Commentary...
Whenever libertarians need a laugh they can always look to the defenders of the Republican or Democrat wing of the Republocratic Party.
One sincerely earnest but unintentional humorist scored big while writing about the Brown-Coakley-Kennedy Senate results in Massachusetts with this headline:
"Small-government candidate wins, no thanks to Libertarian Party."
Brown, Coakley, and Kennedy. Can you find the "small
government" candidate? (AP file photos)
More Mass political palaver:
The first response might be puzzlement. The Independent Joe Kennedy won? In Massachusetts? Running against Brown and Coakely?
But then, reading into the second paragraph, "If you’re an advocate of smaller government and reducing the federal debt, Brown was the clear choice..."
...and great gasping guffaws erupt as one realizes the writer is referring to the Republican Party winner, Scott Brown, as the "small government candidate."
Isn't everyone clear by now that for decades the government and the debt keep getting bigger no matter which wing of the Republocrats is in power?
The Libertarian Party, who backed Kennedy's candidacy, "was willing to risk spoiling the election in Coakley’s favor," charges the writer, even though, as noted libertarian Tom "The Kn@ppster" Knapp pointed out, "The polling numbers said that Coakley, not Brown, was the second choice of Kennedy voters by a margin of 2 to 1."
So maybe Coakley and Brown spoiled the election for Kennedy?
The writer disses the Libertarians for several paragraphs before getting around to tisk-tisking his delightful little Republican scalawags. They "spent too much money" while in power, he grants, and they "messed up," he admits, and "Those who participated deserve a good scolding," he concedes.
Yes, scold the endearing little rascals!
"But they’ve been behaving themselves better over the past year," he retorts.
Well, yes, they've been out of power over the past year, haven't they?
But the Grand Old Party protector persists: "Just because the Republicans screwed up in the past doesn’t mean they definitely will in the future."
Meaning, apparently, that they're all going to be honest and play nice from now on.
More good chuckles and chortles can be plucked from the overly long piece, but some knees may be getting sore from all the slapping, so let's just wind it up with this:
"Republicans and Libertarians first need to work together to thwart the Democrats," exhorts our writer, a demand which of course always translates to, "Libertarians should do what Republicans say."
But that leaves an obvious question hanging in the air: Who then will thwart the Republicans?
Reference: "Small-government candidate wins, no thanks to Libertarian Party" – Dan Sherrier, The North Star National
Don't miss a NATIONAL LIBERTARIAN NEWS EXAMINER article: Click the Subscribe button at the top of the article and enter your email address or choose the RSS button. Either way you’ll be alerted to the latest piece when it's published. And don't forget to click Email to send this article to a friend.
Libertarian contributors wanted! Have article ideas? Photos? News tips? News releases?
Join the team here!
Comments
he is just another zionist tool who will do as told when told by his masters in tel aviv.when will Americans start electing officials who are loyal to America first and the U.S. Constitution and the American people, instead of letting zionists choose who we have as elected officials.
'just saying': That's right! And we have troops in South Korea because our gov't is controlled by South Korean tools! And we have troops in Poland because our gov't is controlled by Polish tools!
And everyone knows that the western world had truly delightful relations with the Arabs for 1500 years before Israel came along and ruined it all! And everyone knows American politicians were always loyal to the Constitution until Israel ruined that, too!
But seriously, 'just saying', hear me now and believe me later: you're a disgusting human being.
You my friend and an imbecile if you think AIPAC does not have a stranglehold on Washington. Or maybe you are one of megaphones internet trolls.
Is AIPAC influential? Yes. Is it the only influential organization? No. Is it more influential than the oil companies? Absolutely not. Need proof? We sell weapons to Saudi Arabia.
So AIPAC does not have a "stranglehold".
AIPAC isn't the only reason we support Israel. Israel has many qualities that make it an attractive ally, and there are reasons to support it apart from AIPAC's influence. Absurd? Consider Taiwan. We support it even though it puts us at odds with a nuclear powered dictatorship that is both an important trading partner and a potential enemy. We support South Korea even though it puts us in conflict with a country that has built nukes and is working on missiles to carry them to California. It's possible for the U.S. gov't to support a country, against the U.S.'s apparent self interest, based on principles.
As a libertarian, I oppose our gov't's support of Israel, Taiwan, and S. Korea. But our support of Israel isn't due to an AIPAC "stranglehold."
Oh, one more thing: you called Scott Brown a "zionist tool". What's your evidence? Because if you have none, you have deliberately falsely accused (there's something in the Ten Commandments about that, I think) a man of treason. That is behavior worthy of a "disgusting human being".
I don't know if he will jump when Tel aviv hiccups, but he does appear to be another neocon socialist lightweight. How quickly the GOP has replace Arlen...at least Pennsylvania is getting wise.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!