Dream on, Mona... The appeal to authority (the author of this blog) is a bit much

Oh, but I'm not appealing to authority. Pas de tout! No, it is clear to me that he has unwittingly, and quite ignorantly, been cavorting with, and approvingly linking to, a band of Leninist-neocon analogs. It is up to YOU, LWM, to make him see the light so these embarrassing infractions of his, Kos's etc. all stop.

If not you, then who? If not now, then when?

And hurry, or next thing you know, Greenwald and Kos will decide that Bill Kristol and Michael Ledeen actually have some deeply moral and profound insights to offer to those with eyes to see.

I can't believe you are that gullible so I think you are trying to fool me. I'm not anti-business or pro-business. Cato is pro-business.

Cato is pro-markets. And all that quote from Chomsky is irrelevant, because Catoites are not anarcho-capitalists. (Or if they have a stray one such, I'm certainly unaware of it.)Cato opposes, for example, the military-industrial complex, but not free markets.

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

PS: I was sorry to see Libertarian at Large and L.W.M. go at it so viciously, mostly because I've learned so much from both of them (and Paul, and Paul, and Kovie, bebop-o, Karen M, and Timberman, etc., etc.). I would also prefer that the name calling is curtailed -- argue the points, not the person, please. And take a moment to savor some blueberries, strawberries, and kiwi :)

I'm a cranky, irascible old man and I've been known to pick a fight or two but I'm not as much of an ogre as some think. Mona does come into the lion's den when she comes here but I like Mona and think she shares more in common with many here than is realized. Not the same page, or even the same book but the same section of the library. Bucky1 and I got along fine until I politely called him on some things. Bucky has issues. He's in another section of the library, (fantasy and science fiction), possibly another library altogether. L@L and I were headed for a train wreck. He did a silly thing, then came on as a sock puppet and attacked me, no big deal. I can tolerate all kinds of hijinx and mayhem (I cause enough), but no one wants pretentious phoniness and BS. My agenda is as plain as day. I don't try to hide it. I understand what it's like to lurk and then start to comment. You don't just bash around, but we have yet to figure out what Bucky's agenda is, and he's commented a lot. But this:

Can anyone name a single greater evil in any government's tool box of satanic instruments?

That cried out for ridicule... Even Mona, (who I now see is engaging in "Leninist guerilla warfare" tactics against me), would have a difficult time typing that hyperbole laden sentence!

And all that quote from Chomsky is irrelevant, because Catoites are not anarcho-capitalists.

Because that is what I've been saying. They are "a "libertarian" quasi-academic think-tank which acts as a mouthpiece for the globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism of its corporate and conservative funders. Cato is an astroturf organization: there is no significant participation by the tiny libertarian minority. They do not fund it or affect its goals. It is a creature of corporations and foundations.

The major purpose of the Cato Institute is to provide propaganda and soundbites for conservative and libertarian politicians and journalists that is conveniently free of reference to funders..."

I don't think Glenn is a "leftist". OK? Whatever that means. I never have. Far be it from me to question his adherence to the kind of "ideological purity" or "partisan loyalty" you seem to be ascribing to him. I'm really not a Jacobin. Are you?

An interesting assertion:

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

Anything to substantiate that? I'd be quite interested in seeing it. It's not that I doubt you but it is, in fact, an interesting direction to take the conversation.

And with that, I intend to play a lullaby on my electric sansabelt and head off to bed.

Good night, Mona.

[Realpolitik] refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations, rather than ideological notions.

Unless your ideological notions are nothing more or less than the practical considerations necessary to wield more power like your average RWA neocon, then sure I guess.

Hence "Bush failed conservatism".

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Texas Rep. Ron Paul said at Tuesday’s GOP presidential debate that America’s most pressing moral issue is its adoption of a preemptive military policy, declaring it a rejection of the “Just War theory of Christianity.”

“We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid of somebody,” he said. “But now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war — we have rejected the Just War theory of Christianity.

“We have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption and go back to traditions and our constitution and defend our liberties and defend our rights,” he added.

Paul is the only GOP member of Congress running for president who voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

____

Any reasonable person must agree with LWM that when Ron Paul failed miserably to effectively distinguish between preemptive and preventive war, in the 30 seconds generously accorded him to indicate what moral issue facing America he perceives as most important, Paul demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt his unfitness to even discuss US foreign policy, let alone be a credible candidate for the presidency of the United States of America.

With the ignoramus Paul dismissed from the picture, we are now free to focus our attention on the first-tier Democratic candidates, all of whom have in their debates explicated in depth the advantages and disadvantages of preventive vs preemptive war, and demonstrated at length their knowledge of the major differences between the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas and Irving Kristol.

As we know, the major Democratic candidates have made clear their concurrence with the Bush Administration's doctrine of preventive nuclear war in circumstances involving insufficient acquiescence to American hegemony in the world, including the current ungrateful effrontery of the rogue state of Iran, liberated by the US in 1953 from the rule of the populist demagogue and communist sympathizer Mohammed Mossadegh.

We're all painfully aware of the merciless demands on all of us by advanced post-industrial western civilization, and when repositories of political wisdom such as LWM help us keep our priorities in order when assessing presidential candidates' extemporaneous taxonomies as well as their attitudes toward US wars of aggression, we would be remiss to not express our gratitude for his assistance in our keeping in mind what's truly important.

Ken Rogers