Coburn doesn't need to fund raise much at all to win reelection. I think he's genuinely undecided at the moment. It's what he said, and he doesn't lie. So why fund raise, one of the most unpleasant tasks in the world, if you don't know if you'll need to spend the money?

He beat Brad Carson in 2004, who hasn't ever been governor. He was a rep from OK-02, which is the part of the state Coburn once represented in Congress. I think Coburn might be the only Republican ever to represent that seat. It's now held by Dan Boren, a very conservative Democrat and the son of David Boren, former OK governor and Senator and current president of Oklahoma University. Boren the younger might be able to win statewide, and Brad Henry, the sitting gov, obviously has show the ability to do so as well, but both would be heavy underdogs to Coburn even if he didn't spend a dime. If they ended up running against someone like JC Watts or Tom Cole, they'd have a better shot of winning, but would still be decided underdogs considering the ease with which they would be tied to Obama and the 34% of the vote he managed in Oklahoma in November.

My bad on Henry. Got my Brads mixed up, I guess. You're right on the analysis, of course. Any Dem would be a very long shot there.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:
I guess I don't view the modern liberal, as embodied in Democratic policy proposals, as a classical liberal in the Adam Smith mold. I don't really understand his unstated logic.

Just curious, how much Adam Smith have you read? What about Hume? Locke? Mill? Smith of course was concerned with economics, but not to the exclusion of all else. Smith of course was also not a libertarian. What he did point out, and the point of Wealth of Nations, was that mercantilism did not make a nation wealthy. But he was also quite concerned with the moral development of human beings, and there really isn't much about markets in that part of Smith's corpus.

I read the major work of all of them, but about 7 years ago. I read some Mill recently.

Here's an argumentsimilar to what was already posted. I understand where you're coming from, even if I'm not buying what's being sold. I don't feel strongly about whether Adam Smith is claimed by the right or left, but I don't think that the modern "liberal" acts very liberal.

Well, I wouldn't place Smith with Marx and Rousseau. But I think the whole classical/modern distinction obscures more than it reveals. If by classical liberals we mean the founders of the liberal tradition, a tradition that has definite enlightenment roots, then it is simply wrong to equate classical liberalism with libertarianism. I think to an extent so called "small government conservatives" recognize this, which is why they eschew liberalism and libertarianism.

To me, the most critical mistake here is the way in which economics is sliced off and considered the most significant sphere of human activity. That's where the Marxism comes in I believe. Classical liberals saw liberty and democracy and equality as parts of a whole, and property was one of several "rights" and not the most central one at that. Freedom of conscience and religion was the most central one. Locke makes an important distinction between a natural property right which is severely constrained, and a civil property right, which while more extensive, is not a natural right strictly speaking.

Finally, it seems there's a misreading of Berlin in some of these distinctions. Berlin did make a distinction between negative and positive liberty. But his objective was not an attack on positive liberty or a defense of negative liberty. Rather, it was an articulation of the idea of pluralism--that there is no single purpose or good that all humans should pursue. Thus, the mistake that many libertarians make is to posit some such ultimate good--free markets as a moral system. This is in essence Shumpeter's criticism of the Austrians, and Isaiah Berlin's as well. The politics that flows from Hayek and his followers is every bit as monist as that of Marx or Rousseau. I would add that the politics that emerge from the Austrian school are also horribly naive, in a sense wishing away inequities in power that flow from economic inequality.

TenuredVulture wrote:To me, the most critical mistake here is the way in which economics is sliced off and considered the most significant sphere of human activity. That's where the Marxism comes in I believe.

Since I first read and had formal teaching about Marx about six years ago, this has perplexed me in terms of conservatives re: the idea that everything is about economics - that is a truly Marxist viewpoint.

The non-reflexive social cons (i.e. the Christians that vote GOP but act in their personal lives toward charity, dignity, etc) seem to get this, but the fiscal cons really do seem to measure all freedoms through the lens of economics. Rush Limbaugh, for example, would probably answer my critique by describing the fact that economic freedom represent the height of individual liberty - but I don't think that's quite right. It is a factor, but in and of itself it isn't the sole answer to the question. Theoretically (at least), individual freedom to worship, speak, the rule of law, even the freedom to own a gun isn't a strictly economic issue. To me the first three are more important than economic freedom. In reality, all have economic factors (tax deductions for churches, the cost of a microphone, the way money influences legislation, the industry that makes guns, etc) but I think to limit them and view them solely through an economic lens is not only cynical but goes back to the Marx's POV.

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:To me, the most critical mistake here is the way in which economics is sliced off and considered the most significant sphere of human activity. That's where the Marxism comes in I believe.

Since I first read and had formal teaching about Marx about six years ago, this has perplexed me in terms of conservatives re: the idea that everything is about economics - that is a truly Marxist viewpoint.

The non-reflexive social cons (i.e. the Christians that vote GOP but act in their personal lives toward charity, dignity, etc) seem to get this, but the fiscal cons really do seem to measure all freedoms through the lens of economics. Rush Limbaugh, for example, would probably answer my critique by describing the fact that economic freedom represent the height of individual liberty - but I don't think that's quite right. It is a factor, but in and of itself it isn't the sole answer to the question. Theoretically (at least), individual freedom to worship, speak, the rule of law, even the freedom to own a gun isn't a strictly economic issue. To me the first three are more important than economic freedom. In reality, all have economic factors (tax deductions for churches, the cost of a microphone, the way money influences legislation, the industry that makes guns, etc) but I think to limit them and view them solely through an economic lens is not only cynical but goes back to the Marx's POV.

You get some really weird stuff too--like Singapore and Hong Kong ranked as the freest nations.

Woody wrote:I saw some guy on the corner yesterday with a giant sign that read:

DEFEAT
SOCIALISM

I saw one that was pretty good:

"Honk if I'm paying your mortgage"

So these tea party people pay other people's mortgage? That's really nice of them. How does it work?

It's really breathtaking how selfish Americans are.

TenuredVulture wrote:Finally, it seems there's a misreading of Berlin in some of these distinctions. Berlin did make a distinction between negative and positive liberty. But his objective was not an attack on positive liberty or a defense of negative liberty. Rather, it was an articulation of the idea of pluralism--that there is no single purpose or good that all humans should pursue. Thus, the mistake that many libertarians make is to posit some such ultimate good--free markets as a moral system. This is in essence Shumpeter's criticism of the Austrians, and Isaiah Berlin's as well. The politics that flows from Hayek and his followers is every bit as monist as that of Marx or Rousseau. I would add that the politics that emerge from the Austrian school are also horribly naive, in a sense wishing away inequities in power that flow from economic inequality.

Which work of Berlin would you recommend I read?

Woody wrote:I can't watch the video now but what's the big deal about the bowing/shaking?

I'm going to guess the conservatives are really pissed because he's SHOWING WEAKNESS TO THE INFERIOR ARABS, but I really don't know what the issue is. Can someone explain?

It's not a huge deal. The video was Gibbs denying that Obama actually bowed, but that Obama bent his knees and lowered his head as a handshake, because he's so tall. The denial was amusing. I edited my post, and the video should work.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Finally, it seems there's a misreading of Berlin in some of these distinctions. Berlin did make a distinction between negative and positive liberty. But his objective was not an attack on positive liberty or a defense of negative liberty. Rather, it was an articulation of the idea of pluralism--that there is no single purpose or good that all humans should pursue. Thus, the mistake that many libertarians make is to posit some such ultimate good--free markets as a moral system. This is in essence Shumpeter's criticism of the Austrians, and Isaiah Berlin's as well. The politics that flows from Hayek and his followers is every bit as monist as that of Marx or Rousseau. I would add that the politics that emerge from the Austrian school are also horribly naive, in a sense wishing away inequities in power that flow from economic inequality.

Which work of Berlin would you recommend I read?

The nice thing about Berlin is that everything is short--he wrote pretty much exclusively in the essay format. The classic work is two theories of liberty, which is in his book Liberty. It's also in [url]The Proper Study of Mankind[/url] which is kind of a greatest hits collection of essays.

Werthless wrote:

Woody wrote:I can't watch the video now but what's the big deal about the bowing/shaking?

I'm going to guess the conservatives are really pissed because he's SHOWING WEAKNESS TO THE INFERIOR ARABS, but I really don't know what the issue is. Can someone explain?

It's not a huge deal. The video was Gibbs denying that Obama actually bowed, but that Obama bent his knees and lowered his head as a handshake, because he's so tall. The denial was amusing. I edited my post, and the video should work.

Conservatives and their approach to Saudis and royalty are quite amusing. Michelle arm around QE II is awfully presumptuous and a breach of protocol that the should have been aware of and that shamed the Obama administration, while the bow or non-bow is awful since it shows weakness. Then again, no problem when both Bushes and Cheney were totally in the bag for the Saudi royals and pretty much ignored their near sponsorship of AQ. Then again, the nascent AQ was pretty much a CIA invention under Reagan administration. But then they weren't xenophobic, backward, Muslim extremist terrorists, they were freedom fighters opposing the Soviet Union.

Werthless wrote:When will war be declared on Texas, and when do we get to kill as many Texans as possible in the name of freedom? Sign me up, because I couldn't bear the thought of only 49 states. We'd have to make new flags.

Naw, we can just slide in Puerto Rico to keep the tally at a nice round 50...

I don't understand these tea party things. Are they being run by Fox News? How come it was fine to have deficit spending the past 8 years but not now?

Colbert did a funny bit showing how Glenn Beck was going to run a tea party in the only place in America that made sense. The place he chose was the Alamo.

CalvinBall wrote:I don't understand these tea party things. Are they being run by Fox News? How come it was fine to have deficit spending the past 8 years but not now?

Colbert did a funny bit showing how Glenn Beck was going to run a tea party in the only place in America that made sense. The place he chose was the Alamo.

Jon Stewart also had a funny bit, pointing out the hypocrisy of the tea partiers. They're revolting against excessive spending, yet they spent money on something like a million tea bags.

Link

CalvinBall wrote:I don't understand these tea party things. Are they being run by Fox News? How come it was fine to have deficit spending the past 8 years but not now?

A lot of Republicans, especially the very conservative activists that are running these tea parties, weren't exactly thrilled with the spending increases in the Bush years as well.

Also, the magnitude of the deficits we're running going forward isn't really comparable to the deficits from the last eight years. Not saying that is entirely Obama's fault, as it obviously isn't. But this graph is pretty frightening.

CalvinBall wrote:I don't understand these tea party things. Are they being run by Fox News? How come it was fine to have deficit spending the past 8 years but not now?

And with much of it being south of the Mason/Dixon, wouldn't something like "cotillion" be more apt than "tea party"?

So, the word is, across the country, some hundreds of thousands participated in these tea parties. Nate at 538, basing his totals on official police estimates or news reports has the number at 265k, while over at redstate, the number that is being thrown around is 300k.

OK, so is that a lot or not very many? What are we comparing it to? It was a mid-day and week day protest. (Why schedule it then? I dunno.) But still. That seems really thin. If you consider Rush Limbaugh, according to the ever reliable wikipedia has 13.5 million listeners, well, I'd say the tea parties really didn't attract a big turnout.

TenuredVulture wrote:
....a mid-day and week day protest. (Why schedule it then? I dunno.)...

yes you do - April 15 was a wednesday.

No need to tune into blowhard radio to imagine that the events are being trumpeted there as a big deal.

jerseyhoya wrote:Also, the magnitude of the deficits we're running going forward isn't really comparable to the deficits from the last eight years. Not saying that is entirely Obama's fault, as it obviously isn't. But this graph is pretty frightening.

Does that chart take into account the Obama truth in deficit disclosure or do they use the Bush hidden Social Security number contrasted to the Obama number?