Saturday, December 22, 2007

Face Time With the Presidential Candidates - A libertarian curmudgeon tries to figure out where the major presidential candidates stand on the issues

Face Time With the Presidential Candidates -
A libertarian curmudgeon tries to figure out where
the major presidential candidates stand on the issues
by Steven Greenhut

Candidates from both parties have been braying the same old
line we hear during every presidential election: This is the most
important election of a generation, or perhaps even a century.
So much is at stake that you, the harried voter, need to hang on
every word every candidate utters during the televised debates.

Do you want the candidate who is "standing up for regular
families," or the one "who speaks the truth and who will restore
America's moral leadership," or the one who understands that
our nation "embodies the belief that tomorrow can be better
than today"? Such big issues and tough choices!

Certainly, whoever becomes president gains an enormous
amount of power for good or for ill. Someone (thankfully) has
to replace President George W. Bush, who has specialized in
the "for ill" category. Last week, for instance, U.S. intelligence
agencies released a report rebuking the administration's
rationale for increased belligerence toward Iran.

The report showed that Iran had abandoned its nuclear
weapons program in 2003, yet the president declared that
the new information would in no way change U.S. policy.
Hey, why let new facts get in the way of a policy?

No wonder so many Americans are ready for a new
administration. But the new boss can be just as bad, or
even worse, than the old boss, so proceed with fear and
trepidation.

Yes, this is an important election. But even when the
candidates do talk about things that are real issues (the
Iraq war, abortion, health care, Social Security), they
dish out pabulum designed not to offend any particular
interest group.

The race isn't just about public policy, but about the
deepest issues of "faith." Mitt Romney is trying to
defuse concerns about his Mormon religion. Mike
Huckabee has told Iowa voters that he is the
"Christian" candidate. It's hard enough figuring
out what these candidates believe about taxes and
the Constitution, let alone about their theological
thinking.

American voters have to be a hardy bunch to sort
through the information and pick the right candidate.
The weak field of candidates, by the way, should be
reassuring to those who cling to that old adage that
"anyone can grow up to be president in America."

Nevertheless, someone eventually will win the race.
Here are some quick thoughts about the 17
Democratic and Republican candidates vying for
their respective parties' nominations. Consider it
help in picking your poison.

Bring on the Nanny State
Should the federal government vastly expand its
reach into our private lives? If you believe that,
then no candidate would express your views better
than Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. "We need a new
beginning on health care," she said. "We need to
stand up to the drug companies and the insurance
companies and provide health care for every single
man, woman and child, at a price that people
can afford, and we're going to give them the help
to do that."

Reagan without the principles
If you like the Reagan look (with a lot more hair gel)
and the Reagan-like conservative platitudes, but
aren't concerned that the candidate probably doesn't
believe much of his own rhetoric given his incessant
flip-flopping, then former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt
Romney is your clear choice.

Pat Robertson meets Hillary Clinton
For those who like the Nanny State, but prefer that
it be served up in the cadence of a preacher, then
I'd suggest Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas
governor and a Baptist minister. Writes National
Review's Jonah Goldberg: "Huckabee is a populist
on economics, a fad-follower on the environment
and an all-around do-gooder who believes that
the biblical obligation to do 'good works' extends
to using government – and your tax dollars – to
bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth."

Give class warfare a chance
Do you think your biggest problems are the result
of Evil Corporations and think that America is a land
dominated by irreconcilable differences between the
haves and the have-nots? You ought to start walking
precincts for former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. "In
today's Two Americas," he said, "it is no coincidence
that most families are working harder for stagnating
wages when there are nearly 60 lobbyists for every
member of Congress." Edwards has a solution to that
non sequitur – more government.

Authoritarianism with a not-so-friendly face
If you want the trains to run on time, and aren't too
worried about minor issues such as civil liberties, then
Rudy Giuliani should be a top choice. The Republican
former New York mayor once summarized his views
this way: "Freedom i s about authority. Freedom is
about the willingness of every single human being to
cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion
about what you do."

'Wilsonianism' with a friendly face
Those who like grand big-government crusades will
love Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. Obama said recently
at a South Carolina church that "we can create a
kingdom right here on Earth," thus reflecting his
belief in Great Society-type programs. But he's not
hesitant to use U.S. military might, either. In 2004,
he told the Chicago Tribune that he would be willing
to attack vIran if it obtains n uclear capabilities. And
he promises to use U.S. might to fix problems in Africa.

Follow the Constitution
Those who truly believe in limited government and
noninterventionism will have only one choice, U.S.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. As he rises in the polls
(7 percent) and raises millions of dollars, the long
knives have come out for him from "mainstream"
Republicans trying to portray him as a kook. But as
the self-effacing Paul recently said to Salon magazine,
"The message is so powerful, in spite of my shortcomings."

Less is more
The best choice for those who believe that a president
should have limited ambitions is former Sen. Fred
Thompson, R-Tenn. Michael Crowley wrote in the
New Republic: "If Fred Thompson is as lazy as reputed…
he'd have stuck a Post-it note to his wall back in 2002,
reading 'Saddam?' and then never quite gotten around to
invading. Which, in retrospect, may not have been such
a bad thing."

Follow the shiny object
U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, is the right choice if
you are yearning for old-fashioned socialism with a
conspiracy-theory twist. Kucinich's Web site includes a
section on "saving capitalism." As "Share Guide: The
Holistic Health Magazine" explains, Kucinich "is a
dynamic, visionary leader who combines a powerful
activism with a spiritual sense of the essential
interconnectedness of all living things."
















Straight-talking warmonger
If you like the idea of cutting through all the
Washington BS, but don't mind a candidate who
in many ways epitomizes that same BS, then you
might want to hop on Arizona Republican Sen.
John McCain's straight-talk express.

McCain, after all, is best known for his campaign
to erode the First Amendment by strictly limiting
political speech (and protecting incumbents) in
the name of campaign-finance reform, and for his
constant push for more war.


The real Bill Clinton Clone
Some voters still pine for Bill Clinton, yet are
getting the sinking feeling that his wife is a
different sort of politician. The choice for them
is New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the former
Clinton appointee who embodies Clinton's focus
on small initiatives (i.e., a Green Jobs program)
combined with the embrace of a handful of
conservative policies (i.e., support for the
Second Amendment) designed to win over
centrist voters.

The Mexicans are coming!
Voters who are solely concerned about the
issue of illegal immigration should look no
further than U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.

The Chinese are coming, too!
Those who worry about the "invasion" of
Mexicans AND also stay up at night,
fantasizing about a trade war with China
should put U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter,
R-San Diego, at the top of the list.

Opting for an also-ran
If you want to support a candidate who offers no
new ideas, little money to seriously compete in
the primaries and no chance of winning, then
you have four clear choices: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.,
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., lecturer Mike Gravel
(a Democrat) and professional candidate-for-any-
office Alan Keyes (Republican).

And you think third-party candidates are ridiculous?


December 12, 2007
Steven Greenhut is a senior editorial writer and
columnist for the Orange County Register.
He is the author of the book, Abuse of Power.

Copyright © 2007 Orange County Register

Handicapping the GOP and LP PrezNom Races

Neither the California or the Orange
County Libertarian Parties are doing
much in the way of outreach, events,
fundraising or recruitment. They
also don't seem to be doing much for
Candidates...

So, the only excitement left for me
to think and talk about is the two
Presidential Nominations up for
grabs from either of the two pro-
freedom political parties.

"Since the time of the Greeks, there
have only been two political Parties.
The Pro-freedom and the Anti-Freedom
Parties.

The Libertarian and Republican Parties
are two branches of the Pro-Freedom
Party"
Tom McClintock

The Envelope Please.

My Personal Favorites for Republican Nomination:

1. Ron Paul 2. Mitt Romney

Ron Paul is far better than any other GOP Candidate.

Handicapping the race is a different matter.

My predictions are that Mitt Romney gets the Republican nod.

Huckabee Second

Giuliani Third

*Ron Paul Fourth with 5-10% of the result.

All others less than 5%

Any of the top three could win, and Ron Paul stands to hold enough votes that he could play kingmaker and choose the winner if one could get his endorsement.

For the Libertarian Nomination:
My Personal Favorites:

#1 Wayne Root (L)
#2 Ron Paul (R)
#3 Steve Kubby (L)

On the other hand...

If Congressman Ron Paul decides to run
as a Libertarian, he can just walk into the room, and the Convention will be over.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

How NOT to Win Votes for Ron Paul

I hate to give PR to someone I disagree with as
much, and as often, as Steven Kinsella. However,
his recent article at Lew Rockwell has me more
than a bit steamed.
Here's the link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017855.html



"I know you hate Ron Paul." is the theme
of his article, and it degenerates from there.



.



.



.



.



.



.

.

Ron Paul with a Pro-Life Baby

Kinsella's screed is quite rude and insulting.
Worse yet, I'm quite sure it will cost Ron Paul
votes, and not gain him a single one.


It's the very common Libertarian communication
style of preaching to the choir about what's 'right',
while turning off anyone not a insider.

This type of nastiness, and the fact that between one
third and one half of Libertarians are 'pro-defense', is
why the LP has shrunk so drastically in membership
since the war in Iraq.



That, and the shrill noise heard from the outside has
kept away new recruits.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.

.



Brian Holtz made quite a good case for the math on
this one, using the Badnarik campaign's very, very
low vote totals as one of his illustrating points.

I'm quite sure the Ron Paul campaign would never
put their foreign policy this way, as they are perfectly
aware that politics is a game of addition, not one of
subtraction.

Just a refresher for those of us in this for the long
haul: the war issue is what a Political Scientist
would call a 'losing issue'.

A losing issue is described as something that
divides your political group, and divides the voting
constituency from which votes are drawn.

This is a deep underlying failing of the LP and the
wider libertarian movement. They have alienated
and driven away their freinds, allies and potential
friends and allies with this kind of behavior.

This is especially dissapointing, considering we,
as a group, have so very many 'winning issues'.

A winning issue is one that unifies your political
group, and unifies voters in your elecoral area.
Preferably, this winning issue is one that your
opponents disagree with, as well.

Considering the party is unified on a laundry
list of issues that are also widely supported
by America, it's clearly immature and stupid
for us to have a corporate culture to hang on
to the 'anti-war' all the time banner.

I am not trying to talk people like Kinsella out
of their position on this matter. What I am
pointing out here is that using this issue itself
as a 'sales feature' is a failure and should be
left aside.

That is if you actually want to win some
elections and change American politics
.

As a side note, Mister Kinsella's anti-semitism
and Jew-baiting make hims a less than credible
spokesman for the Ron Paul Camp.

I personally support Congressman Paul's
electoral efforts, and would love to see a
Ron Paul Presidency.

I for one, can overlook that we don't
agree on several issues, but instead, I
prefer to focus on where we do agree,
not only on the great majority of things,
as on the big picture as well.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Giuliani Fails Libertarian Test - Libertarian is as Libertarian Does





.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Certainly, Libertarians are going to disagree on some
issues, as well as strategies.

Some Libertarians, like me, would call Tom McClintock
and President Reagan Libertarians.

On the other hand, there are Libertarians who would,
and have, said otherwise. These same people just
can't accept incremental progress, nor vote for the
better of two candidates.

That they are willing to overlook where they disagree
with Ron Paul, is hopefully a sign of maturation
within the LP and the freedom movement.

As far as Rudy, I am happy he's working with
some very good libertarians, and has given every
indication that he'll include some excellent people
in his cabinet, should he be elected.













But, on the question of Rudy's libertarian credentials,
I can't go along, no way, no how.

Rudy is better than almost any Democrat, sure.
But that's not the question being raised.

I don't personally believe Rudy is committed to
less government. In fact, quite the opposite.
He seems committed to being 'in charge'.

When you listen to Mitt Romney, at least he
makes the case for less government and more
individual choice.









.

.

.

.

Libertarian is as Libertarian does.
Rudy is a gun banner, he's for more rules
on Business and Wall Street. And Rudy,
like the Clintons, believes strongly he
knows what's best for you and I.

When he was in office, he did get some
good results, and I'm interested in
learning from his methodology.

New York City certainly benefited overall
from his leadership, but there were many
mistakes and abuses of power along the
way, and this tells us how he would
behave as President.

While Huckabee in no way is committed
to freedom, in the way we Libertarians
envision it, at least he's consistent and
straightforward.

No matter how loudly Mister Rittberg
beats the Rudy drum, Ron Paul is far
more Libertarian than Giuliani.

And, among those in double digits,
only Mitt Romney has legislated in
anything that could be described as
a Libertarian fashion.

Just like with the Islamic terrorists
who would attack us, all we need do

is listen to the words of the
Candidates and watch their
behavior in office and their
personal lives.

Ron Paul has the highest level of
consistency, ethics and legislative
record as a Congressman. As well,
his personal life is unquestionably
likewise squeaky clean.

These things matter to me.
They matter to most Libertarians.
And, they matter to America.

That's why Ron Paul has a shot,
longshot though it may be.

For Libertarians, Ron Paul has to be
the number one Republican choice,
with Romney the only other even
worth considering.

(Tom Tancredo is good too, but off
the radar in polling and funds...)

The voters of America are quite
practical, and won't vote for someone
they don't trust, or that they don't
think can win.

As more and more information
about Rudy's past comes out, it's
looking like it will be hard for America
to trust him.
And so, we have Ron Paul as the
only major party choice worth
real consideration.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

You Can't Win 'Em All, Paul!







Background: Ron Paul was not invited to a recent
Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Candidates
Forum. Some Jewish Ron Paul supporters are
very upset about this private organization's
decision to not include Congressperson Paul

____________________
www.getbruce.blogspot.com

In all fairness, Congressman Paul is polling somewhere
near zero, darn it all.

As much as I personally want Doctor Paul in any debate,
it's not unreasonable for an objective debate organizer
to draw the line somewhere.

If there were a scientific poll anywhere, anyplace,
any time that had Ron Paul at 10%, then they'd be
clearly wrong. Heck, I'll even go with 5%.

The County straw polls, which are fun, and make me
cheer when I see Ron do well in them, are hardly
indicative of much, if anything.

Frankly, Doctor Paul has run from the Libertarian
label, and made it clear he won't run for President
as a Party member if he loses the GOP nomination.

It's futile, embarrassing and marginalizing for us
to have temper tantrums when he doesn't get
included, and we don't get our way.

I wish he were included.
I do think Ron is relevant.
But, a fair person of a different mindset might
very honestly and honorably not agree.

The Republican Jewish Coalition has an agenda
our favorite Republican doesn't fit.

Many feel Doctor Paul is quite anti-Israel, anyway.
He uses the term 'Zionist' in a derogatory fashion,
and has done little, if anything, to endear himself
to the Jewish community.

[Note: My Libertarian loyalty only comes after
my American affiliation, even before being Jewish.]

Demanding Ron Paul be included is just silliness.
Why should the RJC put him in?
What's in it for them?

Instead of being babies, we ought to be frank with
ourselves. There is a lot to like about Ron Paul.
A lot.

However, his polling numbers and national
influence are not among them.

Further, his position on Jewish and Israeli
issues are likewise not among the things
I respect and support Ron Paul for.

Let us be grateful for the many times Ron
Paul has been included. Let us thank
Fox News, and the other networks who
have been more than fair in the amount
of coverage and air time he has recieved.

We certainly are not going to win them all.
Especially not this time.


www.GetBruce.com

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Newt Warns of Patriot Act 2

.
.
Please watch this short video clip:
Newt Gingrich on the International
War Against Terror:
http://snipurl.com/newtiwot
.
.
Newt Warns of Patriot Act 2
'No one worries about civil liberties the day after
a terrorist attack'.

Bruce Cohen
August 28, 2007

Newt's been ringing the alarm bell for a long time.
Call him a 'Neocon' or other insult, as you will.
But to me, he's not only a smart, pro-defense
Conservative, but he's quite the libertarian.

Unlike many Libertarians however, Newt doesn't
live in the fantasy world of 'all-or-nothing' or it's
semi-parallel world of inconsequentialism.

He's perfectly aware that progress must be made
in small steps. He's also very aware, as he points
out so brilliantly, that pretending something is so,
doesn't make it so.

In this video, he points out, and I'm paraphrasing
from memory here, 'Noone worries about civil
liberties they day after a terrorist attack'.

Yes, that's clearly true, on the face of it.
But, its literal truth is not really his point.

Newt's point is this: should we not prevent
these attacks that are certainly beeing plotted
against us as we speak, post-attack, we will lose
our civil liberties from the heavy-handed
government responses and actions.

Yes, Newt might be called a 'reverse
incrementalist', where he's advocating the
prevention of our mutual loss of Liberty.

Speaker Gingrich is well aware of the perils
our freedoms, both personal and economic,
face from a successful major terrorist
attack on a large American city.

Let's imagine together what will happen
when a major US city faces another 9-11
sized attack.

If you don't like the Patriot Act,, and there
is a lot not to like about it, well... I can
assure you, what would happen after our
enemies blow up Seattle or San Diego,
will make the Patriot Act look mild.

Don't like Patriot Act I?
Wait until we get Patriot Act II.

And, don't say Newt and I didn't tell you.

Snipped URL: http://snipurl.com/newtiwot
Original URL:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/08/gingrich/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Copyright Bruce Cohen - August 2007
http://www.getbruce.com/

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Fox News: MTV's Kurt Loder Rails Against Universal Health Care & Tax Hikes


Bruce Cohen

Fox Headline:
MTV's Kurt Loder Rails Against
Universal Health Care & Tax Hikes


Kurt Loder was interviewed on 'Your World With Neal Cavuto' today.

The top rated News and Business show host was off, but his guest host sounded just as Libertarian as he.

Her guest, Kurt Loder also sounded very Libertarian, talking about the financial and supply pitfalls of Socialized Medicine, or as it's been labeled lately, 'Universal Health Care'.

Yes, Fox News is 'Fair and Balanced'.


The real balance comes not from having both the Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal sides, but adding in the pro-Liberty choice into the discussion.

http://www.getbruce.com/

A Libertarian Angel gets her Wings: California LP Director Fired

A Libertarian Angel gets her Wings: California LP Director Fired


by Bruce Cohen


Have you ever heard the saying, 'Libertarians eat their own'?

It refers to the nasty Rothbardian habit many Libertarians have of demonizing, attacking and then purging fellow Libertarians for not being perfect in one way or another.

Don't agree about Foreign Policy? Leave the room.

Don't agree about Immigration Policy? Go to the back of the line.

Don't agree on Reproductive Rights? We're not friends any more.

Why is this topical as of today? Well, the unthinkable has happened.

Angela Keaton, purist, hardcore, radical Libertarian just got fired as Executive Director by the leadership of the Libertarian Party of CA.

That's right.

Angela Keaton.

Host of 'The Liberated Space' Radio. Wife of Brian Doherty, famous Libertarian Author and Reason think tanker...

Hand selected, Miss Perfect, choice of the radical LP set was fired.

For what, you ask?

Did she break ranks and agree with Eric Dondero and want to go to war with Iran and Syria?

No.Did she go Pro-Life, and support Ron Paul in making Abortion illegal?

Nope.

Did she line up with Art Olivier and want tough border controls?

Nope.

They fired her because they couldn't balance their budget. A budget they voted for, they control, they can change at will...

I have a lot of problems with the hows and whys of her firing. Angela was fired in an inhumane and dishonest manner, and those who fired her ought to be ashamed.

How she was fired, why she was fired, who fired her...

But I'm not going to elaborate on that. For now.I am going to say that Angela is a fine, honorable person. She's honest and hard-working, and did not deserve this treatment.

But there you have it.

Libertarians eating their own, again. They don't have any other enemies these days, so they must fight among themselves.


Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Who's the Most Libertarian of Them All?


Bruce Cohen

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Libertarians have long judged each other by the news sources they rely on, with choices ranging from Lew Rockwell, to the Orange County Register and the Wall Street Journal.

The same goes for Television news. Many hate Fox, many hate CNN and the rest of the Mainstream Media.

I'm going to throw my two cents worth at this question. In my mind, Fox News is clearly the 'most libertarian' of any broadcast source, TV or radio.

Fox has the most pro-freedom hosts and guests on, including many who are out-of-the-closet declared small l and capitol L Libertarians.

Now I know very well the purist and anarchists are going to rant and rave about Dennis Miller being imperfect, so I'm going to ignore them when they do. Big picture, which is what counts, we have a news organization that's very friendly to the concepts of small government and individual freedom. 'But wait!', my detractors will yell. 'Fox News is a Bush-Promoting, warmongering bunch of baby killers!' 'How can you cal lthem libertarian?'

I'm not going to deny Fox News leans Republican. However, I am going to say that in line with their 'fair and balanced' slogan, they've been very tough on the President, mostly for things Libertarians have problems with.

They have pounded him on overspending.

They have pounded him on the Prescription Drug boondoggle.

They have been very forthright about the failures of leadership in the Iraqi war and have never shied away from discussing problems and bad news from the war front.

But Fox News does have more guests on the air from Cato and Reason and Heritage, espousing Libertarian views than CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS combined.

And, they are very open minded about our approaches and solutions, whilst the rest of broadcast media, with very few exceptions are pro-government solution, socialists.

Short of having news anchors such as LP Officers Aaron Starr and Chuck Moulton, Fox News is about as good as one could really expect to get.

More points for Fox News: They've given a lot of coverage to Ron Paul.

Sean Hannity has stated on the air he would be a Libertarian, except our position on the 'War on Drugs'. On the other hand, he's been willing to concede thatparticular war is a failure and has been willing to discuss the possiblity that decriminalization or Legalization just might work.

You don't find that at CNN or anywhere else but Fox.

Other news organizations are universally pro-Dem, pro-socialism and pro socialized medicine. Fox is pro First and Second Amendment, unlike the rest of the MSM gang.

Fox is against quotas and 'affirmative action'. Fox is pro choice in education.

Fox is against socialized medicine. All these things big media are in the opposing camp as a matter of editorial policy.

Fox has libertarians as news anchors and contributors, such as Fox Senior VP Neal Cavuto, Fox Business News Head Alexis Glick, Larry Kudlow, Dennis Miller and Fox website Blogger Rodney Balko. The list continues.

Note - Bruce Cohen is the Immediate Past Chair of the Orange County, CA Libertarian Party.