colliething

Why Libertarians should avoid the 'conservative' label - and the 'liberal' label, too

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:35:00 +0000

What started off as a simple pointer to an interview and a few words
developed into a regular essay, so I'll just link to it here:

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/why-libertarians-should-avoid-the-conservative-label-and-the-liberal-label-too/

Here's the gist:

"So whose votes - and whose loyalty - do we get by sticking to the
term - and the ideas behind the term - 'libertarianism'? The answer
sounds tautologous, but here it is: libertarians, of course!"

--
Susan Hogarth | Get Free!
Libertarian for NC State House 38
http://hogarth4house.com/

chicken/egg

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 02:02:00 +0000

Resuming our boring suburban consumeristic ways, Bill and I went shopping for a belt sander (unsuccessful) and a cheap Chinese buffet (successful). My fortune cookie fortune read "Better to have a hen later than an egg today."

Yes!

JLF on drug laws

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:44:00 +0000

http://www.johnlocke.org/fmm/

After sensibly explaining why prohibition doesn't work and creates
more problems than it solves, Palasek finishes off with a true JLF
milquetoast flourish:

"This example is not an argument for less enforcement of statutes that
are already on North Carolina's books. What it does suggest, however,
is that additional statutes may be counterproductive, as the Sudafed
regulation is beginning to suggest, and that in some cases dropping a
prohibition may be the expedient as well as the sensible route to
take."

--
Susan Hogarth | .38 Special
Libertarian for NC State House 38
http://hogarth4house.com/

Afghanistan: golden opportunity

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:58:00 +0000

To the LP's officers and reps,

Please consider issuing some sort of statement regarding US gov't
involvement in Afghanistan. It's becoming painfully obvious to
Americans (even ones who approved the occupation initially) that the
fiasco there is sliding toward the same sort of boondoggle the Soviets
got stuck in, and that American interventionism isn't helping
Americans. With Obama's recent statements about *increasing* troop
levels in Afghanistan, the LP has a wonderful opportunity to
differentiate ourselves from both the DP and RP and to assume a
leadership role in the pro-peace noninterventionism movement.

I have been disappointed in the LP's refusal to confront the
Afghanistan occupation head-on; now we have a perfect opportunity to
make such a confrontation a demonstration of how we differ from both
Republicans and Democrats. I hope that you will consider taking this
opportunity while Obama is still overseas and it could possibly get
more notice than in other contexts.

Thanks for your time and work!

--
Susan Hogarth

Election Day '06

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:32:00 +0000

Just looking through old pics, and came across this pathetic shot of me in near-collapse after petitioning in the rain all day. Notice the flush on my face? I couldn't get warm and I ached all over, but it wasn't until I was headed home that I realized I was coming down with the flu.

In an earlier self-portrait, I was still energized by the work and hadn't yet realized what the day was costing me:

Barr publishes a more extensive "Issues" section

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:24:00 +0000

Have at 'em:

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/

Off the bat, I'm not crazy about the tagline 'the answer is less
government' (though it is written in a sexy font). Somehow that
implies to my government-despising mind that the answer is
*government*, just less of it. Less of a bad-thing is *good*, yes, but
not the answer.

If I have HIV, I am happy to have a lower virus titer, but that ain't
the *answer*. The *answer* is a cure.

I'd prefer something along the lines of 'the answer is freedom' or
'the answer lies in you' or something to indicate that the answers
comes from *people*, not *government*.

But maybe - just maybe - I'm biased.

Some fairly shabby writing is in evidence, which tastes a little bit
like Shane Cory's style to me. For example: "Since 1997, Bob has been
a board member of the National Rifle Association, and quickly became
the vanguard of gun rights during his four terms in Congress."

'became the vanguard'???

Munger to NC Newspapers: Pfffht!!

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:43:00 +0000

http://lpnc.org/news.php?news=20080709.php

Excerpt:

RALEIGH (July 9) � Dr. Mike Munger, Libertarian candidate for governor, won't disclose the personal financial information requested by The News & Observer and the Charlotte Observer unless he's allowed to participate in the gubernatorial debates.

"I categorically refuse to participate in this farce, unless I'm allowed to participate in the debates," the Duke professor said. He said he doesn't object to the request itself because both newspapers have covered all three campaigns fairly.

... "My opponents have refused to ask I be invited to even one debate," he noted. "I find it ironic that I'm being asked to disclose anything, when it's my Sphinx-like opponents who refuse to open their mouths and say, 'We should include every candidate who qualified under state law.' "

Munger has pledged to prepare the financial disclosure packet, believing in good faith that either the sponsors of at least one debate, or the candidates themselves, will awaken to a sense of their obligations in a democratic society.

Zimbabwe: the LAST thing they need ...

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:34:00 +0000

... in that miserable land is SANCTIONS:

http://allafrica.com/stories/200807080833.html

"The seven-country-strong African contingent, led by African Union
chairman President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania, yesterday snubbed the
coercive tactics of the United States and instead emphasised the need
for dialogue. Leaders from Algeria, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal
and South Africa joined Tanzania in telling the G8 that sanctions
would not help Zimbabwe in any way."

Please ask the LP's candidate to come out *strongly* against US
government economic sanctions *anywhere*, and particularly against the
peoples of Iran and Zimbabwe, who are suffering enough from their own
bad leadership and not in need of 'help' like that from *our* bad
leadership.

--
Susan Hogarth

Ask Bob Barr to speak out against further Iran sanctions and a prelude to another war

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:58:00 +0000

Congress is gearing up for another war - against the people of Iran,
this time - in the traditional Empire fashion - by starting with
increasingly strict economic sanctions which will weaken the people of
the target/victim country. The House action to accomplish this
economic warfare is Resolution 362 - you can find the bill here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362

and information about it and its likely impact can be found here:

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/06/23/iran-war-resolution-may-be-passed-next-week/

It is important that the LP's presidential candidate speak out AGAINST
sanctions and other punitive actions against the Iranian people. Barr
has spoken in general terms about 'not rushing to war' against Iran,
but as the de facto spokesperson for the Libertarian Party, he really
needs to make the point that sanctions ARE war - and war against
civilians.

So I'm asking fellow Libertarians to ask our candidate Barr to make a
clear and unambiguous statement denouncing both HR362 and any proposed
or existing sanction measures against the people of Iran.

Please write to the Barr campaign by filling in the form on Barr's
site to "send your message to Bob" (unfortunately there seems to be no
campaign email address I can share; apparently you have to use their
form): http://www.bobbarr2008.com/join/

Thank you!!

--
Susan Hogarth

An inch too far: Barr on Iraq, Patriot Act, MM

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:05:00 +0000

I think that our candidates - especially at the highest level - need to be watched and analyzed carefully and critically. Such analysis can be support for the campaign if accepted in the right spirit - as support. A transcript allows us to look carefully at what Barr said - bearing in mind that he is talking live, and anyone is liable to some slips under those conditions. The Wallace interview (link below for transcript)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373450,00.html

grabbed a lot of Lib attention because of Barr's self-praise on DOMA; rather astonishing to those who thought they'd heard him promise to work to repeal the Act. However, there are a few other points of note, and frankly, some deeper concerns for me regarding Barr's foreign policy - and area he has always been fairly cagey on with Libertarians - calling for 'no rush to war with Iran', for instance, while not repudiating his former support for the warfare of embargoes.

Two domestic concerns first:

Twice he is asked about the Barr Amendment (med marijuana) and never does he address it. In fairness, it was slipped into a multi-part question both times.
Barr seems to indicate that he doesn't think the PATRIOT Act itself was a bad idea, as long as it was not 'used and abused' (legislation is OK as long as it's never used; I guess I can maybe get behind that premise, but it does seem hopelessly utopian). Barr says:

"The powers in the Patriot Act have been used and abused by the Bush administration far in excess of what the Congress intended for it, and it's those abuses that have led I and a lot of other folks who voted for it under false pretenses essentially to work against it."

He should consider the Libertarian implications there: that ANY piece of legislation is quite liable to 'use and abuse', and that must be factored in when considering it. Once this insight sinks in - if it ever does - he should consider sharing it with the electorate when he has a chance to speak to them.

It's the Iraq quotes that are bothering me most in the long run, I think:

First he repeats Hillary's feeble and whining excuse "Bush lied!":

"With regard to the vote for hostilities in Iraq, that was a vote that was based on what we now know to be inappropriate and erroneously analyzed intelligence."

Somehow Ron Paul wasn't fooled. Oh, wait, Ron Paul wouldn't have voted FOR it even if he had believed the ass George Bush. There is the lesson Barr seems to have missed. The war was wrong even granting the false premises.

He continues:

"That vote certainly was not intended -- was not presented to the Congress or myself in the Congress at the time as a vote for a multiyear, perhaps multidecade, occupation of Iraq."

Umm, so the invasion itself was OK; it's just occupation that's not? That certainly seems to be the implication here, bolstered by the very next comment:

"Here again, the administration has taken an inch and gone a mile, sometimes in very clear contravention of what Congress intended."

So he did agree with the 'inch' of invasion - just not the 'mile' of occupation? That seems to be the only clear interpretation of what he says here. This is pretty disturbing stuff for the LP's presidential candidate. He doesn't - as far as I can tell - at all here repudiate his vote on the Iraq War - he simply laments that it, like the PATRIOT Act, was 'used and abused'; that the Administration took his 'inch' and made it a 'mile' - with no indication that the Libertarian Party position is that the inch was already an inch too far.

Just ... bizarre

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:18:00 +0000

From the NYT:

Queen Elizabeth II has stripped Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's strongman president for nearly 30 years, of his honorary knighthood as a "mark of revulsion" at the human rights abuses and "abject disregard" for democracy over which he has presided, the British Foreign Office announced Wednesday.

Bob Barr the Minuteman?

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:13:00 +0000

To my Libertarian National Committee reps Keaton, Ruwart, and Wrights:

I ask that the LNC issue a formal letter-of-WTF???!!! to our presidential candidate re: his continuing antilibertarian stance on immigration.

For reference, see:

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/bob-barr-immigration/

Thanks!

- Susan Hogarth

Bob Barr the Minuteman?

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:45:00 +0000

Bob Barr the Minuteman?

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:45:00 +0000

late-night thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:22:00 +0000

I went by a friend's house on the way home to pick up something. I'd
never been there, so I'm cruising down the street trying to pretend I
don't need bifocals while peering under my glasses at the map and
checking out house numbers. On one house I noticed a bunch of numbers
- latitude and longitude. There's someone who really knows where he
lives.

I was listening to the radio and heard "Harper Valley PTA", and it
made me think of the Libertarian National Committee. Weird.

Watch out for me!

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:16:00 +0000

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/127041.html

Washington Post Department of Human Behavior correspondent Shankar Vendantam reports drivers who decorate their cars with bumper stickers tend to be more aggressive than those who choose not to pithily share their political, environmental, and religious views with their fellow motorists.

I'll post a picture of my car when I get time. It's fairly plastered.

LP campaign pics: the Good, The Bad, and the ... Weird

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 04:02:00 +0000

Partly for fun, and partly for any slim educational value it might
have, I pulled the candidate pics from the most recent iteration of
the LP's Candidate Tracker pages and gave my thoughts on the quality
of the pictures:

http://picasaweb.google.com/hogarth/LPCandidates

Disclaimer: I am not a photographer OR an elected politician. Just an observer.

I am hoping my comments will serve as reminders for me when I finally
get around to doing my own candidate picture. Perhaps they will be
helpful to others. And most importantly, perhaps someone will find
them amusing.

Barr and Ballot Access Strategy

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:16:00 +0000

Did anyone else notice that the recent LP HQ email came from Barr and
asked for money for ballot access - but asked for people to donate
directly the the Barr campaign?

I'm wondering about the pros/cons of that approach. I suppose it makes
the LP in general look stronger if our pres nominee is visibly
bringing in more money (which is one reason I wish they'd ditch the
web-counter until and unless they start getting some pretty
enthusiastic fundraising to build on).

The email ('from the desk of Bob Barr') includes these two bullet points:

� I just talked with Chairman Bill Redpath: by his analysis, we'll
need more than $200,000 to petition and secure ballot access in 48
states.
� In order to move forward with full, 50 state ballot access, we'll
need to begin to petition immediately in Oklahoma and West Virginia
and raise at least $300,000 more to pay petitioners.

It's not clear to me whether he means the LP needs 200K for 48 states
PLUS another 300K for OK and WVA, or only an additional 100K for OK
and WVA. But in any case, this actually won't give the LP 'ballot
access' in OK, as I understand it. The best than can be accomplished
is getting Barr on the OK ballot as an independent. I'm not sure I
want to pour money into an effort to get Barr on the OK ballot *as an
independent*, which apparently is what they're working on:

http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/05/30/oklahoma-lp-begins-ballot-access-drive-for-barr/

and

http://www.oklp.org/

I'm don't care for this strategy because I don't see it as the best
use of funds after the LP already poured tons of money into OK, then
gave up on it. Also, while it may get more votes for Barr, it won't
really help other LP candidates (or, more importantly, Libertarian
voters) as far as I can tell, and apparently Barr will be listed as an
"Independent". Even this would be OK with me except that I'm not
convinced they can actually get it done - at least not without
seriously hampering their efforts in other states.
Back-of-the-envelop: they'll need 60K sigs in about 40 days, which is
1,500 signatures per day, which will take about $2-3K or more per day.
Doable, certainly, but at the rate Barr is fundraising that's
committing a major chunk of what he is bringing in.

Frankly, I am not sure why more people aren't making an issue of this.
Tying Barr to the national LP for *LP* ballot access is certainly a
reasonable strategy, but asking people from the LP mailing list to
send Barr's campaign for money to get "full, 50 state ballot access"
when in fact the LP *won't* be getting that seems just a little bit
dodgy to me.

My preference would be for the LP to concentrate on raising money
itself or in tandem with the Barr campaign for the original 48-state
plan, and let Barr (and the OK LP, if they wish) pitch separately for
the OK effort.

I wonder if there has been discussion on the LNC about this strategy
and the LP's support of it.

A trendy word I never really liked and am tired of seeing.

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 11:09:00 +0000

Chipotle.

As in 'chipotle raspberry vinagarette', a half-bottle of which in the
work 'fridge just offended my eyes.

Pul-Leeeze. Just say PEPPER. We get the point that you're cool, already.

LP Convention: Imperato endorsing Barr

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Wed, 28 May 2008 07:02:00 +0000

In one of the more lighthearted moments of a rather stressful Convention, someone (my apologies for forgetting who!) snapped this cell-phone picture of Imperato endorsing Barr. The pained look on Barr's face almost (but not quite) makes me pity him.

Gratuitous beagle pic

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Tue, 20 May 2008 19:29:00 +0000

Kate

Barr gets taken to task by AJC

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:10:00 +0000

Barr writes (or wrote) a column for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, but that didn't stop the paper from doing a little digging into his PAC now that he has declared for president.

Here's the story:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/05/19/barrpac_0518.html

(it's also been picked up by other outlets)

Barr's group is a so-called "leadership fund," a type of political action committee used by current and aspiring party leaders to collect money and disperse it to candidates and committees. ...

Barr's use of donations for fund-raising and his own expenses is unlike most leadership funds, said Sarah Dufendach, chief of legislative affairs for Common Cause, the Washington-based nonpartisan public-interest advocacy group.

"It's not supposed to be for the benefit of that particular person," she said. "The leadership PACs are supposed to be for the support of other candidates. He is just sustaining himself. ...

In the last five years the fund has given $125,200 � about three cents of every dollar raised � to federal candidates and other campaign committees, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has found in a review of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Another $81,875 went to state and local campaigns.

The fund spent more than $710,000 in that period on administrative costs, ...

This is no news to Libertarians like Jim Capo, the bloggers at Last Free Voice and others who pointed this out months ago and raised concerns about the quality of money management skills that Barr might bring to a presidential campaign and/or Barr's purpose in actually running a presidential campaign. Having the numbers laid out is interesting, though, especially in comparison with other leadership PACs (and nonprofits, which I am more familiar with).

Of most interest to LP folks in all this, though, is the bit about the PAC's most recent fundraising letter:

On April 1, former Congressman Bob Barr wrote to rally conservatives across the country to stop liberals from solidifying control of Congress.
"If we don't act fast � I'm afraid conservatives may well lose out again!" he implored in a letter sent by his political action committee. ...
The letter made no mention of Barr's recent campaign for the Libertarian Party's nomination for president, in which he has criticized many Republicans in Congress. Libertarians will choose their candidate at a convention this week in Denver.

Barr, a former federal prosecutor, defended the fund's solicitations and expenditures in a telephone interview. He declined to answer questions about individual donations and the letter's characterization of their importance.

"I won't be cross-examined" about the fund's finances, he said.

In an e-mail, the fund's treasurer, Paul Kilgore of Athens, wrote that the letter was "in production well before the decision to form an exploratory committee was reached. ... [T]here is certainly no requirement that we mention anything specifically in our letters."

--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.colliething.com

Barr finally takes some firm positions: the wrong ones

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Sun, 18 May 2008 20:48:00 +0000

Posted to colliething.org

Below are a few interesting quotes from Bob Barr from an interview published May 17. Interspersed is my commentary on some of them. Other quotes from this interview were featured on Barr's campaign site, but these ones - important to delegates still unclear about Barr's positions on the issues - were left out. I have always found Barr's writing and speaking frustratingly slippery - politician-speak, in other words. But when he does take an actual firm position, it isn't particularly Libertarian.

Barr on marriage:
I do not wholeheartedly embrace the notion, for example, though, that the government cannot define any social relationship. Some libertarians believe rather strongly that the government should not even define marriage -- even the state government. I have no problem with the people of a state defining a relationship known as marriage. I believe that ought to be up to the states, not the federal government. That would be an example of where there would be a difference in degree to which we would apply the fundamental libertarian philosophy of maximized individual liberty and minimized government power.

Susan:
The first four sentences in the passage above are clearly antilibertarian, and Barr finally makes it painfully obvious that the issue of "states' rights" is more important to him than libertarianism as a candidate. Many Libs do support the devolution of federal power to the states as a step in the direction of individual liberty, but Barr makes it clear here that he is interested in states, not individuals themselves, having the power over an individual's choices.

The last sentence is purely bizarre for a candidate looking for a political party's nomination. What Barr seems to me to be saying is that he is only willing to "apply the fundamental libertarian philosophy" to a limited degree.

Barr on differences between himself and Ron Paul:
I'm sure there are differences, but I'll leave that up to other folks to make the comparison.

Barr on Afghanistan vs Iraq:
I think there are differences. I'm not an isolationist. If we have evidence that a nation or a nongovernmental entity has been engaged in acts that pose a clear and present threat to the United States or to our forces, we have every right, defensively, to take action to remove that threat, to neutralize that threat. That may very well have been the case in Afghanistan. But that is certainly not the case for a continued massive presence in Afghanistan.

Susan:
I am delighted to hear Barr say that at least a 'massive' presence in Afghanistan is unwarranted. However, as with his Iraq comments, I find no evidence that he is committed to getting the U.S. government out of Afghanistan, only declaring that the U.S. should reduce levels of involvement. But I am disappointed - though hardly surprised - that Barr confuses noninterventionism with isolationism. The idea that the U.S. has the right to invade and take over another country because some criminals who are targeting the U.S. live there is one step away from Bush's pre-emption doctrine.

Barr on the War on Drug Users:
I do not think that the American people are ready to embrace the notion that there ought to be across-the board legalization of drugs.

Susan:
I do not think that Bob Barr is ready to embrace the notion that there ought to be across-the-board legalization of drugs. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Libertarian Party does have this 'notion'. I understand that a candidate may not hew 100% to the platform or party line, but Barr's deviations represent, to me, fundamental and significant philosophical differences rather than strategic calculations. Barr wants to advance his notion of conservatism, not the LP's notion of libertarianism.

Bob Barr: "Republicans ought to embrace my effort because ... we're going to be pulling people out to ... vote for Republican candidates"

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Sat, 17 May 2008 11:59:00 +0000

Posted at colliething

This 30-second audio clip is from an interview Bob Barr gave to Keith Larson on WBT in Charlotte, NC on Tuesday the 13th, the day after he announced he was running for the LP presidential nomination. Here's the full link for those reading text-only mode:

http://colliething.com/barr/barr_larson_wbt_13may08_clip.mp3

The relevant part of the 30-second clip is the following quote:

"... so in a sense, the Republicans ought to embrace my effort, because we're going to be pulling people out to vote who otherwise wouldn't be voting and some of them might vote for Republican candidates on the down-ballot."

The entire interview can be found on iTunes in Keith Larson's collection - it's the Tuesday 10AM segment, and the interview (which lasts about ten minutes) is right after the 10AM news break. Nowhere in the interview does Barr mention supporting downticket Libertarian candidates. This is an embarrassing gaffe on his part, but not surprising in light of his continuing support for Republican candidates (through his leadership PAC) while serving as a regional representative on the Libertarian National Committee. Apparently Mr. Barr sees his candidacy more about 'conservative values' and bringing Republicans out to vote Republican than he does about seeing it as a building mechanism for the Libertarian Party.

Open Letter to Bob Barr: Some Questions

noreply@blogger.com (Susan) — Fri, 16 May 2008 12:59:00 +0000

Open Letter to Bob Barr: Some Questions

Mr. Barr,

Thank you for joining the Libertarian Party in our efforts to bring greater freedom to Americans. In light of the very short time between your campaign announcement and the national convention, your antilibertarian congressional record and disinclination to fully repudiate it, and your refusal to answer a single email from me while you were serving as my regional representative on the Libertarian National Committee over the past year, I thought that I would circulate my questions to you publicly, in the hopes that someone, somewhere, will get some straightforward answers from you. To others reading this open letter -- I hope that you will take whatever opportunity is afforded you to ask at least one or two of these questions of Mr. Barr. No candidate should garner our nomination without having satisfied the majority of delegates that he will steadfastly champion both the Libertarian Party and the libertarian message.

I've separated my questions into categories.

Support for the Libertarian Party and the libertarian message:

Why has the leadership PAC bearing your name continued to raise and distribute funds to support Republican congressional candidates in districts where a Libertarian either is or could be running even after you joined the LP's governing board? Do you not consider recruiting and supporting Libertarian candidates to be an essential part of the LP leadership's mission? Will your leadership PAC continue to support Republicans if you are selected as the LP's presidential nominee?
In a radio interview in Charlotte, NC this week, you indicated that Republicans should support you because your candidacy will bring out voters who are dejected by McCain, and will now vote for Republican candidates down-ballot. What will you do to promote Libertarian Party candidates down-ballot?
You have said that there are parts of the LP's platform that you disagree with. Can you be specific? What parts of the LP's platform do you agree with?
Why have you consistently sold yourself in interviews as 'conservative' rather than 'libertarian'? Do you think that 'libertarian' and 'conservative' are the same thing?

Questions about some of your antilibertarian votes in congress:

PATRIOT Act - you voted 'for' the Act. Would you vote the same way again? Do you think it was a mistake to trust the sunset provisions?
Do you still support an anti-flag-desecration amendment to the constitution? How does this tie in with your ideas of federalism? How does it support individual liberty?
DOMA - you have indicated that DOMA was an exercise in federalism (devolving power to the states), but this does not explain the part of DOMA that defines marriage federally as man-woman only. Do you stand by this definition? In your state, would you support a government definition of marriage as man-woman only?
You voted for the Medicare Part D prescription drug boondoggle while in congress. Do you stand by this vote, or repudiate it?

Explanation for some of your current seemingly antilibertarian positions:

You talk about reducing U.S. military bases overseas, but not necessarily closing them. How many foreign countries do you think the U.S. needs to have military personnel in?
Would you support an immediate end to the Afghanistan occupation? How long, as President, would you tolerate U.S. troops continuing to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan?
You have made some welcome movement toward the idea of legalizing medical marijuana in a few cases, and have pointed to the Drug War as an issue where there should be greater state control. Aside from the federalism issue, do you support prohibition of marijuana (for any use) at the state level? Would you stand with Libertarian state-level candidates as a champion of ending prohibition?
You have indicated that you support the idea of federal government resources being routed to South America to support governments that are allies of the U.S. government's Drug War. Why would you support this sort of interventionism in the name of prohibition abroad? How does this tie in with your idea of federalism?
You have indicated that you support the idea of economic sanctions against Iran as a sort of diplomacy. Sanctions strengthen dictatorships and punish citizens of both nations. Why would you support this sort of interventionism abroad and at home?
Why do you support instituting an entirely new FEDERAL tax on Americans (national sales tax)? Is this the type of 'federalism' (or devolution of government power to the states) we can expect from you (i.e. a federalism of convenience)?
You wrote " Until all governments are willing to take a unified front to confront this problem, it is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer." Most terrorists, criminals, and freeloaders do not declare themselves as such at the border. How do you propose to separate the vast majority of people who want to come to the U.S. to labor honestly from these undesirables? Do you favor open immigration for all people who wish to come to the U.S. and who are not terrorists, criminals, or freeloaders?