Read other letters about this article
Bucky, count me as one more reader who doesn't understand your positions on most issues. The reason for my shameful ignorance in this regard is that the great majority of what you write seems to be attacking others' positions, real, or more often, imagined. Do you really imagine that all of us "socialists" are busily rehabilitating LBJ? Interestingly, my copy of the Liberal Agenda makes no mention of such a pointless endeavor. Perhaps your suspicion arises from the Right's fevered project to rehabilitate Reagan? ...You yourself seem to find it insufficiently derogatory, and have thus moved on to "Socialist."
Unless you are a sock-puppet, there is no reason that you should know the long standing argument that William T. and I have over LBJ. Ask him yourself about LBJ; you might be surprised. My opinion of LBJ is that he was a monster and a war criminal. What Reagan did in South America means he was a war criminal also. The right is not rehabilitating Reagan however, they have him on the 'fast track' for sainthood. Blah!
William Timberman is a socialist, and the characterization was aimed at him; you, I do not know. (unless you are another of LWM's sock-puppets)
I would certainly agree that the only candidate who embodies libertarianism, intermittently, is Ron Paul, but one of his chief attractions is that he seldom engages in the kind of personal attacks you are employing here.
I think you would find more common ground, and less acrimony, if you followed your own advice, and stick to what you've actually read, rather than ascribe to others a load of righty baloney you picked up from the Freepers.
I am no Ron Paul, that is for certain. But the argument between WT and myself predates the latest election cycle. I can find no common ground with warmongers such as WT; not that WT would ever want common ground.
What is a 'Freeper"? What "righty" baloney are you talking about?