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.