Skip to main content

On hearing what you want to hear....

Susan Hogarth has a post up at Last Free Voice regarding Michael Munger, the Libertarian candidate for Governor in North Carolina. Part of it covers the same ground I did yesterday, but there is a wonderfully ironic segment regarding Dr Mike's appearance in front of the NC Greens:

Mike spoke last night at a Green Party forum focused on North Carolina’s hideous ballot access laws (and other issues), and I noted this morning that a GP activist posted this to a Green list:

As we witnessed last night with Mike Munger, the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate, we will have more in common with Libertarian values than we do with either the Dems or Repubs, this election cycle. Mr. Munger would support a tax bailout for mortgage holders and NOT for lenders. He also supports a very constitutional interpretation of individual liberties and responsibilities. This election cycle I will vote Lib to support them in ballot access and because of his thoughtful application of policy during these times.


This is interesting for a couple of reasons. One, it’s just great that Mike can reach out to Greens and enlist them, even in a temporary effort - remember, Mike worked for the Reagan adminstration. Two, people hear pretty much what they want to hear (postive or negative) - Mike did not actually “support a tax bailout for mortgage holders” - what he said was “No bailout.” But he also said “[I]f we were going to spend the money, than we should at least spend it on real folks, and not financial elites”. You see what the progressive activist made of that. I think this must be a near-universal tendency. We make up our minds who we like and then we reshape their message to what we want to hear, to at least some extent. This is an important lessons for folks running campaigns, I think.


Point well taken, Susan.
Labels:

Comments

George J. Dance said…
Ron Paul was good at that. Remember how he always said about Iraq, "Let's bring the money home and use it to take care of our problems here" (or WTTW) - which I'm sure was music to every welfarist progressive's ears.
October 18, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...
70 comments
Read more

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...
31 comments
Read more