CICEROSC

What is the word among Rand fans on Mitt Romney?

30 posts in this topic

I have read the posts where Romney's name has come up and would like to focus on him for a minute. I am from SC and our tolerable senator (deMint) has endorsed him, while our intolerable senator (Graham) has endorsed McCain.

I know about the Mormon issue, and the issue that he endorsed the universal health care plan in Massachusetts. I also know his father was a typical moderate/liberal Republican. I also know Rush Limbaugh has said that he is not enthusiastic about any of the candidates. That tells me that he has issues with Romney other than social/religious, because I would bet that he is not holding those kind of issues against Romney.

Beyond those basics, is anyone aware of factors which would make a fan of Ayn Rand more or less likely to be able to support Romney as the best choice among the Republicans?

thanks for any information or comments.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know very little about Mitt Romney, but taking a quick look through his website revealed an awful lot of platitudes in his "Issue Watch" positions. I see little that makes him stand out from his competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following "seals the deal" for me AGAINST Mitt Romney as potentially acceptable -- it comes from today's Neal Boortz page:

REPUBLICAN SOUNDING LIKE A DEMOCRAT

White House hopeful Mitt Romney, Republican and former governor of Massachusetts, has weighed in on reforming the tax system. In particular, he was asked about the flat tax...the income tax plan with a single rate across the board for everybody...and he called it "unfair." This could be why he's running behind in the Republican Party polls. And I thought Romney was the conservative in the Reagan mold? I guess not.

Now the flat tax is nowhere near as good as the Fair Tax, which as its name implies, is the only truly fair tax. Everybody pays the same rate and there are no forms to fill out. Everybody gets a refund for the basic necessities of life. No IRS...no April 15th (or April 17th, as is the case this year....that's right...you better hurry.) Anyway, back to this idea that charging everybody the same tax rate is unfair.

Let's compare two somebodys....take somebody who earns $30,000 a year vs. somebody who earns $1 million. Let's say there is a flat tax rate of 20%. The guy making thirty grand would owe $6,000 and the person hauling in a million bucks would pay $200,000. How is that unfair? Who is paying more tax? But oh...I get it...that's not "progressive." We're supposed to charge the guy on the low end next to nothing and confiscate 50% of what the rich guy makes.

Sounds like a little too much of Ted Kennedy rubbed off on Mitt Romney during his time in Taxachusetts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair tax - if there's such a thing - would be everyone paying the same absolute amount...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney strikes me as very much a poll-driven politician. His positions seem to shift with the wind, based on what he thinks is necessary to get elected. When he was running for office in Massachusetts, for example, he was pro-choice. Now that he's running for national office in the Republican primaries, he's become pro-life. I get the same sense about a lot of his other positions -- they seem synthetic, proposed because he thinks they'll win votes and not because he believes them.

If he won't define and defend his positions when faced with American voters, why should I believe he'll define and defend the values of the West against the Islamic totalitarians? He looks like a cream puff to me, not a leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Romney strikes me as very much a poll-driven politician. His positions seem to shift with the wind, based on what he thinks is necessary to get elected. When he was running for office in Massachusetts, for example, he was pro-choice. Now that he's running for national office in the Republican primaries, he's become pro-life. I get the same sense about a lot of his other positions -- they seem synthetic, proposed because he thinks they'll win votes and not because he believes them.
I completely agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of being off-topic (of course yours truly started the topic) now NEWT GINGRICH has imploded within the same 24 hours!

In a heavily hyped debate – one that environmentalist Democrats hoped would be a “smack down” on Republicans -- former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich disappointed them and conservatives alike when he declared that human activity was causing the Earth to warm.

The concession was made in a debate on global warming with Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) today on Capitol Hill that was sponsored by the Brookings Institution and the RAND Corporation.

In his first portion of allotted time Gingrich said there were two undisputed areas of scientific consensus on global warming: that the earth is getting hotter and the warming had been caused by human activity.

At one point, Kerry asked Gingrich what he would say to conservatives like Sen. James Inhofe (R.-Okla.) who do not believe global warming is caused by human activity. Gingrich said, "The evidence is sufficient that we should move to the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon."

“We should be moving to develop all kinds of new green technology,” Gingrich said. He challenged Kerry to find market-based solutions to reduce carbon emission instead of increasing environmental regulations.

“Regulation and litigation are the least effective ways of getting solutions,” the former Speaker said. “Reshaping markets with incentives are the fastest way.”

Kerry argued that environment laws drafted with help from the United Nations have been successful.

Kerry said the laws were “needed to create the leverage and the market so they would go out and invest in the technology because they don’t invest without it.” Government regulation, he said “is the only way to invite people to make that investment.”

“We are not arguing bureaucracy and regulation. We are arguing whether putting a price on carbon is bureaucracy.”

Kerry said it was not. “This is not bureaucracy. You set the standard the market will set the price,” he said. “We all live in a world where we don’t pay for the cost. We don’t pay for the loss of fish, we don’t pay for the lost of these species. None of that is priced into the goods today.”

Before launching into his initial speech, Gingrich endorsed the book Kerry had co-authored with his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry "This Moment on Earth.".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the risk of being off-topic (of course yours truly started the topic) ...

You aren't allowed to hijack your own thread! :)

Gingrich has always been sympathetic with the viros. When he was in power in Congress he sabatoged attempts to scale back the punitive controls under the Endangered Species Act. Apparently he was a buddy of E. O. Wilson, et al.

Romney's campaign shows him to be a typical glib, sweaty-looking politician trying to impress with his patter. If he has substance he hides it well, but did slow down the descent due to a Democrat legislature in Massachusetts by blocking tax increases, etc. That is usually the best we can expect now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now the flat tax is nowhere near as good as the Fair Tax, which as its name implies, is the only truly fair tax.

"Fair tax" is a contradiction in terms. The only fair tax is no tax. Anything which moves in that direction, and toward a more equitable system, is good. But fundamentally any form of income tax is immoral and impractical -- and unnecessary. It began, if I recall correctly, around 1915 to fund WWI and was supposed to end with the end of the war. Clearly it has not.

This is one area where compromise can be particularly dangerous, since it grants the opposition too many of their premises. By all means, any time anyone proposes lowering it, vote for it. But keep pressing for total elimination. It is the primary fuel that powers nearly all of the State and Federal Government's programs. Deprive them of the means and the job of ideological reformation becomes much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But fundamentally any form of income tax is immoral and impractical -- and unnecessary. It began, if I recall correctly, around 1915 to fund WWI and was supposed to end with the end of the war.

I don't think this is historically accurate. The 16th amendment, which gave the federal government the power to lay and collect taxes on income, was ratified in 1913 -- a year before the outbreak of World War I in Europe. The United States did not enter World War I until 1917, four years later.

By all means, any time anyone proposes lowering it, vote for it.

I'm also not sure I agree with this as a tactical matter. We're already in a position where a relatively small segment of the population pays the vast majority of the taxes. One of the side effects of this is that it reduces the number of people who have a stake in further lowering taxes. I don't want to see this situation get more lopsided. One of the advantages of a flat tax, from this point of view, is the fact that by putting everybody into the same boat taxwise it gives everybody an equivalent incentive to monitor the use of tax money and further reduce the tax rate. Multiple tax brackets enable class warfare -- a 'divide and conquer' strategy for the taxers.

But keep pressing for total elimination.

Here I agree. The moral goal is the elimination of taxation. There is no level of government theft of property that is morally OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully understand the moral argument re: taxes generally, but if there are to be taxes, there are still qualitatively important differences between an income tax and a national sales tax; the latter would be, without the slightest exaggeration, orders of magnitude superior to any income tax. It would eliminate the need to track every little deductible expense, many of which need additional thought in order to properly classify (e.g. an additional total waste of time and psychological energy), and is inherently "pay as you go" without the potential of bad surprises. It would radically simplify accounting. It would virtually eliminate the IRS. It's consumption oriented and benefits investment and savings without arbitrary limits and regulations (e.g. IRAs). There are other benefits but those are the big ones. Combined with eliminating capital gains tax, adopting national sales tax and dumping income taxes would completely transform the U.S. economy positively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Romney strikes me as very much a poll-driven politician. His positions seem to shift with the wind, based on what he thinks is necessary to get elected. When he was running for office in Massachusetts, for example, he was pro-choice. Now that he's running for national office in the Republican primaries, he's become pro-life.

In Robert Tracinski's column for RealClearPolitics.com, "Why Giuliani is the Top Candidate" (click here), he observes:

Mitt Romney is a man who truly deserves the description "empty suit." As far as I can tell, he has no firm convictions and a record of swinging with the swing voters. The best description of Romney is from a writer at The Politico: "Mitt Romney is Bill Clinton with his pants up." He wants to be all things to all people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think this is historically accurate. The 16th amendment, which gave the federal government the power to lay and collect taxes on income, was ratified in 1913 -- a year before the outbreak of World War I in Europe. The United States did not enter World War I until 1917, four years later.

Thanks for the historical correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a reportage on NPR this AM that explained that until 1942, 94% of Americans didn't pay the income tax, which was only paid by the richest. The US government actually commissioned Disney for a short animated movie featuring Donald Duck, which was sold the idea of paying his income tax as the patriotic thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a reportage on NPR this AM that explained that until 1942, 94% of Americans didn't pay the income tax, which was only paid by the richest. The US government actually commissioned Disney for a short animated movie featuring Donald Duck, which was sold the idea of paying his income tax as the patriotic thing to do.

The law allowing withholding of income taxes wasn't passed until 1943.

Jones documented the widespread and systematic use of propaganda by U.S. government officials during World War II to quell resistance to the transformation of the income tax from a ``class tax'' to a ``mass tax'' during those years. This propaganda ranged from pressuring radio broadcasters to air ``plugs'' promoting income tax payment to providing story lines to magazines. However, in Jones's view (1989: 716) the ``crown jewel of tax propaganda'' was a Disney film entitled The New Spirit commissioned and promoted by the U.S. Treasury Department, in which Donald Duck was informed ``that it is `your privilege, not just your duty, but your privilege to help your government by paying your tax and paying it promptly'.'' More than 32 million people saw the film in the first few months of 1942, and a Gallup poll reported that ``37 percent felt the film had affected their willingness to pay taxes'' (Jones 1989: 717). Without doubt, such government propaganda manipulated political information in ways that raised the expected marginal cost of income tax resistance.

Lest Jones's observations appear anomalous, note that the U.S. government employed income tax propaganda well before World War II. During World War I, the secretary of the Treasury explicitly suggested use of ``widespread propaganda'' to convince the public to forgo their ``needless pleasures'' (U.S. Treasury Department 1918: 2). The Treasury Department implemented what it called a ``campaign of education'' regarding the income tax. Its ``essential features'' included government-supplied news stories and editorials as well as encouragement of special cartoons and films. Perhaps its most intriguing feature, however, was its use of the clergy. The commissioner of Internal Revenue reported that ``Thousands of clergymen, at the suggestion of the Bureau, made taxation the subject of at least one sermon.'' As a result of the ``patriotic response'' aroused, ``dissatisfaction and complaint over the burden imposed by taxation were minimized.'' Government officials commented that ``the groundwork was laid for securing in ensuing years prompt and regular response to revenue demands.'' To perpetuate its success, the Bureau of Internal Revenue advocated ``the most intensive cultivation of intelligent public opinion'' (U.S. Treasury Department 1919: 964-65, 974; see also Higgs 1987: 133-34).

In the second aforementioned study, Baack and Ray examined an earlier period of tax history to discover why it was that, although the 1894 income-tax statute was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1895, a constitutional amendment was not introduced in Congress until 1909. Their results suggested the ``pivotal role of federal transfer payments in securing passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913'' (Baack and Ray 1985a: 607). Between 1895 and 1909, government officials--acting through the secretary of War, the secretary of the Navy, and the commissioner of pensions--channeled disproportionate government military-related outlays to the states whose congressional delegations up to that time had consistently opposed the income tax. For instance, 74.7 percent of the increases in annual War Department expenditures on army arsenals, posts, and public works between 1897 and 1908 went to the 17 states that previously had opposed income tax legislation. To Baack and Ray (1985b: 128-31), this and related evidence appeared ``consistent with the possibility that naval expenditures and veterans benefits were used to buy state votes to support the income tax amendment.'' These targeted outlays and the implicit possibility of their withdrawal clearly raised the opportunity costs to affected legislators and their constituents of continuing to resist the income tax. Deliberate choices by government officials again reshaped political transaction costs influencing the role and scope of government.

We know that World War II prompted transformation of a tax long endorsed by the public as a tax on the rich into a tax on the masses--a ``people's tax'' in the familiar words of Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. (U.S. Senate Hearings July-August 1942: 3). The numbers have been widely reported elsewhere. A Treasury Department official testified in early 1943 (U.S. House Hearings 1943: 2):

Up until 1941 we never received as many as 8,000,000 individual income-tax returns in a year. In 1941 that number increased to 15,000,000; in 1942 it increased to 16,000,000. This year we expect 35,000,000 taxable individual income-tax returns.

It was one thing to pass the laws that authorized such taxation. The troubling question for government officials was how to assure that the taxes would be paid. Early on, they recognized that income tax withholding could get the job done; the problem was how to sell it to a public previously hostile to such measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...We're already in a position where a relatively small segment of the population pays the vast majority of the taxes. One of the side effects of this is that it reduces the number of people who have a stake in further lowering taxes. I don't want to see this situation get more lopsided. One of the advantages of a flat tax, from this point of view, is the fact that by putting everybody into the same boat taxwise it gives everybody an equivalent incentive to monitor the use of tax money and further reduce the tax rate....

I agree. However, the flat taxes I remember hearing proposed all had a sizable amount of income that would not be taxed at all. One proposal I remember had this amount set at $10,000 per person, so that a family-of-four would not pay any of the new "flat tax" on the first $40,000 of income. So, they aren't really flat; they're just graduated differently than the present tax. To me, it always sounded like they were trying to somehow justify cutting the tax brackets for the most productive people, by simultaneously completely eliminating income tax for people who don't make very much money.

....

Actually, if I'm remembering correctly, Reagan's original proposal for tax reform was not that far from a flat tax. When Reagan was elected, there were probably a dozen or more tax brackets that went up to 70%. (And the tax was steeply graduated, and there was no indexing of brackets for inflation. It would not have been uncomon at the time for a single person fresh out of college with a BS degree and a new job to be in a bracket that was 40% or more.) But Reagan's original proposal included just two brackets: 15% and 28%. I still remember the night I was driving around and I first heard of this proposal - Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming was explaining it. I was so excited - it was so different from the old tax with its confiscatory rates - that I had to pull off the road to listen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A strong statement on taxes by Romney:

Policy Briefing: Abolishing The Death Tax

Thursday, Apr 19, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390

Governor Romney Supports Abolishing The Death Tax:

As President, Governor Romney Will Fight To Permanently Abolish The Death Tax. As part of his agenda to lower the tax burden on the American people, Governor Romney has proposed permanently eliminating the Death Tax. Governor Romney believes you strengthen the American people by letting them keep more of their own money, and not taxing their families at death.

- Under The Current Law, The Death Tax Is Set To Return In 2011. Under President Bush's tax relief, the Death Tax is gradually phased down through 2009 and completely eliminated in 2010. However, unless Congress takes action, the Death Tax will return in 2011. This uncertainty in the tax law makes it harder for families and small businesses to do estate planning and save and invest their money.

- Governor Romney Believes The Death Tax Is Fundamentally Unfair. Governor Romney believes the Death Tax unfairly impacts families, farmers, ranchers and small businesses. These are the engines of America's economic growth and they should not be burdened by unfair taxes. By eliminating the Death Tax, we will help thousands of Americans take money that would be used to pay an unfair tax and instead use it fuel economic growth.

Governor Romney's Lower Taxes Agenda:

To Ensure America's Continued Economic Growth, Governor Romney Will Fight To Cut Taxes For All Americans. Lower taxes are a key to ensuring continued economic growth and job creation.

- Governor Romney Was The First 2008 Candidate To Sign The "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" Promising To Oppose Any Effort To Increase Taxes.

- Governor Romney Will Make The Bush Tax Cuts Permanent. Governor Romney believes making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent is the first step to ensuring that Americans are able to keep more of their hard-earned money.

- Governor Romney Proposes Lower Tax Rates For All Americans. This approach is fair, simple and extends the pro-growth benefits of tax rate cuts to all Americans.

- Governor Romney Proposes A Savings Incentive Plan. Middle-class Americans will be able to save and earn interest, dividends and capital gains tax free. We need to end tax penalties on savings and investments for middle class families.

- Governor Romney Believes Our Corporate Tax Rate Must Be Competitive With The Rest Of The World. The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. We simply cannot afford for future economic growth to have a tax rate that is out of alignment with the other major economies of the world.

- Governor Romney Has A Record Of Fighting For Lower Taxes. As Governor of Massachusetts, he turned a $250 million retroactive capital gains tax increase into a $250 million refund, made the investment tax credit permanent, passed sales tax holidays, gave property tax breaks to seniors, and in each of his last three years in office, submitted a budget that cut the income tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A strong statement on taxes by Romney:

It seems he is defending tax cuts on altruistic ("you strengthen the American people"), utilitarian ("Lower taxes are a key to ensuring continued economic growth and job creation"), and collectivist/populist ("... families and small businesses ..." "...middle class families...") grounds.

It would really be a strong statement if he defended tax cuts because of individual property rights and for egoistic reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems he is defending tax cuts on altruistic ("you strengthen the American people"), utilitarian ("Lower taxes are a key to ensuring continued economic growth and job creation"), and collectivist/populist ("... families and small businesses ..." "...middle class families...") grounds.

It would really be a strong statement if he defended tax cuts because of individual property rights and for egoistic reasons.

I'm finding that, more and more, although I may agree with someone's "ultimate" point (for example, tax cuts in this case, abortion rights in others), I find his philosophical justification so off-base and self-defeating as to make me wonder how to respond. This is especially troublesome at election time: is it appropriate to endorse someone whose reasoning is so faulty? Or is the faulty reasoning symptomatic of some deeper issues that make such an endorsement untenable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems he is defending tax cuts on altruistic ("you strengthen the American people"), utilitarian ("Lower taxes are a key to ensuring continued economic growth and job creation"), and collectivist/populist ("... families and small businesses ..." "...middle class families...") grounds.

It would really be a strong statement if he defended tax cuts because of individual property rights and for egoistic reasons.

Such statements as

- Governor Romney Was The First 2008 Candidate To Sign The "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" Promising To Oppose Any Effort To Increase Taxes.

are politically strong statements -- which is more than you almost ever see -- but he also does appeal to some good reasons (emphases added):

- Governor Romney Will Make The Bush Tax Cuts Permanent. Governor Romney believes making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent is the first step to ensuring that Americans are able to keep more of their hard-earned money.

- Governor Romney Proposes Lower Tax Rates For All Americans. This approach is fair, simple and extends the pro-growth benefits of tax rate cuts to all Americans.

- Governor Romney Proposes A Savings Incentive Plan. Middle-class Americans will be able to save and earn interest, dividends and capital gains tax free. We need to end tax penalties on savings and investments for middle class families.

Those appeals are not a full-fledged explicit endorsement of individualism, but to go even this far is unusual among top-ranked politcians today. His whole collection is included in his statement because he has to appeal to any positive perspective on his goals which is likely to be popular. There is nothing wrong with appealing to a "strong economy", etc. as long as the rights of the individual are not simultaneously contradicted, and in this culture that is the most you usually see.

I don't know if Romney has contradicted his statement on taxes in principle in other public statements, but it is consistent with what he tried to do in Massachusetts, which couldn't be as much as he wanted because of an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature.

We vote based on the choice of policy and goals available from politicians with a chance of winning. When it comes to voting on who will run the government no other choice is available. "Politics is the art of the possible."

He is worth watching in comparison with the others even if in absolute terms he is not an ideal candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, any politician can promise to cut taxes. It is the easiest thing in the world to cut taxes and it can be tremendously popular among some very powerful people. But what we need is not a tax cut but a reduction in the tax burden, which means to lower government spending. To cut taxes without reducing government spending is fiscally irresponsible.

If the government had excess tax dollars every year, there would be no problem getting the politicians to cut taxes. What we need is an agreement among politicians that the government is already spending too much and spending money in areas it should not even be in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is, any politician can promise to cut taxes.

But most of them don't.

It is the easiest thing in the world to cut taxes and it can be tremendously popular among some very powerful people. But what we need is not a tax cut but a reduction in the tax burden, which means to lower government spending. To cut taxes without reducing government spending is fiscally irresponsible.

If the government had excess tax dollars every year, there would be no problem getting the politicians to cut taxes. What we need is an agreement among politicians that the government is already spending too much and spending money in areas it should not even be in.

And who is available to vote for who supports that, would and could implement it, and has a chance of winning the election? :) It's not the election choice we have or are likely to get any time soon. There is so much spending already built into law and demanded by powerful constituencies that it will take a major upheaval to reverse it.

Romney did try to limit spending in Massachusetts despite the legislature, but he would have an even harder time in Washington.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that limits their borrowing is staying out of a recession so they have more to tax.

We can only watch to see who appears to be the least worst candidate after picking through their contradictory positions. The election is only about who of a very small number will be in power as civilization tries to buy time for something better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We can only watch to see who appears to be the least worst candidate after picking through their contradictory positions. The election is only about who of a very small number will be in power as civilization tries to buy time for something better.

I have heard this argument many times in different forms and every time I disagree with it. Every time. Good, positive political change is possible here, now and today, even given the sorry politicians we have.

Where all of these arguments fail is that they assume that politicians have a lot more power than they do. At least in the US where we are still free to speak, politicians are the very tip of the tail of the dog, wishing they knew which way they are going to be wagged next.

In any race where there is no clear choice between the candidates--as it seems in most races--because they are both spouting "me too" so fast no one knows what they stand for, who gets elected is unimportant. It could be either one; you are safe voting for whomever strikes your fancy. It is only in cases where one of the candidates is clearly evil--such as anyone running for the Green Party--that you have to vote against them.

If you are interested in political change--such as reducing spending in order to see the tax rate come down--the way to do it is not by carefully scouring the websites of candidates for promises that are easily forgotten tomorrow, the way to do it is to call your representatives on issues that are important to you. What you will find is that the assistants you talk to are--without exception--polite, good listeners, they take notes and they ask good questions. Calls such as yours are the lifeblood of representative, who really does not know what to support unless he knows what an important segment of his voters support. Every time you call your representative assumes that your call represents thousands of people who believe the same but have not bothered to call. I do this all the time on issues that matter to me and I get a lot of satisfaction in talking to the people who not only will pass my words on, but who are also themselves the next generation of political candidates. You may well be having a one-on-one discussion about issues that are vital to you with the future president of the United States. It doesn't get any better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have heard this argument many times in different forms and every time I disagree with it. Every time. Good, positive political change is possible here, now and today, even given the sorry politicians we have.

I think it depends. Calling Hillary Clinton's office to argue against socialized medicine would be a waste of time. I've only contacted a politician once, Senator Richard Lugar, who I consider for several reasons to be among the best (a very, very small minority) in D.C., on a subject some years ago. I was very surprised to get a personal 3 page letter back from him. Possibly it was written by a staffer, but maybe not. I think the best results could come from bringing a rational point of view to an honest but otherwise confused politician, on some particular issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites