Why do you see this kind of "all or nothing" thinking coming from certain quarters (plural) on so many issues?

Some of us thought: "One down, one to go."

Have you read this?

Challenges to Capitalism, Challenges for the Left...

http://sojournertruth.blogsome.com/2007/03/13/the-three-way-fight/

Between Mona running around going "Neener, neener... Glenn links approvingly to Cato..." and the other one thinking that just because some of Glenn's articles are posted at Lew Rockwell this makes him an "Austrian" Rockwellian, it's like they don't even wait until they've "passed on" before baptizing them as "Libertarians". As Karen said, it's a bit early, and unfortunately none of the better candidates will get anywhere near the nomination. That's unfortunate. As I said upthread, if it were up to me, it would be Bill Richardson, hands down. He has met with them, all of them, from the NorKs (who he convinced to stop making nukes) to Saddam, and had them eating out of his hands. He is the only "real guy, tough guy" of the bunch and the only one who does foreign policy, personally. This TV ad from his last Governor's race.

http://www.westerndemocrat.com/2005/02/bill_richardson.html

It's a possible emergence of a third political movement or pole. I just found it recently and some academics are writing about it, fleshing it out. It's a work in progress. It's not a bipolar power relationship anymore. That too could change. We could have that back if we aren't careful. For the time being, I just try to move the Democrats back to the center and beyond... what else is left?

Like where or how you arrived at this little nugget of demographic knowledge:

Small businesspeople are infinitely more likely to be libertarians than are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, and there is a reason for that.

You don't need to defend Cato's stand on civil liberties to me. I applaud it. May I not be critical of Cato on other grounds? I have been "citing Cato scholars approvingly" myself in my effort to point out that there is something quite rotten over at Lew Rotwell. Having said that, if I could cut and paste policy positions of the candidates, even I might snip this or that from Ron Paul and construct the perfect Frankenstein candidate. None of them are perfect in my estimation (or 100% to my liking) but I'm not the only person in this enormous country who gets to vote. Bill Richardson comes quite close, I must say, but he hasn't a chance any more than Wes Clark. Glenn is spot on there. Our beltway media is broken. The fact that Glenn will not pull his stuff from there does not surprise me. Glenn and the first amendment, Mona. It's a tough act to split up. Please, chill out, girl. We are your friends here, albeit hypercritical friends. But I do enjoy seeing you get all saucy and snarky.

Tho I have on occasion noted that he once said in pre-Haloscan comments that he most often agrees with those who describe themselves as libertarians. Of course, Jeff Goldstein fancies that he (Jeff) is a libertarian, so obviously there is room to maneuver in that definition.

That's what I admire about David Friedman:

"There may be two libertarians somewhere who agree with each other about everything, but I am not one of them."

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html

Any anarchist or libertarian worthy of the appellation defines it for himself. Down with tyranny.

I bring Vietnam up because of its being an example of a *non-defensive war*, pursued for power-political reasons, that two "liberal" Democrats and two "liberal" Republicans were primarily responsible for.

The Vietnam War, in other words, was the work product of four US presidents: Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. We currently have only one Republican presidential hopeful (Ron Paul) who has taken a principled stand against colonial/imperialist war-making by the US, and two Democratic candidates (Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel).

And not one of them has a snowball's chance in hell of getting their respective party's nomination, or doing any more than acting as a spoiler in a three way race so the Republican nominee (not Ron Paul, but Romney, Guiliani, Thompson or McCain) could get elected. Is that what you want? If it is, keep it up. It's quite obvious what the agenda is. It's campaign season. Knock yourself out. But the reason we don't do that around here... the answer to this question:

"...perhaps contributors are waiting for Glenn to endorse a candidate..."

This just ain't that kind of blog. It's not DKos. It's not even specifically an anti-war blog. We welcome the support for ending the occupation in Iraq. Many of the commenters here are non-interventionist to varying degrees. Some even think our invasion of Afghanistan was wrong. There are other things one must consider when choosing a president. If it was down to Gravel, Paul or Kucinich, I'd be curious to see what a straw poll of the readers here would be. I've already told you many times why I think a Ron Paul presidency would be a disaster. The Iraq war is "the" issue for 2008 but it's not the only issue. It would be a nightmare because he would veto every spending bill that crossed his desk. The government would come to a halt.