The economic issues just create too much bad blood.

I think there is one economic precept that both libertarians and liberals can agree on. That is, no matter your preference for the distribution of scarce goods, no economy (command, capitalist, or mixed) functions well in the absence of a solid institutional framework. The bedrock for that institutional framework is the "rule of law." Absent that, and at the very least, transaction costs skyrocket. Liberals and libertarians can haggle the details to death, and often do, but both assume the "rule of law." Without the rule of law, the whole idea of property rights collapses. If you got nothin', you got nothin' to trade - no matter how the terms of trade are defined. So if the two actors to the ongoing drama of "unintended consequences" ('theirs' or 'ours') want a stage on which to continue the drama, they'd both better sign up to support the constitution. Either that, or each of their preferred views on the economy become moot.

"Recently he has become a mouth piece for McCain, and today his column in the NYT was pathetic."

I have no intention of jumping on you or anyone. I admit to being fooled by Brooks for far longer than I should have. Even though I didn't agree with much he said, I mistakingly thought he was just presenting the other side of the argument. That is why he is such an insidious danger.

Your wording shows you how slick Brooks is. He would back anyone whom the party selects although McSame is far from his favorite if Brooks could choose the candidate. As soon as Brooks knew McShame would be the party nominee, he was no doubt very careful in how he criticized McWar. Watch how while he is criticizing he is setting up a false truth that sounds very believable. Anyone who wants to be a propagandist and political pundit, should definitely study this genius in action.

Your umbrage over Glenn's discussion of social issues is misplaced due to faulty reading. Glenn is a gay American -- do you suppose he has views about discrimination against gay people, you know, one of those "lowly" social issues?

And as for abortion, I get so sick of those worshipping at the holy totem of Roe v. Wade. If that decision were reversed tomorrow -- and as the red, very conservative state of South Dakota has recently demonstrated -- something like 4/5 of states would still allow abortion by statute, or their state constitutions would be construed to compel its legality.

I am considering voting for Barr, as well, for the same reason you are. Also, because he supports federal decriminalization of drugs. I consider him to be the first serious presidential candidate in my lifetime to advocate a legalization/decriminalization position on that issue, and I am not sure that 20 years from now I want to look back and see that I didn't vote for that when I had the chance. Haven't yet made up my mind, but I am leaning heavily with you. Glad to see I am not the only one.

I would also urge others out there who are considering lodging a third party protest vote against Obama to take a hard look at Barr. There is a lot in his platform that Liberals can like. And, unlike Nader or Cynthia McKinney, he is not likely to draw votes disproportionally from the left and handicap the vote in McCain's favor. If anything, he will probably draw disproportionally from the right.

Except for some of our resident Libertarians, I don't see anyone endorsing Bob Barr. Most of the others are just saying Barr is correct on this issue. I'm in the latter camp.

It's called Strage Bedfellows precisely because it's a group of people that DON'T agree on many things.

weren't slaves.

Which no doubt makes Brooks think the Obama is not just Uppity, he's by definition Un-American.

Therefore, he's too Exotic for Joe and Jane SixPack.

Bobo, too.

Brooks is definitely a world class wanker.

He really leapt and danced on the NewsHour tonight since he didn't have Mark Shields to slap him around.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/sbobamatrip_07-18.html

I promised to hush. I in no way qualified to comment. I've been in the hospital.

Why don't they glaze in brass the right foot? Why no-hollow a amputated foot?

It's useful as a seasonal stocking stuffer? `Hay kids, that's old PaPa's lame foot!

`

If no say nothings good [?], No say a damn 'ding' on a Friday night.`NOTHING!

Ask? What do they do with the right foot once it's sawed off? huh. Sinnard? Barr?

Barr, thus far, makes me want to be hauled to a local barroom brawl? No. Why?

I'll need to read: ` Wisdoms Of Life and The Maxims, by Arthur Schopenhauer?

(be very slow to embrace some sly, bad cunning, slicks)

Who wants two glass eyes? No brawl. My grandchildren? `Go to a show-and-tell?

Oh ah! My grandchildren say:` Here are two-poked-out, Grand`Pa's two-eyeballs!

My granddaughter say:`Poor PaPa lost 'um in a neocon Friday night braw? oh, boo.

No way. It's past bedtime for me. I'm not a brawler....

wow.

V.P. Evan Bayh? our dem-Lieberman? (,) O Snoid?) You say?`cheddar cheese puffs?

o, 'hubris' Bayh? yup. Is's as 'quirky' or 'suave' or 'spooky' as,`We need prune juice!

o, sleep. if I lie before I wake, I pray Anonymust will bake us a nice chocolate cake.

People need to ponder, before it's a death-bed-moment: ~What is my dark secrets?

I'm way behind. I been traveling in-states. I'll regret that someone already said this?

Good night. no insults.

Kitt? You keep roaring.

You are no purring. Thanks.

Third party protest votes are exactly why we got Regan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr. and Reagan. Good luck fools.

Except for some of our resident Libertarians, I don't see anyone endorsing Bob Barr. Most of the others are just saying Barr is correct on this issue. I'm in the latter camp.

Of course, I don't represent capital "L" Libertarians (or anyone other than myself), and when I've voted, it has always been for a candidate of one of the two major parties, as a "libertarian." Bob Barr was effing Satan on drug policy while in Congress, and has only very recently supposedly seen the light, and joined the Marijuana Project. But I do not trust that conversion; it may well be what is necessary for a LP candidate, not a sincere change of mind.

Still, if he will join a coalition to protect certain other civil liberties and is in no position to promote any reversion to his prior retrograde views, I'll welcome him. I just would not vote for him unless he moved heaven and earth to demonstrate a true commitment to the full panoply of civil liberties.