http://www.nysun.com/news/nati.....?page_no=1

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blo.....obama.aspx

I am currently supporting Ralph Nader, who is the only candidate (since we know Ron Paul will not get the nomination) with anything worth listening to.

Hmm, I seem to recall that a whole World War was fought over the issue of Corporatism, but was known by another, less loaded term.

What smear do we usually use when we are confronted with any White Racialist/Separatist/Supremacist? That’s right, Nazi! Now, what obscure, neutral word do we use to describe the marriage of State power and big business? Corporatism.

Interesting how this would just slide in relation to Obama, but Ron Paul would have a chorus of baying riffraff climbing over each in their eagerness to condemn.

Statists!

Weather Underground? Please, pedal that rubbish somewhere else! It was a “contact” with one person, and by the way the Weather Underground died in the 1980’s. Many Black Panthers and other 60’s/70’s left radicals mellowed out and became useful community organizers and concerned citizens. Even in the hey-day of the organization most members where not in to physical violence of any sort.

Barack is just another Chicago Pol, part and parcel of the DLC (corporatist) wing of the Democratic party. In Australia he would be a part of the Conservative opposition.

The election of 1956 pitted Dwight Eisenhower against Adlai Stevenson, both of whom offered statist domestic policies (sound familiar?). But Stevenson was against conscription and less pro-war, and thus garnered Rothbard’s support, the moral priority being the prevention of another massacre of young men. Rothbard even worked the phones from the Stevenson campaign headquarters in Manhattan. His turn against the Republicans got him tossed off the Faith and Freedom masthead, led him to appeal leftward for allies, and sparked a lifelong war with William Buckley and the mainstream of the conservative movement.

Very little changed throughout his life. He was radically in favor of free markets and radically opposed to war, a wholly consistent opponent of the welfare-warfare state. But in the intellectual-political history of 1952–1989, there was no place for such a person. Official opinion required philosophical inconsistency, and the segmentation of intellectual camps followed the same course.

So Rothbard often had to make political decisions by weighing the foreign-policy question against a candidate’s domestic program. Let’s fast-forward 40 years, for example, to the presidential elections of the 1990s. Pat Buchanan challenged George Bush for the Republican nomination, saying that Bush had made two unforgivable errors: he waged an unjust war against Iraq and he raised taxes. Did Rothbard cheer Buchanan? You bet. And he worked overtime trying to get Buchanan up to speed on broader economic issues while defending him against the wrong-headed charges of the Left.

But Buchanan lost the nomination, and refused to pursue a third-party option. Rothbard then turned to Perot as the candidate worth rooting for, and on the same grounds: Perot blasted Bush’s war and his taxes. Then Perot suddenly pulled out. That left Bush and Clinton, whose foreign policy was no different from Bush’s but whose domestic policy was worse.

Rothbard then rooted for Bush against Clinton. His very controversial column appeared in the Los Angeles Times, and it garnered more hate mail than Rothbard had ever received in his life. Many libertarians (not famous for strategic acumen or catching the subtleties of such matters) were shocked by his non-interest in the Libertarian Party nominee. But by that time, Rothbard was convinced that the LP was running a presidential campaign in name only, that it was a clique devoted not to real political education but to organizational maintenance.