" once upon a time. I doubt many, if any would care at all if Clinton were still in office and the LP had issued a similar statement with regard to a similar incident.

That nonsense aside, as someone who held a military security clearance (and took my job seriously) for several years, I am more than a little tired of folks whining about "Bush bashing", given that this issue is serious and calls an individual's trustworthiness into question and gives the appearance of a doublestandard.

Had I been accused of releasing classified information to the media (whether guilty or not) while I was still on active duty, either overtly or by innuendo, my clearance would have been suspended immediately (if not quicker) and an investigation would have gotten to the bottom of it quickly. I certainly wouldn't have been able to continue to hold my clearance for two years, while nothing happened.

This is a serious matter regarding a key figure in the Bush Administration's integrity and trustworthiness with regard to access to classified information. It is not "Bush bashing" to expect it to be handled responsibly and seriously.

A quick comment on Bush's "privatization"

Imagine a senario under which the Bush plan was implimented as is. The gov't invests our payroll taxes and at some point in the future the market, for what ever reason takes a sizable hit. Suddenly, millions of people watch their portfolio's shrink. They cry out to the gov't, "You created this mess, now fix it!!!"

Politicians, being politicians, will check the polls and swing into action. They will impliment price freezes and advocate massive "re-investment" of tax money to cover the losses and create price controls for investment vehicles.

"Sorry, Mr. Smith, you can't sell your Microsoft stock at 82, Uncle Sam says it's worth 90, so you can not sell it for less."

Don't laugh, this very sort of thing has happened all over the world with a variety of goods, always with the same sad, predictable result.

Bush's take-over of the markets is NOT a step in the right direction. In fact, it is arguably worse then what we have now.

Perhaps the language "bash Bush" was a little strong. I was just a little annoyed that his article seems to demand that bush follow through on his word and fire Rove, saying that it is "clear" that Rove is responsible for the leak, when no charges have been levied against the guy. Rather than reminding Bush of his promise, the article seemed more to reprimand him for not keeping it yet.

And hey, I really hate Karl Rove. I'd love it if he got fired. I hope bush keeps his promise if it is proven that Rove was responsible for the leak.

I also believe Seehusen when he says here that Bush said any White house staff responsible would be fired, but I would very much like to see a direct quote on that regardless. It would really help with the strength of the article to me.

Thanks for correcting me on the "privatization". I know if I had my money that I'm paying into SS right now, I would immediately invest it into growth stock mutual funds. Those type of long term investments carry virtually no risk, because even if the market took a dive right before I was ready to start drawing, statistics show that over 40 years it would have grown so much that with the dive I would still have much more money than I started out with. Every ten year period of the stock market's history has shown growth. With a diversified portfolio, your retirement can be really sweet.

I was under the impression that with Bush's plan I would be able to take 4% of my paycheck and feed it into one of the funds of my choice, like the great C fund, instead of throwing it aay to Social Security. Of course I would rather have all 12% of my money back and stick it in accounts of my own choosing, but that seemed to be at least partway there. If this is seemingly not the case, then pardon me, and count me out of that plan.

Anyway, that's wildly off topic here, sorry for derailing the conversation. You may be able to tell but I'm a little new at this. I was a conservative through High school, a liberal through college, and I've only recently wised up and found the Libertarians. I agree with %90 of the platform, but being young I am easily impressionable by the media and by a President that seems like such a good man on the inside, regardless of many of his bad policies. I'm trying to be a good libertarian here, honest!

I'm a neo-con because I think it is a complete waste of our limted resources and our creditblity by feeding into a charcter assination that facts have not even confirmed? I will call it like I see it. Brainless Bush bashing.

Okay, I'm back. Sorry about that.

QUOTE:

“The Rove issue is going to be interesting to watch, but I really don't see how it's going to help the LP to comment on it one way or the other before all the facts come out.

“After the facts come out, the story may become useful as an example of abuse of power by big government in general and the Republicans in particular. We can be patient in the meantime on this issue.”

I agree with LTV on this.

QUOTE: “...it's not exactly privatization, but it is a lot closer to that than the current system, and it is a system in which it would be a lot easier to transition to a real end of Social Security.”

I’m not so sure of this. Bush’s plan to save Social Security appears to be give it more staying-power. If our ultimate goal regarding Social Security is the complete dismantling of the system, it doesn’t seem exactly expedient to give it more staying power. I also heard that it’s may require an increase in budget to change the system over from current set-up to the Bush set-up. Either way, whether we go with Bush’s pro-active plan, or we go with the Democrats’ “sit-on-your-ass-and-ignore-the-problem” plan, it seems that we’ll be screwed. I don’t think either of these approaches is worth pursuing.

QUOTE: “I just find holding his feet to the fire for not firing Karl Rove yet when Rove hasn't even been charged with anything a little superfluous.”

I’m sorry, I wasn’t referring to the Rove incident when I said that. I’m not really sure what my opinion on the Rove incident is yet, as I haven’t looked much into it. I apologise for the miscommunication.

QUOTE: “If we wanna hold his feet to the fire, there's plenty of better reasons, like his crazy foreign aid expenditures.”

Sure. :)

QUOTE: “I don't think that's true, Paul. Bush's plan isn't really closer to privatization than the current system. It's more of a smoke-and-mirrors approach, which uses all the right buzzwords (a typical Republican way to rip-off Libertarian thought) but which doesn't actually accomplish anything positive. It only leaves people with a false sense of security and leaves them vulnerable to a terrible fall later on.”

The Democrats have used the buzzwords, too. I recall a few months ago seeing a commercial put out by the Left saying that Bush wanted to “privatise” Social Security, and how “horrible” it would be. I didn’t know whether to yell at the screen or laugh at it. :)

QUOTE: “What is all this nonsense about "Bush bashing"? Is this neo-con complaint hour now? Bush IS the president. It is not bashing to hold him accountable for what occurs on his watch.”

It doesn’t really matter to me if people think we’re “bashing” him or not. I’ll “bash” any politician if I think he/she deserves it. Doesn’t matter is he/she is a Republican, a Democrat, or even a fellow Libertarian. If this was a decade ago, and someone happened under Clinton’s watch that I disapprove of, I’d have no problem going after him (in a manner of speaking) with everything I’ve got. Why should we hold Bush to a lower standard?

(Again, I’m not referring to the Rove incident. Just in general.)

QUOTE: “I also believe Seehusen when he says here that Bush said any White house staff responsible would be fired, but I would very much like to see a direct quote on that regardless.”

- Reporter: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leak the agent’s name? And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
- Bush: Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:wwopKFKRAwUJ:www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0406/S00128.htm+%22And+do+you+stand+by+your+pledge+to+fire+anyone+found+to+have+done+so%22&hl=en

QUOTE: “I'm a neo-con because I think it is a complete waste of our limted resources and our creditblity by feeding into a charcter assination that facts have not even confirmed? I will call it like I see it. Brainless Bush bashing.”

No, that doesn’t make you a Neo-Con.

there's a lot of weasel room in the law that applies. for instance, Rove would have had to know that the CIA was actively keeping her identity secret. I don't think Rove will get a felony conviction out of this, but there is no doubt that he disclosed her identity to a reporter.

even his lawyer confirms this.

note the terms he continues to use, "I did not know her NAME. I did not disclose her NAME" (emphasis mine) he's already prepping a weasel dance.

but DO NOT ignore the point made by Chris C. he DID identify her to the time reporter as "Joe Wilson's wife". His attorny admits this and the facts show this. the law, however, does not say "identify by name", it says "identify". I can say "the current president of the US" and I have identified George W. Bush, even though I didn't use his name.

the facts are already in. he identified a CIA operative to a reporter in the time period in question. he didn't use her name, but he used sufficient verbage to remove any doubt as to her identity.

that said, he may not have know she was actively under cover, and proving he did would be very difficult, indeed. but he was a source of the leak. no one should doubt this fact.

from the LP perspective though, I think they should sit back and enjoy the fireworks. this is going to get UGLY.

As a Libertarian, I am anxious to see the party grow. I am also anxious to see the party stick to its principles.

This release goes against both of those goals.

For starters, bashing Bush's administration isn't the best idea for attracting new members.

Also, this release seems to be based on innuendo and half-truths. It has NOT been established that Rove "outed" Valerie Plame. It's certainly still being investigated. Taking such a conclusive stance was a foolish and premature move in light of these circumstances.

Let the Republicans and Democrats "play politics." Let them constantly snicker. We should stay out of it unless an issue is black and white. Who Bush should fire really isn't an issue I want my party sticking its nose in.

The LP seems to be becoming the Party of UNprinciple more so and more so.

Why in the world are we talking about whether or not Bush should fire one of his staff members when...

1) There are hundreds if not thousands of unconstitutional federal programs that exist.

2) The rights of citizens across the nation are being constantly violated.

3) Government spending is outrageous.

4) The citizens of this nation are being taxed unconstitutionally by the IRS.

5) We have troops all around the world (NOT JUST IRAQ) that all need to come home immediately.

6) We are in league with an organization called the United Nations that is completely ANTI-FREEDOM!

7) We are about to have all of our vitamins and supplements banned because of treaties with the European Unions CODEX ALIMENTARIOUS.

8) The world is about to run out of oil in 30 - 40 years and far before that we will reach peak oil. The FREE MARKET would provide us a solution to this crisis, but the problem is that our government is going to DESTROY civilization by giving BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars to research coal, oil, natural gas, and so fouth. If this funding would END then the playing field would become even and ALTERNATIVES would become viable (such as COLD FUSION which is REAL).

Now, these are just a FEW of the MANY major issues happening in our country...

I could also mention the INSANE "War on Drugs".

I could also mention how our right to own PROPERTY has just recently been taken away from us.

WHY IN THE WORLD ARE WE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT BUSH AND HIS CRONIES ARE DOING!

The LP should really be calling for the impeachment of Bush and the removal of 99% of all congressmen and senators.

First, the LP goes out in favor of keeping troops around the world, giving money to other nations, and re-building another nation.

Now the LP is worried about whether Bush should fire one of his co-horts?

Bush and ALL of his cronies should be FIRED from their job! They all need to be impeached and/or removed from office by congress, senate, etc...

Well, there's always the dreaded 'I' word that makes these politicians squirm in fear(regardless of which side of the red(repub)-blue(dem) government). Chances are that we already know what that word is, but chances of it happening are slim. I am neither for nor against Bush, but he still manages to piss me off every once in a while.

William, I definitely share your enthusiasm, and your belief that 99% of the Federal government should be impeached. However, it won't happen. You and I both know that. They'd be voting for their own impeachment. It won't happen. :\

I don't think calling-for-impeachment is necessarily the best way to attract people to the LP.

As for the other things you mentioned, I'm with you, man. Definitely. The Kelo decision has to go, the exorbitant taxation has to go (D.C. doesn't even have Representation), the Corporate Welfare has to go, CAFTA and NAFTA and the WTO and the UN all have to go, the War on Drugs, the War on Guns, the USAPATRIOT Act, the REAL ID Act, all of it.

I'd suggest for you to check out DownsizeDC.org. You may find it very useful. :)

...

If politicians were tied down by the bonds of the Constitution, Bush-being-in-office wouldn't even be a problem, because he wouldn't be able to harm us anyway. It's about time we return to a Constitutional government. :)

I didn't say disagreeing with the press release made someone a neo-con. However, whining incessantly about Bush-bashing sure sounds a lot like these neo-con, thou-shalt-not-criticize-the-president nerfies

First of all, lets realize one thing right away.

The Social Security system is really a criminal scam, fraud, and is completely wrong.

It is WRONG in every possible way for the government to FORCE you to give them your money to invest or save for you. IT IS THEFT! They have NO right to take this money from you. Also, you have NO RIGHT to expect that a social security system should always exist and that the government should always be there to take care of you.

It is also WRONG in every possible way for the government to take money from you and use it to care for someone else. This IS THEFT!

Have Libertarians forgotten what the term THEFT really means? It means that the social security system is just as criminal as a gang of punks that mug, rob, and burglarize!

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

The only "difference" is that since the almighty GOVERNMENT is doing the stealing then it is "okay".

This is NOT the truth and it is NOT okay.

Social Security should NOT be privatized.

Social Security should NOT be reformed.

After selling off all unconstitutional government assets a refund check should be sent to all Americans that have paid into the system with adjustments of course for those that have been dependent on the system or are about to be.

Those that are smart will utilize the check wisely.

If they don't, then it is THEIR OWN FAULT!

I can't believe that there are LPers that support privatazation of Social Security.

We are supposed to have PRINCIPLES. It seems more and more LP members DONT.

QUOTE: “Social Security should NOT be privatized” and “I can't believe that there are LPers that support privatazation of Social Security.”

When I said it should be privatised, I meant by that that the government should get out of it completely and let the individuals control their own retirements in any way they see fit. That's what I consider pure privatisation. I didn’t mean that some other agency should take it over. Sorry is there was a miscommunication.

Re: the original topic on this thread

Criminal charges do not have to be filed in order to fire someone. Bush said he would fire the leaker - and it appears that Rove is that leaker.

I'd like to see Bush put his money where his mouth is, and put the GOP meister-puppeteer on the unemployment line.

Hey, I'm just flirting with the whole libertarianism thing at the moment. But I must say, when I came across the LP, I kind-of-thought that it was nothing more than a quirky offshoot of the Republican Party. When I read comments like, "Sean Hannity is so dang charismatic", "Ann Coulter should stand on the Libertarian ticket", and "what's with all the Bush bashing, he is doing a good job", I start to think that it is.

Brandon,

Remember that not everyone posting on this blog is a Libertarian. We get Conservative and Liberal visitors, too.

I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of Libertarians would not support Ann Coulter on the ticket.

Most of us dislike what Bush is doing in office, but some feel that there's nothing to be gained politically using the "negative campaigning" tactics of bashing your opponents.

Finally, I think it's safe to say that a strong majority of Libertarians disagree with Sean Hannity on many issues, even if they like him personally. Bill Clinton was also likeable personally, but I doubt that you'll find many Libertarian supporters of his politics here either.

Well said.

I didn't see anyone saying that Coulter should be on a Libertarian ticket, and I'm surprised that anyone would say that. I often hear people refer to her as the Michael Moore of the Right. I certainly wouldn't want to vote for her.

NO! Don't fall into the lies of the Republican Party? How about we don't fall into the lies of the Democratic Party?

Someone not revealing their identity said "Don't fall into the lies of the Republican Party? How about we don't fall into the lies of the Democratic Party?"

How about we be for real and avoid a "fall into the lies" of both parties? How about that?

This is the Libertarian Party, not the "Disgruntled Republicans Who Only Criticize Democrats Party."

QUOTE: "How about we be for real and avoid a 'fall into the lies' of both parties? How about that?"

Sounds good to me, James. :)

Posted by: Brandon Garfield at July 13, 2005 05:38 AM

Agitators sometimes visit the site with idiotic statements regarding Hannity and Coulter. Real Libertarians know that people like Coulter or Hannity are just party line apologists for Repubs like Paul Begala or Dan Rather are for the Dems. Pay them no mind. This is a very principaled party. We do not worship demagogs like those listed above. (Well there is some Ayn Rand worship from time to time.) Go to sites like www.lewrockwell.com and www.reason.com to learn more about the LP beliefs.

Dave Cattie

Ayn Rand. Wasnt she the lady who testified to HUAC?

Havent read her books. Of her fictionm what would you recommend?

QUOTE: "Ayn Rand. Wasnt she the lady who testified to HUAC?"

She testified to something, I'm not positive what, concerning supposed Communism in Hollywood.

QUOTE: "Havent read her books. Of her fictionm what would you recommend?"

"Anthem". It's only a hundred pages. Might be a good starter.

QUOTE: "We do not worship demagogs like those listed above. (Well there is some Ayn Rand worship from time to time.)"

A lot of people are involved in the development of this philosophy. John Locke, who write Two Treatise of Government, took the Social Contract that Hobbes had written about, and expanded upon it. He disagreed with Hobbes about the dissolution of government, though. It was this Lockean philosophy that influenced the founding fathers to declare independence. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, etc. Henry David Thoreau wrote an essay against slavery called Civil Disobedience, which had an influence on the philosophy. Adam Smith wrote Wealth Of Nations. Various economists like von Mises and F.A. Hayek also had an influence. And, of course Ayn Rand, who championed the Capitalist philosophy. Also, Robert Nozick who wrote Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

I don't think Libertarians worship any of these philosophers, but it's worth noting them to note the development of the philosophy. It didn't really start in 1973, like some might believe. It's been around since before the Revolutionary War, but back then it was called Liberalism. When Socialists started calling themselves "Liberals", this philosophy lost it's name, but not it's principal. The movement adopted the term "Libertarian" in the 1900s.

I don't know if Rand ever called herself a Libertarian or not, but I know her philosophy was called Objectivism. Her moral objection to the initiation of force is highly Libertarian.

But if anyone "worships" her, it would be the Objectivist. Objectivism and Libertarianism share many of the same principles, but there are some subtle differences. Objectivists, for example, tended to support the Cold War, whereas Libertarians tended not to. The phrase "greed is good" tends to be associated more with Objectivism, because Libertarians tend to claim that taxation is a product of government-greed. Just subtle differences like these.

Rand definitely did not call herself a Libertarian. Rand despised the LP, as seen in her numerous comments on the subject. She wasn't kind! See the following website for exact comments.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

Here's just one sample:

"They are not defenders of capitalism. They?re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can?t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it?s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas."

Okay, I recently wrote this. :)

Rove-Gate FAQ

Did Rove reveal her identity? Yes.

Did Rove do it maliciously? I don’t know. Until there is some conclusive evidence that he did, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Did Rove do anything illegal? Again, I don’t know. And again, until there is some conclusive evidence that he did, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Did Bush promise to fire anyone involved with revealing her identity? Yes.

Does that mean Rove? Well, yeah. See question one.

Should Rove be fired? I’ve given it a lot of thought. I didn’t want to comment the first day, back when I posted the press release. So, I slept on it. After giving it some thought, my opinion is that yes, he should.

What is your favourite colour? Black.

Should Robert Novak and other journalists be arrested for not revealing his sources? No way.

What is it with all these people going to the hospital? I don't know. Michael Badnarik, Barbara Mikulski, and William Rehnquist were all hospitalised recently. What’s up with that?

What has happened to the LP? Over the last few years we have just taken the democrat talking points as are own. I think the time has come when the younger generation takes the lead in this party otherwise we will never be a viable third party option for the American people.

We should be focusing on Social Security Reform

I recently joined the LP after following it for years. Despite the water carrying I saw the LP doing for the Greens during the election.

Now the first "message" I get from the party is a Democrate talking point! A demand for Rove's head before all the data is out?!? Is the LP just a spoiler to use against the GOP?

BTW all the post above saying how Bush said he would fire anyone involved in the leak. That is not what he said. He said he would not have anyone in his administration who had broken the law. Rove didn't break the law. Who does the LP really represent? Leftiest like the Greens, the Dems or the American Commie party? Rightest like the GOP, The Conservitive part of America? Or do we represent a true individual rights based capitlism and small goverment?

Pavel

So by your logic Pavel any time we agree with the Dems we are just repeating the Democratic talking points?

Should me make Rove-gate the central focus our political activities? Of course not but the party should comment on the news of the day.

*We make

Paul D.

If we just parrot the Dem's tactics we are being a stalking horse for the Dems. The Rove thing is biting the Dems in the butt like Rather-gate did and the Delay-gate thing did. Rove didn't break the law. He found about the wife being CIA from the a reporter, not the other way round. By not waiting till a very aggressive prosecutor finished the case before demanding Roves head we look like and act like Democrat lackeys. The LP should not be stooping to the petty tactics used by the DNS or the GOP. If we were going to issue a statement about Rove it should have been that we eagerly await the outcome of the independent prosecutor and remind Bush of what he said, not what the DNC said he said. A little research and patience on our part instead of buying whole cloth the lie from the DNC would not have left us painted with the same brush as them.

There is no Rove-Gate. It?s a non issue. There is a supreme court judge coming. We should be working to have our voice heard on that. Not on using Moveon.org type rhetoric in DNC talking points.

I do not like the GOP. I find them very cold and hard. I fear the DNC, they are power hungry, greedy and heartless to their foes. (I live in a state that had a HUGE democrat machine and lots of corruption of same. So they, the Dems, are the more real boogie man to me. The GOP has done a much better job for the state since Star cleaned out the state house.) I voted for Badnarik even if he was hanging with the Green Party all the time. I even canvassed a little for him. Will be very hard to do it again if the LP is moving left.

Pavel

8 USC 19 372:

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.