A goodly group of winsome Republican-enablers in the Government Shill Machine have joined their voices in a chorus of praise for the "presidential look" of the jut-jawed manly man, Mitt Romney, as Bush's replacement.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705310003

On the May 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill

O'Reilly [ /issues_topics/people/billoreilly ] said: "[Y]ou can't get

more presidential-looking than [former Massachusetts Gov.] Mitt Romney

[R]." O'Reilly continued: "[I]f you were to make up a guy, this would be

the guy, you know, that looks presidential. He's got the jaw going on,

the little gray thing in there." O'Reilly concluded that Romney's

"presidential" looks bode well for his electoral prospects, saying, "I

think that means a lot in America."

As Media Matters for America has documented, numerous other media

figures have praised Romney's appearance or asserted that he looks like

a president, including Republican pollster Frank Luntz [ /items/

200702280004 ], Newsweek senior writer and political correspondent

Jonathan Darman [ /items/200702200007 ] and assistant managing editor

Evan Thomas [ /items/200702200007 ], MSNBC host Chris Matthews [ /items/

200702140001 ], Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon [ /items/

200702140001 ], former Time magazine White House correspondent (now

chief political correspondent for The Politico) Mike Allen [ /items/

200701050013 ], NBC Today co-host Matt Lauer [ /items/

200705300004?f=h_latest ], and NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim

Russert [ /items/200705300004?f=h_latest ].

Well LWM really has stepped in it now. As we all know, you can find someone somewhere to call famous people foul names; especially when you are LWM.

Well, he goes to someone's personal site and gets a get hate quotes ...

Of course Mises was dead when this group was formed and in the early years they had not worked with the extremists that they now attract. Lew Rockwell has continued to push this group farther and farther to the lunatic fringes. And one of the main forces for the racialist agenda is Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Then there is more of the Nazi talk like losers always refer to when they can not refute any specific argument.

Then says this:

I suppose you could write this fellow off as a nut, but not Tom G. Palmer, and he agrees with all of this and has since the late 90s. So follow Bucky1 and the other cockroaches as they goose step back into the woodwork, The Darkness Reaching Out For The Darkness.

Gleen Greenwald has articles cross posted at lewrockwell.com and therefore must be one of the racist, Nazi cockroaches that this deranged LWM says.

Well, in my book --- if you call GG that; then I call you "Little Wanker Moron" of no benefit to polite discussion. I gave up trying to parody your style --- too damn hard.

I just can not understand the continual attacks on people with no mention of the actual positions or words written being acceptable here. Does everyone here support the ad hominem?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

... It's not just me calling Lew Rockwell and Hoppe a neo-Nazi and racist. It's other right wing libertarians. That's a bit of a problem for you, not me. I'm just laughing at you for being so stupid, simple-minded and gullible that you fell prey to a cult, a con like Scientology or The Moonies, but all right wing libertarianism is just that.

Are you also "concerned" that Glenn Greenwald is adding to the "problem?" His articles are there often, these days. The site has been yelling at the Damn Republicans for years and you, in your blind hate, spent hours finding nobodies to quote to make no point. If fact, many libertarians "discovered" Glenn due to the actions of these people. Does that sound like hate mongers to you?

Please go to lewrockwell.com today and find one article posted there on the front page and tell me which one is a "Nazi", then go look at all the men and women listed in the archives (the one called columnists) and find some hate. It should be very easy if this slander of yours is correct.

If you want to carry on that some "beltway libertarians" in the Libertarian Party are made fun of by the real libertarians, then yes, we are guilty of that. Do they rage back in fury? Sure. So what?

Oh, and please start with Karen Kwiatkoski --- I think she might even use you as fodder for a column if we get lucky.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html

This is the "teaser" version of a speech that Lew Rockwell delivered to the Future of Freedom Foundation as put together by a most unworthy editor (me). The link to the talk is at bottom, and I give a very poor summery as the space here is very limited for this sort of thing. I share it only to show a few things that really piss off big government types covering the full political spectrum.

There are two clear and present dangers to liberty in America. One is known as the left, and the other is known as the right. They are dangerous because they seek to use government to mold society into a form they seek, rather than the form that liberty achieves if society is left on its own.

I'm going to assume that the left and the right come to their views sincerely, that their passion for using government is driven by some fear that the absence of government would yield catastrophe. So the burden of my talk today will be to identify and explain the common thread that connects the worldview of the left and the right, and suggest that they are both wrong about the capacity of society, whether it is defined locally or internationally, to manage itself.

After that little shot across the bow of government lovers everywhere he looks to explain why one need not fear unbridled society. The following is my pick as the "money quote".

This event was the product of the liberal idea, as held by most all sectors of society. Liberalism did not seek utopia. It sought liberty under the conviction that society had a built-in mechanism that permitted individual members to achieve a harmony of interests. They believed it to be true because they lived it. The belief in this harmony of interests was the great passion of the old liberal intellectuals, of which Thomas Jefferson was a leading exponent.

This little tease from the section on why the left loves government power and the dangers involved in using the leviathan the "solve all the world's woes".

In contrast, writes Hayek, there is another tradition of law that sees all rules in society as rising from the state, and always and everywhere must amount to a restriction on the liberty of individuals. The exponents of this view include the tyrants and despots of the ancient world, and, in modern times, Thomas Hobbes and Karl Marx. The writings of the latter two are the preeminent influence over what we today call the right and the left.

It is impossible to understand this view of government without first understanding the illiberal view of society. The illiberal view regards society as essentially unworkable on its own because it is riddled with conflicting interests.

Let us begin with the left. They believe society has fundamental flaws and deep-rooted conflicts that keep it in some sort of structural imbalance. All these conflicts and disequilibria cry out for government fixes, for leftists are certain that there is no social problem that a good dose of power can't solve.

After he goes on to give the right hell, we find this near the end. I love this part as it shows the Rovian "win by fear mongering" of the modern "right".

Many Republicans by contrast live intellectually in a world long past, a world of warring states and societies made up of fixed classes that fought over ever-dwindling resources, a world unleavened by enterprise and individual initiative. They imagine themselves to be the class of rulers, the aristocrats, the philosopher kings, the high clerics, the landowners, and to keep that power, they gladly fuel the basest of human instincts: nationalism, jingoism, and hate. Keeping them at bay means keeping the world of their imaginations at bay, and that is a very good and important thing for the sake of civilization.

The whole speech is well worth a read. You can take the word of hate mongers here on Lew (and Rothbard), or listen to the issues by the man himself.

http://www.fff.org/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/conflict-or-cooperation.html