>I'm assuming you meant libertarian(small l). This is where I fall politically and as such I cannot understand your logic as an Obama presidency hands complete control of the government to a single party. This does not bode well for libertarian idea of limited government interference in people's lives. I'll feel much better with a divided government. Of course, McCain isn't much of a divide on many issues but he's the only other choice. Recent history (Carter, Clinton 92-94, W) does not speak well to one party rule.

I agree with some of your thoughts, as I am increasingly becoming libertarian (small i). My primary reason in voting for Obama is to punish Republicans. It's not that I don't like Republicans. I've voted for them in the past, and like a number of things about McCain: particularly his support of the surge at a time when it was unpopular.

But I do believe that a party has to pay when their President makes major mistakes. I believe Bush has. Although I was too young to vote in 1980, I likely would have felt the same way about Jimmy Carter.

>As far as having to "pay for Iraq and their fiscal policies", you're assigning blame to one party while absolving the other. One party is not made up of wide-eyed children being led by the other. These are conniving, crooked thieves and liars who will say and do anything to retain and expand their power. They all deserve our contempt, blame and most importantly our suspicion. A libertarian should know that.

No, I'm assigning primary blame to Iraq to President Bush, and by extension, his party. Not all the blame, but most of it. While I don't care at all for Al Gore, we would not be there had he, or any other Democrat been President. We probably wouldn't be there if McCain had been President, but the party still has to pay.

So far as fiscal discipline, Republicans campaigned on it, then promptly spent more than they brought in. It reeks of utter hypocrisy, as that is the charge they leveled at Democrats for years.