Be that as it may, McCain's “soul” and disposition is of a conservative sort — despite how “ungrounded” it may be in many respects — and so I'm quite confident he'd be far more chary than, say, Obama, in how far he's willing to push that socialization of rights (confiscatory levels of taxation; appointing jurists who would further implement international law into the Constitution; the withering away of our national sovereignty, etc.). But, yes, I think you're right in principle — there's no formal reason why McCain can't go whole-hog and be as much of a profligate, reckless jackass as Obama and his assorted pseudo-Marxist phucks.

Essentially government allowing us to keep whatever property we may currently have is the normative assumption/essence behind our death and income taxes. That is socialistic.

But this makes Obama just as much of a socialist as McCain, in which case calling Obama a socialist as a reason to vote for McCain is simply absurd. I don't have a problem with consistent libertarians who refuse to vote for either major party candidate calling Obama a socialist; I do have a problem with prospective Republican voters doing so.

See here as well for an excellent series of articles published at Investors Business Daily. High-toned Rawlsekian analysis it is not. Just dirty unvarnished facts, but valuable nonetheless: The Audacity of Socialism: a Series: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx

Not to mention his New Deal lust and more frighteningly, his “social justice” vision of government. Recall how closely he worked with ACORN and Clinton empowered CRA update.

That might not quite be Marx's vision but it is the product of Obama's fundamental disregard for private property rights. Once those go, then socialism isn't that far removed. So, while it may be a bit of hperbole to call him a socialist, it isn't so far removed from the truth that it warrants a dismissive reply.

That being said, for an empty shirt like GWB, the advisors are of huge concern but for a man like Sen. Obama, it matters little to me. He has a vision of the world and it's that vision that troubles me…

Seriously. If there's a retard olympics, you come in last.

I'm a libertarian who'll vote for a socialist!

Those degrees from TTT have served you well.

I think you need to be able to convince a plurality of people (given the electoral system, etc.) that they can be more comfortable (or less uncomfortable) with you as cheif executive. I don't really think that there's any list of qualifications that are necessary and sufficient to guarantee a qualified president.

As for Obama's liberalness…I think that there are various organizations that rank them differently, based on differently chosen key votes. I don't think there's a definitive ranking, but it's probably fair to say that he's among the most left-liberal in the Senate.

But, as Will indicates, that doesn't make him a socialist. Just an advocate of pretty bad policies.

McCain is also an advocate of pretty bad policies, and whether he's worse depends on how you rank the differences.

Thank you for your comment. I certainly will not disagree with your opinion that Obama has run an effective presidential campaign. It just seems a little bit of circular reasoning to say running for president makes you capable of being president.

I still wonder what Obama has actually accomplished that would make him be a man of remarkable competence. Making to a US Senator is no trivial matter obviously, but it just doesn't seem as that is achieving something besides a promotion. I wonder what he has done to deserve promotion.

Finally, am I wrong in my opinion that his previous positions and votes make him one of the 2 or 3 most liberal US Senators?

Regards,
WJ