Libertarian ideas and philosophy do work in real life not merely theory. They work perfectly in reality. They survive perfectly when implemented. In fact they worked in America for 86 years before the enemies of freedom started violating the limitations on government and making America less free.

Libertarian ideals aren't the anchor that sinks us. The Libertarian party itself is. The fact that they think shaking your hand and saying "good luck" amounts to supporting candidates. The LP is all about individuality and while that's great, a party that focuses so much on individuality attracts some who are freaks. People who walk around in Druid robes or butterfly wings, etc. These few people have made it tough for the serious libertarians to be taken seriously.

This plus the media outlets, and major parties practice exclusionary tactics. They will not allow us into debates and do everything they can to avoid giving libertarians equal airtime.

Most people have never heard about libertarians or if they have heard of them, it was from a third party who really knew nothing about libertarians.

Most Americans aren't very well educated. They were taught in government schools that they should rely on government for everything and that government is always doing what is best for us. They are taught to be collectivists from an early age. They have no comprehension of what freedom really means and they fear personal responsibility so much, they'd gladly serve their rights up on a platter to avoid having to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions.

This is especially true in my district.

I ran an informational campaign and a very successful one at that. I never entertained any thoughts that I'd actually win the election in such a rigged race and such a rigged system. With more money, my results would have been better. I only put in about $100 - $200 of my own money and the rest was raised online. With only $1,600 I got 8% of the vote. With real money, a campaign staff, and advertising, I'd have done better. But even if I had unlimited funds, I couldn't win in that district because of the reasons I've already listed.

So no Libertarian has ever won, that speaks volumes...

And yet you are still a total failure as a voice of political reform.

You always win when you fight against air. Don't believe me, look at the Star Wars Kid.

7 page powerpoint of Iraq status

via Michael Yon

According to the power point, everything is going down, except caches found and cleared, which is going up.

Does that mean there are more caches, or that we are finding them now?

It is an indication that the locals who know where these caches are, are telling the Iraqi Army and or us where to find them.

Re more people cooperating because the want the US out?

Sure, many do, many don't. Providing credible information of any kind, for an Iraqi, is more about trust. I'd say it's all about trust. I believe about 1/4 to 1/2 of anything I'm told by an Iraqi on first meeting. It's not because they are outright liars. They, like many cultures have a thing about saving face for others, and not being truthfully direct when first meeting people. It really is about how well known you are, and trust.

Being American, we tend to judge others intentions and motivations against our own. It seldom works well, and leads to trouble down the road if done continually.

To just say "Meh, they want us out and are thus turning over more cache sites." Would be about as accurate as information passed on first meeting the average Iraqi. Only slightly so. There is a grain of truth in there, but not the whole truth.

Radar, you're a bigger idiot for not getting the big picture. Libertarianism promotes anarchy. Whether it's individual, or corporate. Governments exist to prevent anarchy. The founding fathers were not anarchists or libertarians. The created a constitution of laws. Not perfect, but with provision for amendment. Take away the laws, you take away our liberty.

Libertarianism is not anarchy and it doesn't promote anarchy. Libertarians believe in having a government and want to keep it as small as possible. The founding fathers fit this perfectly. They founders were indeed libertarians. If you think otherwise, it only proves your own historical and political ignorance.

They created a constitution of laws, and those laws were made to place strict limits on the powers of the federal government. The federal government is given very limited and specific powers and everything it does beyond those specific and limited powers that are listed in the Constitution is unconstitutional and an attack on our freedom. Allowing the government to do anything other than those specific and limited things (even for a good reason) is a slap in the face of our libertarian founders and an attack on liberty itself and it opens the door for others to violate the Constitution for bad reasons.

Unlike you, I actually do get the big picture and unlike you, I actually understand the Constitution and the principles that guided our founders when they created it.

The founders wanted the fed to be very small and virtually invisible to regular people with the states having the vast majority of the legislative powers and 100% of law enforcement powers. They wanted people to remember that the people hold the power, not the government.

And how's that been working out for ya?

Ooh, today the riddle: how can the US media report Iraq as a "win" without giving in to the idea that... something was successful there?

Here it is. Didn't see this one coming.

"Never Mind," says Iraqi PM

In other news -- from a blog, featuring sundry links to here and there.

Plenty of incidental blasting of the Left as unprincipled idiots, with no one left to be useful to.

Well, Undertoad, the Democratic Party footdragging on the WoT has been a national disgrace from its first moment, and their want of a strategic vision exceeds myopia and goes all the way to astigmatism. You can't win a war -- one started by rude foreigners, I never tire of pointing out to the thickheads who don't want the fascists disturbed -- by searching for substitutes for victory. That's the same non-achievement they've been at since 1954 -- and is not that a little too long? No wonder I have no faith in the Democratic Party.

Republicans made the effort to sink international Communism, and they succeeded. Democrats, not so much. We'd like to think Kennedy might've, but we'll never know. Johnson, as John Keegan writes in Americans At War, essentially fought Vietnam as a strategic retreat -- not the best way to get a success from the American military. Or, I suppose, any military. Design a war for failure, and that's what you're likely to get. Rambo put it rather well, didn't he, with his wistful "Do we get to win, this time?" The Republicans say yes, the Democrats... don't.

In the meantime, we have Barack Obama setting forth a military strategy outline in a recent speech that looks exactly like -- well, the very strategy the Administration and the Republicans would carry out. I'm pleased that the Dems are finally getting an inkling of how America might succeed, but there remain limitations to my optimism here.

The call for withdrawl was arguably the first time that Iraqis "got it" -- oh the Americans want to leave? They don't just want to stay here and keep our country? This message changed the debate for them. It was probably a necessary component of the whole thing. And all the Ds were doing was expressing the will of the public.

Furthermore, this is a nice narrative but when you look at what happened, it doesn't match up; until Petraeus the rules of engagement were part of the problem, and lack of troops was part of the problem, so saying "being allowed to win" is a double-edged sword. Do we get to win? The strategy had to change 180 degrees mid-stream, so who was making the calls when we weren't winning?

Do you remember who was against winning in Bosnia?