Libertarians Still Lusting for Palin?

Is anyone closely tracking Sarah Palin’s continued popularity with libertarians?

Charles Murray, one of the Beltway’s favorite libertarians (ensconced at the manically pro-war American Enterprise Institute), told the New York Times that he is “truly and deeply in love” with Palin.

Joe Bast, the head of the Heartland Institute, said that Palin “was a great choice [for Vice President] for all the familiar reasons – she’s more free-market, has more executive experience, and is smarter than either McCain or Obama. What’s not to like? In a better world, she’d be running for president, not vice president.” Bast, writing in the October-November issue of the Heartland newsletter, also praises Palin’s “zero tolerance for government corruption.”

Has anyone compiled a list of other prominent libertarians who have gushed over America’s best-known moose hunter?

I continue to be mystified at how Palin could have become an instant saint for so many libertarians. The woman is and has long been a professional politician. Her performance in the debate with Joe Biden (another perfidious professional politician) should have shattered her halo once and for all – at least for anyone who doesn’t support perpetual U.S. warring around the globe. [Cross-posted here.]

2 thoughts on “Libertarians Still Lusting for Palin?”

  1. There is only ONE “prominent” “libertarian” that lusts for Palin: Eric Rittberg Dondero, and calling him “libertarian” is a stretch, and “prominent” even more of a stretch.

    And the Cosmotarians inside the Beltway don’t count as libertarians, either.

    1. Donderooo is about as much a Libertarian as McCain. One of the problems with being a Libertarian is simply defining it. Who or what is a libertarian? Ask three of us and you will get three different answers. It’s amazing how many libertarians say yes it’s a great ideal BUT, EXCEPT, IF ONLY, etc. I know that there is a huge difference between idialism and reality. However, if you believe in the Idea of libertarianism you shouldn’t constantly qualify your position on a case by case basis as most of the “Cosmotarians” do.


  2. “Has anyone compiled a list of other prominent libertarians who have gushed over America’s best-known moose hunter”?

    No I don’t have a list. I’m a Libertarian or at least fall mainly in that catagory. I can however add a name to my list of morons who think putting down Palin for hunting is some kind of intelligent arguement (James Bovard). I don’t care one bit for palin but I sure as hell don’t care about whether or not she Moose Hunts. Now if you want to make a point that her brother in law shot a moose illegaly while also in charge of enforcing hunting laws you might have something there.

    Seriously putting down Palin for being a hunter simply pisses off hunters who may otherwise be willing to listen to something you have to say. For me it simply puts me off completely. first of all what she does in regards to hunting has little to nothing to do with how well she would run anything. It does however play to her advantage of coming across as your average Joe (or Joette).

    Please stop the useless Moose hunting cracks. It makes you look petty and ignorant about the joys of hunting. You might as well say something as petty as her feet smell. by the way so do mine but I don’t think that should disqualify me from running for office.


    1. Are you serious about being insulted as a hunter? Or so insulted that, you seem to quasi-defend Palin? This is what is wrong with America. I wish she would be elected President, just so that you can reap what you sow.

      1. Yes I was insulted, but not just as a hunter but also as a libertarian and a thoughtfull human being. The comment was rediculous on many levels. Also if you think that pointing out a stupid comment is what is wrong with “America” you need to look a little deeper. I wouldn’t wish Palin on anyone, not even the people living in Wasilla (where I have friends, who moose hunt). I also hope I can reap what I sow, as I spend much of my free time fighting against the fascist and socialist who are bent on destroying our great nation. Anyone should be able to come up with many reasons for not voting for Palin, or bashing libertarians, without lowering themselves by bringing up someones hunting record.


        1. Methinks the lady doth protesteth too much. Seriously, some of you “Libertarians” whine almost as much as conservatives. I fail to see why an off-hand comment about moose hunters should become an issue; political correctness is just as annoying whether it is committed by a Democrat, Republican, Socialist or Libertarian.

          As for hunting, it is slightly more cowardly than traveling halfway across the world to kill innocent people in Iraq. The people over there can, in theory and often in practice, defend themselves; no one has yet taught moose to shoot back. If you’re that infatuated with shooting stuff, then join the army. Beyond that, I don’t really care if your overly-sensitive pride was wounded by these vicious, anti-moose-hunting diatribes.

        2. @timmy ramone

          How about snagging a nice trout at the end of a fishing line and watching it flop around in the boat until dead? Is that cowardly too? And then there are those Indians who used to kill those moose and deer and those damn eskimos and their seals. Don’t they know those things are an endangered species? Sick bastards!

        3. Thanks for making my point for me. I fail to see why moose hunting is an issue regarding someones electability. That was my point. As for joining the Army I have been there and done that. Now I protest because of what I have seen.

          There is nothing cowardly or heroic about hunting. It’s an enjoyable and fulfilling part of life for many people. but it always seems to be the completely uninformed tree hugging liberals who call it cowardly. What do you know about hunting or the Army? Have you every been hunting? Did you ever spend time in the military? Your ignorace of both subjects is obvious so you don’t have to answer. I suppose your a vegitarian who doesn’t consume or use anything made from animals? Are you to lazy or prissy to shoot and clean your own food, or do you just prefer others to do it for you?

          Furthermore, I wasn’t talking about being politically correct I was talking about making a sensible point. It’s insulting to my intelligence not my pride. As for wining polical correct nutjobs the socialist liberals take the cake. but again who cares? You can be anti war and come from any walk of life.


        4. Brad Smith: And you seem just as desperate to prove mine. I can’t speak for Mr. Bovard, but I don’t think he had it in mind to impugn the nation’s moose hunters when he made his remark about Sarah Palin. Besides, at this point she probably IS “America’s best-known moose hunter.” As I said before, your indignant over-reaction to Bovard’s innocent quip reeks of political correctness and deserves no further comment.

    2. There is nothing wrong with Sarah Palin being a moose hunter, or describing Sarah Palin as the world’s most famous moose hunter. The thing wrong with Sarah Palin is that she is a major nutcase. If the idea of going to war with Russia over Georgia because of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is not insane then nothing qualifies as insane.

      1. There is no difference with the Obama camp when it comes to Russia. If Israel wants the US to have a war with Russia, the US will do as they are told, and I would bet my entire life savings on it. In fact, it would probably be a much safet bet then investing it in the stock market or our banking system.

      2. Well said, Mr. Epstein. Sarah Palin is indeed a major nutcase.

        This Israel Lobby-controlled horse’s (moose’s?!) ass
        wouldn’t mind mixing it up with Russia (!), Iran, Pakistan et al. I’d love to know what was said at her meeting with AIPAC, arranged by “Zionist Joe” LIEberman.

    3. “Please stop the useless Moose hunting cracks. It makes you look petty and ignorant about the joys of hunting.”

      I see. And as we are ignorant of the joys of raping perhaps we should hold off criticising rapists? If you take “joy” in killing you are a sick f**k, end of story.

      1. Wow nice reply. Again have you ever hunted? If you had you might understand that it’s not the joy of the kill but the fullfillment of being close to and a part of nature. Do you eat meat or consume or use any products made from animals? Do you drive or fly, use wind power, or about a million other things that harm animals? Equating hunting to rape has got to be about the most ignorant statement I have heard in a while (not counting Eugene). It amazes me how people who are so far removed from nature feel the need to tell us, who are close to it, how to behave. Let me guess you live in the city and surround yourself with liberals who want to save the planet, right? Your on the computer so obviously you use electricity. How is that produced without endangering something, you hopocrite?

        Hunters and farmers are the true stuards of the land. The tree hugging nuts actually live off of our work. I think it’s just the guilt of living in the city which is for the most part bereft of nature that makes them this way. I guess if I lived somewhere where you can go days without seeing an animal I might feel a little guilty for having destroyed my environment. As it is I live surrounded by nature. We haven’t destroyed our environment we are part of it.

        I love how many anti-hunters still eat meat or consume animal products. If you eat eggs you should be aware of what happens to chickens after they quit laying. If you use any dairy products you should be aware that for cows to give milk they need to give birth. What happens to the offspring?

        I could go on and on but what is the point. When someone refuses to use thier mind it’s very hard to get them to understand anything.


  3. “I can however add a name to my list of morons who think putting down Palin for hunting is some kind of intelligent arguement (James Bovard).”

    First of all, I don’t think it was at all necessary to imply James Bovard is a moron. Having people like Bovard to read is unquestionably to our advantage. Secondly, IS he putting her down for hunting? Or is he making a case for the idea that a lot of libertarians may be all too willing to accept some very major character and policy flaws simply because she is a hunter?

    1. Your right that James Bovard does some good writting. However, saying that it is unquestionable thats it’s to our advantage to have him on our team is going to far. If he becomes a liability he’s a liability plain and simple. Again I can’t stand Palin but you can easilly come up with better arguements against her than that she is a moose hunter. Furthermore, if libertarians are willing to overlook her flaws based on moose hunting than what good are they to us? My point is that he made a mistake by going after her or libertarians using the weakest of arguements. If you believe that libertarians are ignorant enough to base their decisions on whether or not she hunts I would have to disagree with you. In fact it is more than a little insulting to assume that. Any true libertarian wouldn’t care one way or another.

      I will accept that I went to far in calling him a moron (I’m sorry). However, he should still realize that his comment was childish and unhelpfull. All to often people are afraid of pointing out a mistake because “he’s on our side”. If he is willing to explain exactly what his thought process was in regards to this statement I’m all ears. Untill then I’ll stand by my belief that it was offensive both towards libertarians and hunters alike. I get it that he is pointing out that many libertarians have little or no concept of what it means to be a libertarian. However, he takes the words of a few false libertarians and makes it seem as if they are in the majority. Using the stupid moose comment just tops it off.

      I realize that I am oversensitve on the subject of hunting. However, I am sick and tired of hearing people put down something they know little to nothing about. Being anti-war shouldn’t mean that you need to buy into every liberal tree hugging idea. If you or anyone else doesn’t want to hunt, fine with me. Just leave me and my favorite pastime alone!


      1. @ Brad Smith

        You are not being oversensitive on the hunting issue. This has been typical of the last few months. We have Obama/Biden, McCain/Palin in a race for the leadership of the country, all of them saber-rattling over the Russian “threat” and saying how “strong” they are going to be with those evil Russkies, and the best that people can come up with is the fact that Palin is a moose hunter.

        Believe me, I hear it all the time. I am a libertarian leaning conservative living in the bay area of San Francisco and I can’t begin to tell you how many dinner parties I have been to with supposed liberal “intellectuals” who know absolutely nothing of US foreign policy apart from what they have been told…”Bush is an oil man and that is why we are in Iraq” or “Who actually wants a moose-hunting NRA nut as a VP?” Then, when I ask them why did the Democrats not do anything after the voters gave them Congress in 2006 with a clear message to end the Iraq fiasco, and why did Obama, within 24 hours of winning the Democratic nomination, run as fast as he can to brown-nose AIPAC and promise them the US’s unwavering support in their battle against Iran, the only response they can come up with is “What, are you like a McCain supporter or something?”.

        My reply is usually something to the effect of, “No, I’m just your average anti-war, anti-globalist, anti-big government Joe, who, in trying times like these, finds comfort in turning to my God and my guns.”


      2. “However, saying that it is unquestionable thats it’s to our advantage to have him on our team is going to far. If he becomes a liability he’s a liability plain and simple.”

        IF he becomes a liability. He’s hardly an albatross around our necks based on this issue.

        “Again I can’t stand Palin but you can easilly come up with better arguements against her than that she is a moose hunter.”

        Is that the only argument James Bovard has come up with to criticize her? I don’t think so.

        “Furthermore, if libertarians are willing to overlook her flaws based on moose hunting than what good are they to us?”

        None at all. That’s exactly my point and it may be Bovard’s: why ARE Libertarians supporting this woman? These Libertarians are apparently using narrowly defined litmus tests to judge her, one of which may be her moose hunting.

        “My point is that he made a mistake by going after her or libertarians using the weakest of arguements.”

        Again, I think he may be questioning their motives for supporting her, not questioning whether hunting is ethical or not.

        “If you believe that libertarians are ignorant enough to base their decisions on whether or not she hunts I would have to disagree with you.”

        I’ll disagree with this in the strongest of terms. Any bozo can call himself a libertarian based on poor or limited information. Some people call themselves libertarians simply because they want legalized drugs. Others may call themselves libertarians because they collect guns. There are ignorant Republicans, ignorant Democrats, ignorant Independents, and ignorant Libertarians.

        “In fact it is more than a little insulting to assume that.”

        It’s naive to think that calling oneself a Libertarian is some kind of IQ test or a test of integrity.

        “Any true libertarian wouldn’t care one way or another.”

        There’s the crux of the matter: any TRUE Libertarian. Not only are there phony Libertarians as mentioned above, but as with any political ideology, you’ll find variances of opinion among informed, “true” Libertarians as well.

        “I will accept that I went to far in calling him a moron (I’m sorry). However, he should still realize that his comment was childish and unhelpfull.”

        Again, you haven’t answered my fundamental point: how do you know he’s against hunting?

        “All to often people are afraid of pointing out a mistake because “he’s on our side”.”

        My post clearly said that I didn’t view his statement as a mistake, therefore I have no reason to point out this “mistake” whether he’s on our side or not. You’re now making a pretty large leap about my character based on your misinterpreting my statements. Perhaps you’ve also mistinterpreted Bovard (and perhaps not; I don’t know, I’m just saying that based on what he’s written above, NEITHER of us knows).

        “If he is willing to explain exactly what his thought process was in regards to this statement I’m all ears.”

        Then perhaps you should give him the benefit of the doubt before ripping into him?

        “I realize that I am oversensitve on the subject of hunting.”


        1. You have also helped me make my point. Whether this is Libertarian bashing or moose hunting bashing it adds to the steriotype that all libertarians are are a bunch of morons who just want their guns, and drugs, hookers and gambling. Thanks for furthering the steriotype Swami Barmi, you just confirmed why a libertarian should be offended by bovards statement. This is exactly why people are put off by the libertarian party. They are afraid of or believe in the steriotype. Don’t bother reading or looking any deeper “their just a bunch of gun nuts on drugs with their hookers over for poker night”.

          People please don’t buy into this garbage. If you would like to live your life with liberty and freedom based on personal (as opposed to governmental) responsibility check out the Libertarian party and it’s ideas.


        2. “Whether this is Libertarian bashing or moose hunting bashing it adds to the steriotype that all libertarians are are a bunch of morons who just want their guns, and drugs, hookers and gambling.”

          Only to someone who can’t, or doesn’t want to, comprehend what he’s reading.

          My contention admitted a broad range of people who lay claim to the Libertarian label. The result of this contention is that I do NOT recognize Libertarians as any single specific stereotype, but rather that they are like everybody else: there are smart Libertarians and there are dumb Libertarians. There are Libertarians who know what they are talking about and there are Libertarians who do not. There are Libertarians who define themselves as such because they subscribe to the general Libertarian philosophy of limited government and personal freedom and there are Libertarians who define themselves as such because they are single issue people who want only one thing out of it, just as there are neocons who want only war out of their political journey.

          Try reading my post again with the intention to understand what I’m trying to express rather than thinking that I’m out to get you.

        3. “Try reading my post again with the intention to understand what I’m trying to express rather than thinking that I’m out to get you”. Ditto!


  4. Maybe her African witch hunter minister cast a spell on them?

    She’s not at all smart nor honest. Whatever craftiness she exercises is due to a lack of shame.

    1. The Pseudo-Spengler of Asia Times Online is a nitwit, comic relief in an otherwise very well-informed line-up. He is so ignorant he once confused the Dark Ages with the Roman Empire.

      Lester Ness

      1. He is so ignorant he once confused the Dark Ages with the Roman Empire.

        That surely means that he holds a PhD in Ancient History or Classical Studies from Yale, Harvard, or some other establishment diploma mill.

        1. I really do have a PhD in Ancient History and I know lots of other ancient historians. Many of us are conservative by temperament! That includes knowing basic facts, such as that the Dark Ages began about 500 AD. The False Spengler thought that it ended about 500!

          Atimes “Spengler” is a German scribbler with a certain talent for invective and a lot of anti-semitic prejudices, which (fashionably) he aims at Muslims, not Jews, as his grand-parents probably did. Whenever I can check on a statement of fact which he makes, he has it wrong. Aside from all else, he ruins the reputation of German scholarship!

          Lester Ness

        2. If you don’t know it, Lester Ness, Peter Llewellyn’s Rome in the Dark Ages is well worth the time.

      2. I also agree that from this small sample (I will not be reading more if I can help it) this “Spengler” is an offense to the tradition of German Scholarship, including Oswald Spengler, at least as it was before the Nazis went a long way toward destroying it.

        It might be noted, as you doubtless well know, that the “Dark Ages” weren’t “Dark” in much of the world, as in the East, including Constantinople and later–of all places–Baghdad.

        The peculiar apprehension of the “Dark Ages” among the British and Americans deserves a subtle tome. It is a pity Arnaldo Momigliano is dead–he might have managed it. As it stands, Twain’s Connecticut Yankee will have to suffice for a few unconscious themes–that all modernity, for example, descends from the Englishman’s emergence from his own long and very recent “Dark Age”, punctuated too shortly obviously, by the Roman Occupation.

  5. “and is smarter than either McCain or Obama”

    That’s all I need to know in order to conclude that Joe Bast is not dealing with a full deck.

    Sarah Stalin attracts the very worst of Americans to her cause. A fascist in lipstick.

  6. I think if Mr. Bovard had intended to use the issue of hunting moose as an argument against Palin’s libertarianism, or as her worthiness as a human, he would have made that case – he didn’t. He referred to her as America’s best-known moose hunter. I’m not sure what to read into that. Perhaps, between the lines, he is making the case that Americans are idiots because all of America’s first-rate moose hunters are unknown by the ignorant masses. Of course, that would be silly.

    But, it wouldn’t be as silly as mistaking Mrs. Palin as a libertarian of any variety. She is pure red state fascist. A full blown hypocritical politician, cultural conservative, and big government Republican posing as a limited government conservative.

    Here are a few links to shed light on her politics:

    1. According to my favorite crazy evangelist, Brother Stair, she is a tool of the Illuminati. Of course, everything is a conspiracy to Stair!

      Lester Ness



  7. “Libertarians still lusting for Palin?” Someone else can have my share of that. Besides, I don’t know any cab drivers that well that they would lend me their tools for that job.

  8. Palin is W. in a skirt. I’ve seen this movie, I never want a sequel to be made. We were fooled once with “no nation-building” and a “humble foreign policy”, but she doesn’t even care to lend that fig leaf to the Libertarian cause.

  9. I would say between Palin and Biden she is more libertarian – but thats not saying much and I loathe her — if you count one time cato economist and republican apologist as libertarian than you can throw Stephen Moore onto the list — he was touting her on Bill Maher recently

  10. How could anyone who has listened to Palin and studied her flimsy record of public involvement compare her intelligence to that of McCain or Obama?

    Obama got into and graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law (for God’s sake!) and has written two highly acclaimed books (without a ghost writer!) in addition to many Senate-level documents.

    Palin is, at best, “W” in a skirt, as someone pointed out.

    Spare us the hard ons, please.

    1. “How could anyone who has listened to Palin and studied her flimsy record of public involvement compare her intelligence to that of McCain or Obama?

      Obama got into and graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law . . .”

      And why the crickets chirping when we were waiting for McCain’s intellectual accomplishments? McCain’s background is suggestive of a pampered dolt and to be honest, Obama’s entry into these colleges could very well have the taint of affirmative action given the timeframe. Let’s not be too enamored of big-name universities as there are many lesser names that provide equally high quality educations, and lesser incomed people who may have had no choice but to attend them. This of course, is not in support of Palin.

      1. Let’s also not forget that Obama, who taught constitutional law at the college level, violated his oath of office to uphold the Constitution by voting to reauthorize the egregiously unconstitutional PATRIOT Act! Furthermore, in his eagerness to inflict further injury on we the people, Obama joined his “nemesis”, McCain, in the ruling class’s stampede to support and vote in favor of the recent Bankers’ Bailout. So much for the expectation that Ivy League credentials will trickle down something of value to us serfs in the real-world.

        1. Exactly, it is even worse and more scary coming from Obama, because he has apparently studied this stuff, and still violates our Bill of Rights any chance he gets.

        2. It is what is taught in the Law Schools Dano, almost without exception. Yoo came out of the same stew.

          I have known very learned, even brilliant Europeans and Canadians and Australians who cannot easily grasp the distinction between their state-granted “Freedom of Speech” and that delineated by the US Constitution.

          And they do not have the problem of a wholly different language.

          Nor, in fact, do most Americans grasp it, even though the language was deliberately made as simple and clear as possible.

          Nor, in fact do most grasp the gist of the participle absolute in the Second Amendment.

          But it is worse than that.

          Of the some few who do, they would just as soon rewrite it or talk their way around it, including the supposedly eminent jurists on the “Supreme” Court.

          Then there are the hypocrites, on both sides, who want the First Amendment but not the Second, or the Second without the First, and adopt a language and mindset and apologetics that make that seemingly possible.

        3. It is a bit like Congressman Paul, who reads the impeachment provisions, and his supposed “Constitutional principles”. one way for Clinton and a wholly different way for Bush and Cheney.

      2. You don’t have to be smart to be naval aviator, just trainable.

        Lester Ness

  11. Maybe said would-be lovers haven’t seen a woman in a LOOONG time.

    Lester Ness

  12. For some of you reading this I’m sure your thinking what the hell is a Libertarian anyway. Others may be thinking aren’t they the nutjobs who just want their hookers, gambling and drugs? There are many misconception about the libertarians, this is one of them. We don’t advocate vices. But we do believe that people should be free to choose how to live thier lives, and with this liberty comes responsibility. The same is true economically. Liberty is not something granted by your government it comes from your creator. Having the freedom to choose what you do with your body, money, and property is the cornerstone of Libertarianism. With this freedom comes responsibility. It’s NOT the governments responsibility it’s yours. Less government=More liberty. More government=less liberty. The government does not grant you your liberty or the responsibility that comes with it.

    If your interested in learning more a great place to start reading is Lew Rockwell is the founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute also a great place to find information. Justin Raimondo is also a contributor of many articles on


    1. It's also worth pointing out, Brad, that free-market capitalism, the economic system of libertarianism, demands accepting responsibility for failure as well as rewards for success. Under libertarianism, it's permissible for the successful to rake in the dough. However, the flip side, failure, requires that losers, which today includes many of the formerly successful, take their lumps and not employ the police power of the state to socialize their losses.

      1. Right on, responsibility works both ways. It’s also interesting to note that when a society becomes as fond of laws and goverment as ours has, individual morality and responsility go out the window. As long as you can find a loophole or hire a good enough lawyer and pay your fines, your still good to go. No matter how many lives you have destroyed. As long as you can get away with it knock yourself out. The government enforced state morallity stunts individual moral development.


    2. I think Libertarians have the understanding that virtue cannot exist without choice. It is only in a society where people have the right to choose hookers, drugs, and gambling that true virtue can exist. So it is not because Libertarians care nothing about morality or virtue that they think vices should not be crimes. Rather it is because Libertarians think virtue and morality are all important, and it is only in a society where people are free to make bad choices that morality and virtue can exist. Albert Jay Nock does an excellent job on elaberating on this point in his essay “On Doing the Right Thing”

      1. I think Libertarians have the understanding that virtue cannot exist without choice. It is only in a society where people have the right to choose hookers, drugs, and gambling that true virtue can exist….

        This is classic doublebind, examined in depth by both Bateson and Laing, among others.

        It might be paraphrased logically in various ways–“You must do X and avoid Y, but you must do it freely and by your own choice.”

        I will not bother with the theology, but at base it is just another version of state and society as a “moral order”, with the economic and financial arrangements designed to enforce it by default.

        This is, partly at least, why I do not consider either Paul, or those who follow him as a messiah, whatever their exoteric dogmas, “Libertarian.”

        When William James appropriated a few isolated ideas of Charles Sanders Peirce’s “pragmatism”, and even appropriated the name for his own botched doctrines, Peirce, interestingly enough, politely informed James he was wrong, then changed the name of his own system to “pragmaticism” to distinguish it from James’ “pragmatism”.

        It may be time to do the same with “Libertarian”, leaving that name to what the Paulists and others have expropriated, and if I may say, so, thoroughly botched.

        Rothbard was much more penetrating, as is Bovard.

  13. Personally, I’m lusting for Angelina Jolie to be run for President.

    There’s a woman who can do far more than Palin ever imagined (instead of shooting moose, she’s had so much combat handgun training for her movies she could probably defeat Al Qaeda by herself), is smarter than Palin ever was or will be, has done more for more people than Palin ever will with her work for the UN High Commission on Refugees and her charitable foundation – and who makes Palin look like Ernest Borgnine in the looks department.

    Notice how much verbiage is wasted on discussing Palin – while McCain gets a free ride from the MSM. This is precisely why she was chosen as his running mate – to divert attention from McCain. And it’s worked wonders. This is why Obama doesn’t have a 15-20 point lead over McCain yet, which he should have given the senile old nutcase he’s running against.

    1. Given his age and medical history, there is a good chance he’d die in office and make her president.

      Lester Ness

  14. The fact that Palin wasn’t invited to be in on the briefings by Gates and Rice on the Iraq war tells me she is not one of the establishment. McCain, Obama and Biden are.

    That’s probably why libertarians love her.

    Snubbing her was wrong.

      1. Self-ballyhooed “Moose hunter” is quite pertinent politically.

        As usual, the slow upstairs think in black and white stereotypes.

        Moose are big and she’s the little woman, advertising her machismo for the Alaska electorate, and anyone else retarded enough to pay attention. Squirrel are delicious–does she hunt them too?

        Who knows, but where is the political capital in being a squirrel-hunter, save to an insightful fellow like General Lew Wallace, who has something interesting to say on the subject in his autobiography.

        “Hunter” means nothing in and of itself, there any many different kinds of hunters, good and bad, even as a category.

        Palin is self-advertised as the Big Game variety, and those kind also come in different flavors.

        That she is a politician and a hunter and wants to legalize hunting polar bear is also relevant.

        Pretty clearly she is after the trophy, and perhaps the rug.

        That is a doubtful motive for a politician, if not necessarily for a hunter.

        As usual Bovard, you are at least ten steps ahead of the yahoos.

        1. Smith, you have no idea how many things you have wrong. A little learning, an inferiority complex, and a temper are a dangerous things, especially in concert, and you seem to qualify.

          A squirrel through the eye with .22 magnum at 30 yards at dawn is a great way to start dinner. But you also need onions, garlic, tomatoes, peppers, olive oil and butter, salt, corn meal.

          And at least two more squirrels or maybe a rabbit. Then the wine, ah well.

          Flour is optional.

          Frogging with a spear in an Indiana pond on a hot night–Wallace never mentions it, as I recall, but he did know fishing.

          And that they eat froglegs is not why the French are called “Frogs.”

          Why then? Mum’s the word.

        2. That’s thirty yards no scope. In regard to moose-hunting, you, Smith, were much closer to being barked.

          In those hills, shooting squirrel in the eye is considered bad form by those who like to fry up the heads as a delicious, nutritious snack.

          Well, everyone has their little quirks, and even big ones.

        3. Oh Costa, you are so easy to get going you have become my favorite joke. One of these days you will amaze me by not being expert in something. For now a cooking lessen, what next a toe nail clipping lesson. Get a life and get over yourself.

        4. Actually, Smith, if you had given the impression of being polite, I might have given you a very long list indeed.

          But you will have to learn that by trial and error.

          If I am around this site long enough for it to matter.

          The new .17’s with a good scope, gangbusters.

        5. “A little learning, an inferiority complex, and a temper are a dangerous things…”

          This apparently nails it.

          “A little learning” – his posts beckoning people to the libertarian party by explaining what it’s all about smack of someone who’s just discovered it out of the blue, not realizing that many of us have been Rockwell readers and Paul followers for many years. I almost always ignore spelling errors because they’re usually made in haste, rather than really not being able to spell. His spelling errors are consistent, showing he really can’t spell simple words.

          “an inferiority complex” – he demonstrates a desperate need to prove himself, rather than his points. Even if Bovard DOESN’T like moose hunting, Smith’s self-centered delusion places it front and center of Bovard’s discussion, taking it as a direct personal attack.

          “a temper” – Is he always this angry?

        6. So now Barmi and Costa are experts on Smith as well as everything else. You both miss one point. A blog is for everyone to read. Although it may appear that I am addressing you alone, I’m actually thinking about how others are reading what I have to say. I understand that many people on this site go to Lew Rockwell but I’m sure many others have not. As for spelling you have got me there. It never was my strong point so I have come to rely on spell check. As for proving my point I think I did just fine and Barmi’s comments just helped.

          Regarding the moose hunting comment I’ll still stick with my statements. It was a stupid comment on many levels. The reactions from the other readers of the site (both negative and positive) confirm it, and James Bovard has not denied it. Why don’t you let him reply himself? furthermore, what’s the need to get so uptight if it’s a non-issue?

          Inferiority complex, it’s possible but I’m not the one on this site who takes every chance he can to toot his horn about how brilliant he is.

          Temper: lets see, on this one blog alone I have been called a sick F**k, I’ve been told my ideas are whats wrong with America, that I’m a whinning Libertarian, a lady, a coward, that I have an inferiority complex and that I can’t spell and am therefore unlearned. Have I replied with any threats? Have I gone on a rant and just started cussing everyone out? NO. Yes I baited both Barmi and Costa oh well they are big boys if they don’t wan’t to take part in the discussion they don’t have to.

          The whole thing is fairly sad. I have seen this mentality on almost every blog even ones I never post on. Many people on blogs seem to take joy in attacking anyone they don’t agree with. If you dare to defend yourself or your statements the attacks continue and only get worse and more personal. I realize that I have also been guitly of this behaviour. I guess this is why blogs and bloggers have become the butt of so many jokes. It’s just too easy to fall into this behaviour when you don’t have to look someone in the eye.


      2. James please set me straight. What did you mean by your moose hunting comment? Let me know your thought process I truly am interested. Was it a dig on moose hunting, Libertarians, Palin, or a combination of all three? Just curious.


        1. @Brad Smith,

          Actually, it was a dig on moose hunting libertarians who lust after Sarah Palin. Happy now?

        2. So your saying James Bovard wasted time and space insulting what,three people? If your a moose hunting libertarian lusting after Palin please stand up.

        3. @Brad Smith,

          Correction: it was a dig on libertarian Palin hunters who lust after mooses. Happy now? Or how about libertarian-minded mooses who lust after Sarah Palin? Want to let this one go, already?

    1. Great video 1984. It is obvious that she doesn’t have a clue. That could be a plus or minus depending on your belief in the powers of the presidency. However, if she is as easily led as W. We would be pretty much back where we started. Same old Same old as usuall. Isn’t it nice to have a puppet for President? You would think we would be used to it by now!


  15. Moose “hunting” isn’t even hunting. You can walk right up to a moose and it won’t run, wont charge you (except in certain circumstances) and won’t even look up. Every moose I’ve ever seen, I could walk right up to. Where’s the sportsmanship, let alone some big challenge. If you’re trying to be in nature, try taking a picture instead.

    1. I guess you could fill your freezer full of pictures but I wouldn’t suggest feeding them to your kids.


    2. First ,i do not hunt.However if we had no hunters deer would take over the world. Already where i live many people hit them in cars.This causes not only damage to the car but some time Injury to people. I don't know about moose but i suspect that the ones you see are in a protective area. Often animals there are tame. Most animals if not hunted would over populate,and then many would starve to death .Personally i had rather be shot and die quickly ,than suffering the slow death of starvation.

  16. I was disappointed that SNL allowed her on the show this Saturday. She may have been able to recoup some of the losses which she has accrued since the novelty of her act faded.

  17. Her and her husband are maybe nice people and would be better company for a game of bridge than the other three couples running. But she is first and foremost a climber – willing to spout whatever those above her tell her to. If somebody decent was at the top of the ticket, she might be alright. If she’s like W, it’s in not being very curious or well-read. She delivers a speech well but in interviews she seems to have only one speed. Even if she doesn’t know the answer she maintains speed resulting in a pile-up of words. I doubt if she has the depth of knowledge to have a future even in the Republican party.

  18. I’m a Libertarian an I love Palin.
    There, I said it and I’m glad.

    Why do I love her? Let me count the ways.
    1)She prooves you don’t have to be a nasty
    hag to rise as a woman in American politics
    (nasty and beautiful works too.)
    2)The Right may put the first woman in the exec.
    (which denies this landmark to the left.)
    3)She initially spoke well of Ron Paul
    (and is secretly still crushing on him.)
    4)She likes to shoot Moose (Ha! just joking.)

  19. Sarah does a great impression of Tina Fey though.

    Should voting for Obama be considered OK as a lesser of the two evils as corporate sponsored candidates?

    Mc Cain: ‘My fellow prisoners’

    Like devil prophecy or a fallen angel Mc Cain’s
    Freudian slip shows he knows the game
    as ‘our fellow prisoners’ we share the blame
    the wages of the ‘lesser evil’ are the same
    burning flesh for freedom is so lame

  20. Sarah Palin is very big with two demographics: pseudo-Christians and pseudo-Libertarians. Fortuanately for her these categories vastly outnumber true Christians and Libertarians. Fortunately for the rest of us Christ and Liberty have truth and history on their side.

    Now we get to see how far thirty pieces of silver can be leveraged before the crash. Yes that’s you Mr. and Ms. Beltway insider…hope you enjoy your place in history!

    1. The question to which many of us await an answer, with baited breath, is at what point the Establishment will tire of its useful-idiot enablers in the pseudo-Christian and pseudo-Libertarian camps and turn on them with the fury so far reserved for the real article.

  21. Libertarians in love with Palin? Oh, boy I give that match like zero chance. Ask any Libertarian about getting money from other Libertarians. Libertarian men are el cheapo. I have passed the hat at Libertarian functions and saw lots of ones and an occasional fiver go in. Lots of “I’ll give laters”. Readers of this web site can see that poor Raimondo has to stand on his head to raise $70K every quarter. So what kind of Sugar Daddy would your average Libertarian Joe make?
    Watching Keith Olbermann on his show last night, I heard that in the 7 weeks since that backwoods Leona Helmsley arrived, the GOP has had to shell out $150K for her clothes and travel. She doesn’t order her clothes from some outfitters – more like Neiman-Marcus and Saxs. And the Palin brood doesn’t do Motel 6 and order in pizza. Genuine moose burgers from room service at the Plaza must cost a blue fortune.
    So dream on you lovesick Libertarians. For your sake, I hope that you never capture the heart of this Imelda Marcos of the tundra.

    1. The question occurred to me a while ago that, given, say, Austrian economic theory, and humankind’s supposed material motives, why is espousing the theory, including that of the “Libertarians” who make the economic theory a central item of their “philosophy”, not profit-making?

      Or is it?

      Admittedly, on the surface the question looks both deliberately perverse and very naive.

  22. For the ones who don't support Palin You must have supported Obama.You will soon reap what you have sown.

Comments are closed.