'Obama Announces Intiatives for Middle Class' -- Yay for Me...Oh, Fuck...Scratch That

I'd like to stop being the "other person" in the "spending other people's money" axiom.

AP:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Monday offered help for people struggling to pay bills and care for their families, appealing to a middle-class he says has been "under assault for a long time."

In a partial preview of a State of the Union address that aims to answer voter angst about the economy and reconnect with the public, Obama outlined the series of proposals from the White House.[...]

Among the initiatives: a doubling of the child care tax credit for families earning under $85,000; a $1.6 billion increase in federal funding for child care programs and a program to cap student loan payments at 10 percent of income above "a basic living allowance."

His initiatives also include expanding tax credits to match retirement savings and increasing aid for families taking care of elderly relatives. That program would also require many employers to provide the option of a workplace-based retirement savings plan.

I exist in some sort of childless, non-property owning, no college debt, earning little money, black-fuck-me-up-the-ass-hole of taxpayers. Doesn't anyone want to buy my vote??

I promise you; 20-somethings with substance abuse problems and a lack of life ambitions WILL be the swing vote in the upcoming mid-term elections. And we're cheap to buy off. I'd just take a bottle of something.

Mass Voters Could Have Elected a Giant Squid For All I Care; As Long As He Was the 41st Vote*

Great Massachusetts senate post-mortem by Dave Weigal in the Washington Independent this morning.

My only thoughts: As a casual observer in Maryland this race reminded me of the 2002 MD gubernatorial race. A lot of parallels between the two. A Democrat in Kathleen Townsend (who also happened to be a Kennedy) ran a really shitty and uninspiring race. A talented center-ish Republican ran a great race and took advantage of the points spotted to him by Townsend. He pulls off a huge upset, becomes the first Republican Governor in Maryland since Spiro Agnew....And he goes on to lose 4 years later to Martin O'Malley. Minus Brown losing to a Baltimore Mayor, the same result will most likely happen in two years. But enjoy it while you can Mass Republicans.

*For the record I do think it's pretty fucking stupid that a majority isn't a majority in the Senate. However, it's 9 times out 10 it's a good thing to make it harder for those old fucks to pass a bill. So it's a wash in my book.

The Never Ending Liberaltarian Debate

I've been a busy guy this past week as you may have noticed from the lack of posting. [btw, this offers a fine opportunity to plug our feed. I highly recommend -- and think many of you have already -- subscribing to it to avoid weeks like this] I have however; found the time to casually follow the most recent rehash of the Liberaltarian debate. This you might remember, was the idea (largely championed by some Cato folks, esp Brink Lindsey) that the libertarians were an electoral force to be reckoned with. A substantial swing vote that could and should be courted by the left forming an electoral coalition built upon the mutual fondness of Washington cocktail parties, gay marriage and argyle sweaters. Most on the right mocked the idea, legitimately pointing out that if libertarians were wary of the cold shoulders while in the GOP big tent, just wait to see what an unlubricated dick up the ass felt like from the Democrats.

You're more than welcome to check out the recent round for yourself (if you haven't already) by reading Jonah Goldberg's initial post that set Will Wilkinson off because Jonah said Will must be "vexed" by the $900 billion stimulus package. Memo to self: Don't ever accuse a libertarian of being annoyed at a $900 billion dollar spending package. Goldberg then answered back, some others joined in offering their thoughts.

Personally I never got it. I understand that a Will Wilkinson type likes to think about big things, minus the practicality of said big things, and that's all well and good, but when it comes to a political alliance practicality matters very much. On the surface, it seems that the Liberaltarian idea glosses over a lot of important on-the-ground type stuff in favor of the sexier, political theory shit. I'm sure it makes for great conversation at Washington cocktail parties (and really, who doesn't like saying Rawlsian over and over again. I know that's always gotten me laid....), but if you actually care about affecting political change...well then you might want to worry about the logistics of the whole affair.

All this being said; it might not matter. A lot of cosmopolitan libertarians voted for Obama for various reasons, none of them making much sense to me, but nonetheless they voted for the lefty on the ballot. I guess that’s the big joke --- all the political theory bullshit might not much matter, because the work is already done. Cosmopolitan libertarians are just much more socially comfortable with contemporary liberals as opposed to conservatives.

My Advice to the GOP: Take Advice from People Who Have Won

Karl Rove's piece in Newsweek that every conservative pundit is doing post-Obama -- The GOP's Path to Power:

Losing the election has led to a debate about whether the GOP should return to its Reaganite tradition or embark on a new reform course. This pundit-driven shoutfest presents a sterile, unnecessary choice. The party should embrace both tradition and reform; grass-roots Republicans want to apply timeless conservative principles to the new circumstances facing America.

In the coming year, we will be defined more by what we oppose than what we are for; the president-elect and the Democrats in Congress will control the agenda. We must pick fights carefully and center them around principle. The goal is to have the sharp differences that emerge make the GOP look like the more reasonable, hopeful and inviting party—which is easier said than done. A road map [...]

I think that most of the discussions centered around the future direction of the Republican Party are pretty silly right now. Most of the pieces coming out on this topic are shockingly similar to most other journalistic enterprises -- one large, self-serving, masturbatory activity. Everyone near the right is telling you what they think the GOP should become now; and the most surprising part of it? Everyone thinks the GOP should be the total embodiment of their own self. Well, no shit. If it was up to me, the GOP as a political group would think just like me. But most likely that shift would only gain them one vote. Me.

The more interesting political discussion, and it's what someone like Karl Rove is good at, focuses on what the Republican Party needs to do in order to start winning elections again. Put aside whether you want them to win or not, and you certainly won't like all the answers; but that doesn't necessarily make those answers wrong either. Most people having this future-of-the-GOP discussion don't care if the GOP actually wins elections. If they want to give their opinion about which direction the party should take, go ahead, just don't pretend that it's the best advice to get Republicans elected.

On the worthy-ness of a Bush guy advice: I think Bush has been more-or-less a net loss for the Republicans over the past 4 years, but it isn't clear to me that any other type of Republican -- (one that wasn't a big-government, social-conservative) -- could have won in '00 and '04. Or that any other electoral strategy would have worked as well as the one that the Bush campaign put together. If that's the case Bush was only a failure for the GOP because he won. Which in most people's mind doesn't make him any less of a failure, but poltically it's much hard to pin the death of the Republican Party on him.

Vote Rob the Blogger for Congress -- Florida's 16th District

Fuck it. I think I have a chance. Judging on the the creeps the voters have elected the last two cycles, I feel that my shady sexual past, coupled with a complete lack of morals and ethics will run well in Florida's 16th Congressional district. Wish me luck.

But a document obtained by ABC News reveals new allegations of threatening behavior and sexual harassment toward a female staffer, that go far beyond Mahoney's public confession, including claims that he urged one of his mistresses to serve as a "tease" for big donors.

The former Congressional staff member, Patricia Allen, was paid $121,000 by Mahoney after she was fired and threatened to sue.

The settlement was reached after Allen hired a lawyer who sent the Congressman a "demand" letter, listing specific examples of Mahoney's alleged "gross misconduct" and "stalking" including:


"a) Calling Allen late in the evenings and demanding "phone sex;"


b) Demanding that Allen answer his calls or face termination;


c) Demanding that Allen attend fundraisers and "tease c-ck" to bring in more donations from the male members of the public;


d) Demanding that Allen engage in sexual conduct with another woman for his enjoyment."


Current and former staffers told ABC News the allegations contained in the "demand letter" sent to Mahoney were backed up by tape recordings of phone calls between the Congressman and Allen.

I want to be a United States Congressman.

Full article here.

Look Away, Look Away, Look Away California

The economic downturn has revived talk in one state of secession. Not from the U.S., but from the state they live in. The region that wants to split? Northern California, 'cause those durn southerners are such snooty elitists. The San Francisco Chronicle has the rebels' yell:

Some folks around here think the economic sky is falling and state lawmakers in Sacramento and Salem are ignoring their constituents in the hinterlands.

Guess the time is ripe to create a whole new state.

That's the thinking up here along the border between California and Oregon, where 12 sparsely populated, thickly forested counties in both states want to break away and generate the 51st star on the nation's flag - the state of Jefferson.

You can see the signs of discontent from Klamath Falls to Dunsmuir, where green double-X "Jefferson State" flags hang in scores of businesses. You can hear the talk of revolution at lunch counters and grocery lines, where people grumble that politicians to the north and south don't care.

You can even hear the dissent on the radio, where 21 area FM stations broadcast from Oregon into California under the banner of "Jefferson Public Radio."

"We have nothing in common with you people down south. Nothing," said Randy Bashaw, manager of the Jefferson State Forest Products lumber mill in the Trinity County hamlet of Hayfork. "The sooner we're done with all you people, the better."

Politician Embarassed That She Doesn't Toke

Here's a bit of a switch:

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The leader of Canada's Green Party, unveiling an election platform that includes a proposal to legalize marijuana, apologised on Wednesday for not having smoked pot.

"I am not a fan of marijuana use. I have to confess this -- I know all politicians are asked. I've never used marijuana. I apologise," said Elizabeth May, who won extra attention this year by being allowed to join the televised national leaders' debates.

My advice? Tell Canadian voters that you are usually too drunk on Molson's to do anything else.

The Way Linda Describes the US, It's Almost As If She Doesn't Live Here...Ohhh, Wait, That's Right, She Doesn't

There are few things in life, outside of those that rhyme with weenager lirls and big clits, that really get me up. Wait, I didn't do that correctly. Let's try this again -- There are few things in life that really get me up, outside those that rhyme with hot, pre-teen girls and lassive baginas. Um, whatever...close enough.

The point is, outside of young girls and big genitalia, I really love to experience a European waxing about America's red vs blue, cosmopolitan vs country bumpkin, small town vs big city divide. I love it and it doesn't get much better than this example in the Guardian; where I come to learn about a type of rape that must be such an epidemic that we as a nation should be dealing with it. Frankly I'm embarrassed that I've never heard of it. More on that further down, but first the meat of the piece. Warning: I'm going to selectively chop this article up; if you can get the whole feel of the piece by reading it here.

So clear is the divide between big-city and small-town America that one American friend said to me: "These whitebread Republicans are like children - someone has to tell them what to do and what to think, they're incapable of independent ideas."[...]

I asked a sophisticated and well-travelled Republican why he voted the way he did. He described growing up "dirt poor" in a small town in Northern California where joining the military was your sole ticket out; where the people in his family who depended on welfare stayed where they were and the ones who worked their fingers to the bone managed to make a better life for themselves. For him, joining the army led directly to an education. In fact, it led all the way to Princeton. But how, I asked him, baffled, could someone as intelligent as he is believe that George W Bush was anything but a cretin?

She's correct that in our country there are people who would rather be treated as children, and be told what to do and how to think (although I think the argument could be made that it's a bit more pervasive on the island she lives on) but it's not unique to middle America. Our city dwellers live in nanny state paradises that tell them what they can eat, where they can smoke, and what they can (not often) and can not use to protect their property and lives.

So America is stuck. Two countries, mutually irreconcilable, who never meet each other and don't want to, either. Who distrust each other at best, despise each other at worst. And who have absolutely no understanding of the other.

Hyperbole anyone? How the fuck does she describe Zimbabwe? Or any other shit hole in this world where people actually can't live with each other?

I've never stepped foot in the state of Wisconsin, can't even spell it --but true story -- I've had sex with three women from Wisconsin. Fucked two chicks from Michigan, I've never been there either. What am I trying to say? That women can't resist me? That the stories of encounters with Rob travels across state lines and hundreds of miles to horny girls everywhere in this great country?...Well, yes, that is what I'm saying. But you could also make the argument that we are more connected than ever, and more comfortable interacting with people than ever before. For most Americans everything in life isn't politicized yet, thank God. We can respect differences and still try to have sex with the person. That's all I'm trying to say.

Were I an East Coast Democrat, which is the only kind of American I can ever imagine being, I would have no objection to small-town Republicans - to their church-going and their hunting rifles and their flag-decked porches and their meatloaf with gravy, and their lemon chiffon cake. I could admire their intimacy with the wide prairie and the vast sky.

The problem is that when they're running the whole country, they want to take away abortion rights, drill for oil in Alaska (a Palin policy), ignore climate change, and start unwinnable wars. With the small-town Republican mindset in charge, the rest of America and the rest of the world is forced to live by small-town values, which aren't much help when you're trying to decide what, if anything, can be done about Iranian nuclear ambitions or more humbly, workplace date rape.

I can't go on much longer; I'm tired from all this blogging, haven't done it in a while. SO I'll make a few last points. First, what the fuck is lemon chiffon cake? I grew up in a town of a couple thousand and I have no idea what lemon chiffon cake is..Most importantly -- What is is workplace date rape? And why haven't I tried heard of it? Are people slipping mickeys in the lunch room? I just want to know what workplace date rape is, and google isn't much of a help...Any ideas?

The Do-Nothing Congress? I Like the Sound of That

The Washington Post's David Broder declares that gerrymandering voting districts is a bad, bad thing because:

Gerrymandered, one-party districts tend to send highly partisan representatives to the House or the legislature, contributing to the gridlock in government that is so distasteful to voters.

Distasteful to Washington Post editorialists maybe. For the rest of us, a Congress incapable of passing any bills is about the best we can hope for.

The Morning Afternoon After

I didn't watch the coverage last night because I was too busy doing important things like having sex and eating ice cream, but reading the blogs and online media today, everything is all about the historic and remarkable event that occurred last night when a black man won the nomination of his party. To which I say...Great! Fantastic! Good for Obama, and hope this proves to be a magic pill for our collective white guilt (which fortunately in my case was overshadowed by Catholic guilt, which not too long later was defeated by a healthy dose of porn, drugs and unprotected sex. If only white guilt was defeated so easily.)

In the meantime I think we have an election that we can all cry about, where are choices are a leftist Senator from Illinois who wants us all to come together to "remake" America, (presumably not in a way that would appeal to either me or any of you in our limited reading audience), or a demented grandpa from Arizona who thinks America speaks to him in his sleep and who’s major campaign strategy is to appeal to neither anyone on the Right or Left. Brilliant.

The only thing we have to look forward to is a possibly of a Clinton 3rd party run (not likely I guess, but it's fun to think about) and/or Bob Barr taking a few percentage points of the total votes.

The GOP Really Has Some Balls

Obama deserves credit for his clear-cut explanation of his medicinal marijuana position. The issue isn't as near to my heart as others (I'd really like to see Obama do something for the inner-city victims of the drug war, but whatever...) but still -- he is still on the right side of the issue when he says that he would stop DEA raids of medicinal marijuana dispensaries.

The GOP on the other hand responds with this nonsense to Obama's recent declaration:

WASHINGTON – RNC Communications Director Danny Diaz released the following statement today:

“Barack Obama’s pledge to stop Executive agencies from implementing laws passed by Congress raises serious doubts about his understanding of what the job of the President of the United States actually is. His refusal to enforce the law reveals that Barack Obama doesn’t have the experience necessary to do the job of President, or that he fundamentally lacks the judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive Branch. What other laws would Barack Obama direct federal agents not to enforce?”

Via Pete, who has this to say:

After 7 1/2 years of rubber-stamping the Bush Presidency, someone in the GOP apparently found a copy of the Constitution... and then failed to read it.

The Bush administration has quite possibly been the greatest danger to the Constitution in history, and the GOP (as well as the Democrats for the most part) have sat idly by and cheered.

Yeah, it is amusing when the GOP starts talking about on-the-job performance for the President when they've given us 7 1/2 years of Bush, or about "basic functions of the Executive", of which I'm not sure where ignoring the principles of federalism come into play.

Sen. Vitter Gets Off Again

Louisiana Senator David Vitter -- the upright Republican who was patronizing Deborah Jean Palfrey's escort service -- got a bit of good news the other day. The Senate Ethics Panel dropped its complaint against Vitter "with prejudice" this week, meaning he'll escape any official sanction for his whoremongering.

How did he do it? Well, it seems that timing is everything, as the Washington Post explains:

In its ruling, the [Senate Ethics] panel said it could not punish Vitter because his association with the escort service occurred before he joined the Senate in 2005.

"The conduct at issue occurred before your Senate candidacy and service . . . the conduct at issue did not result in your being charged criminally . . . the conduct at issue did not involve use of public office or status for improper purposes," the committee wrote in a letter signed by all six senators.

Elected to the House in 1999, Vitter cannot be investigated by its ethics committee because it has no jurisdiction now that he is a senator.

So while the woman who ran the service got convicted, faced a jail term, was bankrupted and finally became so depressed that she hung herself, her patron gets away without even a slap on the wrist thanks to his Senate buddies. Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?

On a related note, the Post earlier pointed out that Palfrey's total earnings from her escort service were peanuts.

Palfrey ran her business, Pamela Martin & Associates, by telephone from her California home, and authorities said she grossed about $2 million from 1993 to 2006, splitting the money about evenly with her escorts. They said she employed at least 132 women over the years, dispatching them nightly to clients in homes and hotel rooms in the Washington area.

So, $2 million over 13 years? Whip out your calculator: that means her whole operation was grossing about $154 thou annually. Half of that went to the call girls. Palfrey then had to pay whatever the overhead was herself (It was probably not that much, since she ran it all by phone). It's not clear whether she paid any taxes on the call-girl service either, but she wasn't convicted on tax-dodging charges, so she may very well have.

In short Palfrey was making about $77 thou a year before any expenses and any taxes. Retirement and health care came out of her own pocket too. Hardly a lavish operation. Isn't there actual, big-time corruption going on someplace the feds can go after?

Byrd a Dead Duck?

Washington is a vicious, brutal town. Or would be if so many of the people involved weren't also cowards.

Case in point: The scuttlebutt in Washington is that the Democrats are trying to dump Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd because he is, well, 90 fucking years old.

It isn't going that easy because Byrd refuses to give up and after a lifetime of using the appropriations process (i.e., spending taxpayer dollars) to accumulate power, all of the Democrats are afraid to take him on.:

Senate Democrats keep muttering about their 90-year-old chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, but no one wants to bell the cat.

New stories were floated this week of agitation in the party’s ranks over whether the West Virginian would be able to manage an upcoming wartime spending bill. But when fingers pointed to Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) as two agitators in the leadership, both offices issued indignant denials.

The best part of the story is this comment from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

“He was so go good to me my freshman year. He has been good to me all the time,” Reid said of Byrd in a recent interview. “I feel I owe him a lot, the Senate owes him a lot. ... I wish he wasn’t in the physical shape he is in, but he is. And there are many days his mind is perfect, so I’m not going to be part of dumping him.”

Yeah, Reid but doesn't owe him so much that he won't call him a decrepit, senile old fart on the record to reporters. That's cold as ice.

Of course this is one of those cases where no matter who wins, the taxpayers lose. Either Byrd, a guy who has spent a lifetime perfecting the art of robbing Peter to pay Paul, hangs on or the Democrats replace him with a newer, younger guy who does the same thing with more energy.

Drug Fueled Binges of the Rich and Corrupted

I'll admit I haven't been paying close attention to the Tony Rezko trial/scandal, but testimony like this makes me wish I had been. Also makes me wish I was a politician. Or a corrupt real estate mogul. Or just filthy rich.

NY Gov Can't Stop Confessing

Look, I reflexively love any guy who cheats on his wife, does blow, and smokes pot. Fun guy to be around. Perhaps though, if you are a governor of a major American state, and not a blogger at a pathetically low-brow blog, you might want to keep some of your behaviors, past or present, to yourself.
ABC News:

New York's new governor, who disclosed last week that he and his wife both committed adultery several years ago, said Monday that he used cocaine in his 20s and smoked marijuana when he was younger. In reference to cocaine, Gov. David Paterson, 53, said in a television interview that he "tried it a couple of times" when he was "about 22 or 23." "And marijuana probably when I was about 20," he said on the NY1 cable news station. "I don't think I touched marijuana since the '70s."

Any guesses on what confessions we get next from Paterson?

Killer Idea

Dr Jack makes a run for Congress. If he wins, I've got more than a couple ideas for his first patients.

Saying the country is moving in the wrong direction, Jack Kevorkian said Monday that he will run for Congress.

"I have never been a political person. I have only voted once in my life," Kevorkian said, during a rambling press conference in Southfield in which he quoted everyone from Alex de Toquville and Frederick Douglas.

Kevorkian will run in the 9th congressional district, which is represented by U.S Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Bloomfield Township.

Story here.

New Hampshire

I might do some live-blogging tonight if I can get off the bender that's prevented me from doing much blogging over the past few days. Or I might just order out for my hookers tonight and continue the bender while I blog. Who knows. Either way, I think the results could be surprising on the Republican side, and awful predictable on the Democratic side. Most likely result on the GOP side is: McCain 33%, Romney 27%, Huckabee 14%, Paul 13%, Giuliani 11%.......................................Thompson 2%.

Obama, Clinton, Edwards. The only question by how much Obama wins. By 8 points? More? If he takes a double-digit win in New Hampshire, you would think it spells the beginning of the end for Hillary. I don't think she gets out right away; but I find it hard to believe that she could stop the Obama wave.

I could easily see Paul grabbing 3rd -- the math makes it possible (unlike in Iowa where it was delusional to predict a 3rd for him) if he picks up a point or two of the undecided vote, and has another 3% of non-poll-predictive support. It's feasable. That scenario would give him 13-15% which would probably be enough to beat Huckabee. That being said he could finish below Giuliani in 5th. It's wide-open and impossible to predict. Latest polls from RCP here.

Quick Trivia Question...

... What were Bhutto's political beliefs?

And no cheating, you know, like doing actual research. You have to answer based on what you've seen on TV and in the papers in the last 24 hours.

Between work today and alcohol tonight, CNN has been my only source of information about this. So my answer to the question is: "Hmm, something about democracy... Musharraf bad... and...democracy."

I'm not picking on Bhutto. She had guts to come back from exile at a time like this and oppose the dictatorial Musharraf. My point here, however, has little to do with Bhutto.

I just wish CNN could analyze foreign politics beyond "democracy" or "not democracy." It's just like how Bush spoke - and still speaks - of Iraq.

To be fair, I can't blame CNN or the MSM completely. Even Noam Chomsky writes of democracy this way. I just wish someone one the left or the right would say "Until basic individual liberty is realized in a nation or society, fuck democracy."

The Huckabee Ad

The TV spot that has everyone talking.

I gotta say that I agree with what appears to be the conventional wisdom. A very smart piece of work. Disgusting, yes -- just like everything about the man -- but you can take nothing away from Huckabee the politician and preacher. I think that's what makes him such a scary figure...He's very good at what he does.

Of All The Reasons To Oppose Fred Thompson...

This?

LEXINGTON, South Carolina (CNN) — Eight Confederate flag-waving men protested outside a Fred Thompson campaign stop Wednesday evening, one week after Thompson and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney criticized the flag during the CNN/YouTube debate in Florida.

[...]

Asked about the flag during last week's debate, Thompson said that, "as far as a public place is concerned, I am glad that people have made the decision not to display it as a prominent flag, symbolic of something, at a state capital."

Good luck finding that vocally pro-Confederate flag candidate.

In my opinion, however, it's not a very good debate question in the first place. I guess you could say that the way a candidate answered that question reflects on his or her character. But the question I wish CNN would have selected is: "Do you support my right to free speech enough to let me wave this flag peacefully, even if some or most would find it offensive.?"*

I wish I could ask the protesters which of these candidates they would support most:

Candidate A:
"I don't find the Confederate flag offensive at all. But let's allow democracy to decide."

Candidate B:
"Personally, I hate that damn flag. But this is America so you have the full right to free speech. You can wave it, wrap yourself in it, or cut a hole in it and fuck it, but don't expect me to like it or condone it."

I would hope that those protesters would support Candidate B. But I get the feeling they are only going to be happy with a candidate who would strongly support the display of that flag at state government offices and buildings. Shouldn't they take that up with the state government and not Fred, though?

Update: The position I detailed for "Candidate A" may be appropriate for public places. However, the number of public places should be kept to a minimum.


*If only CNN's panel [censors?] chose questions this straightforward

It Really Is About The Issues, Not Ron Paul

Professor Roderick T. Long has a new post up at Liberty & Power that is somewhat of a supplement to Professor Horwitz's post about Ron Paul that I blogged about yesterday.

While I agreed with the points that Horwitz made (but had a different conclusion about the Paul campaign), I think Professor Long may be putting words in the mouths of Paul's more enthusiastic supporters that they may not actually be inclined to say.

The argument goes like this: “Even if you think Paul is wrong on some particular issues, he’s still far, far more libertarian than any of the other candidates, so why not support him?” [Emphasis in original]

So far so good. Actually, this is the rationale for my support of Paul's campaign. I elaborate on this in yesterday's post. But here's where I think Long is incorrect:

The reason I find this argument puzzling is that those who make it would not, I suspect, find it plausible in most other contexts.

Imagine, for example, that instead of Ron Paul it’s Randy Barnett who’s running for President. Paul and Barnett have a lot in common; they’re both fairly thoroughgoing libertarians, they’re both enthusiasts for the Constitution, and they both take some positions that many libertarians regard as deviations.

Understanding that I cannot speak for Long, what he seems to be saying here is that there is something about Ron Paul personally that is drawing libertarians to his campaign. And that if the presidential candidate was someone with libertarian positions similar to Paul's, but not Paul, Paul's current supporters may not support that other candidate. As a Paul supporter, I will say that this is not true for me, and I would definitely be willing to support another candidate with a quasi-libertarian platform, even if he or she is not Paul. I agree with this paragraph from Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch's article about libertarianism and Paul in the Washington Post:

That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him -- and the much larger subset of Americans who are increasingly disillusioned with the two major political parties' soft consensus on making government ever more intrusive at all levels, whether it's listening to phone calls without a warrant, imposing fines of half a million dollars for broadcast "obscenities" or jailing grandmothers for buying prescribed marijuana from legal dispensaries.

Also, to be honest, I had not heard of Randy Barnett prior to seeing his name dropped in Long's post. But from what Professor Long says about Barnett in his post ("Barnett’s two major deviations ... would be his support for the war and his insufficiently decentralist approach to federalism."), Barnett may not be a good example of an alternative to Ron Paul. One of the major attractions to Paul's campaign for independents and libertarians is his opposition to the war in Iraq. That war is not only putting American troops in harm's way for a questionable reason, but it is severely damaging America's reputation abroad.

I'm going to risk putting words in other Paul supporters' mouths here too, but I would think that they would agree with me that Ron Paul is the most likely candidate to bring the troops home anytime soon. Yes, all the Democratic candidates are speaking out against the war, but it seems to me that they are saying this more to beat the Republican candidate than to actually bring the troops home promptly. Maybe I'm being cynical, and believe me, I'd love to be proven wrong if a Democrat is elected president, but I'm not convinced as to the Democrats' sincerity. One of my favorite things about Paul (and I think even most of Paul's critics would agree) is that when he says something, he means it.

Paul's service in the House of Representatives, voting no on nearly every (every?) spending increase, has been admirable. And his outspoken (although, in my opinion, not outspoken enough) opposition to the War on Drugs is almost unheard of in modern politics, in either party. However, I see no reason why I wouldn't be willing to support any other candidate who spoke out in favor of such positions.

We've Been Given The Right To Choose Between A Douche And A Turd

In a very interesting post on the Liberty & Power blog, Professor Steven Horwitz expressed his doubts about Ron Paul and his campaign. I recommend reading the whole post. Prof. Horwitz makes some excellent points.

The post got me thinking... Here's why: 1) I agree with 100% of Professor Horwitz's post. 2) I'm still enthusiastic about Ron Paul's campaign. Look, I know Ron Paul is not the perfect candidate. I'm not sure I've heard anyone claim that he is. However, Paul is the best serious candidate to run for president in my lifetime. It's unfortunate, sure. But in politics, it almost always boils down to choosing the least bad candidate. I believe Paul is the least bad in 2008.

Moving on, Horwitz begins by addressing three concerns about Paul's stances: abortion, immigration and free trade agreements.

Horwitz agrees with Paul that "Roe [v. Wade] was bad constitutional law", but he claims the Court "got to the right result for the wrong reasons." I agree, but what does he want from Paul here? As far as the authority of the president goes, don't Horwitz and Paul agree completely on policy? Perhaps Horwitz wishes Paul was not so outspoken about his personal opposition to abortion, but it is perfectly in line with Paul's principles that he would not move to ban abortion at the federal level (which is, of course, is the only level he would have authority over as president).

Issues #2 and #3 of Horwitz's post, however, do fall within the scope of the federal government. And I cannot defend Paul's positions here, except to mention once again that I believe that Paul qualifies as the "least bad" candidate overall, despite these somewhat "un-libertarian" views. No candidate seems to be campaigning on a platform of open borders or completely free trade. The Democratic candidates will likely be best on the immigration issue, whereas the Republicans are more likely to support free trade. But while the Democratic candidates may be willing to pass a few policy steps towards more open borders, they will not address the philosophical issue of, in Horwitz's words, "Why should employers be prevented from engaging in labor contracts with adults from anywhere in the world?". And while the Republican candidates may be more willing to support free trade agreements, they will not speak of free trade as the right of individuals to, well... Please refer to the quote in the previous sentence.

The next two paragraphs are worth quoting directly, even though they're quite long:

All of this leads to my general discomfort with Paul, which I think I would characterize as a lack of cosmopolitanism. For example, I don't think he's a racist but there are reasons why he's getting donations from KKK leaders. Even though many of his positions are solidly libertarian, the way they are framed, along with the three above, lend themselves to appealing to the nativist/Buchanan types in a way that I think goes against the historical progressive spirit of classical liberalism. I share David Bernstein's concerns about the way in which Paul addresses the racism issue, even if there's nothing in it that is "un-libertarian" in policy terms. This is an example of the sort of left-libertarianism view I advocated for above (and that I believe L&P co-blogger Roderick Long shares, though I don't know what he thinks of Paul). If the true spirit of libertarianism is a cosmopolitan one, we can and should do a lot better than a policy statement on racism that refers largely, if not only, to the way in which state-enforced racial categories (mostly of the left) have "divided" America. That may well be a problem, but its silence on the racism of the right and the real ways in which people of color continue to face discrimination (though much less than in the past) cuts against the grain of what should be libertarianism's progressivism. What is so difficult and so wrong about saying racism exists in other forms and that as people committed to equal and individual rights we should work to end it?

Libertarianism's progressive spirit is one of cosmopolitanism and openness to cultural change (perhaps best captured in our own time by Virginia Postrel's work). Paul's cultural conservatism and several of his positions push in the opposite direction and, in my view, might do long-term damage to libertarianism even if it reaps some short-term benefits in this campaign. I do not believe the future of libertarianism is in making alliances with the forces of nativism and the wrong sort of isolationism, nor with those who cannot see the ways in which the US is still not a society that treats women, gays/lesbians, and persons of color as equal individuals, both under the law and culturally. (To be clear, I'm not advocating for any state intervention to address these problems - in fact, the state is the source of some/many but not all of them). The future of libertarianism is to align with Postrel's forces of "dynamism" both left and right. Paul's campaign is attracting young people, but I suspect mostly because he does indeed tell it like it is and that straight talking appeals to cynical youth. And I do admire Paul greatly for his honesty and his intellect. But in the long run, the young will never sign on to a movement rooted in cultural conservatism. Paul's campaign is, in that sense, running a huge risk of long-term damage to libertarianism.

I'm not clear on what Horwitz is hoping for here. It seems as though he wishes Paul would speak out more against racism and his less-than-reputable financial supporters. But it seems like he is, to some extent, singling out Paul here. Does Horwitz believe that none of the other candidates have financial supporters who are less than reputable? Assuming that Horwitz recognizes that some shady characters donate to almost every campaign, doesn't he think they should all speak out against them?

In addition, even if Paul is lacking in "cosmopolitanism", I believe that the social issues about which Horwitz expresses concern are getting better without the endorsement of any specific politician, Paul or otherwise. I am definitely not claiming that blacks, Hispanics, gays or lesbians are treated equally as others, and I am not claiming that these specific social issues are unimportant. But America in general is making progress on these social issues without the help of government. (In fact, it's arguable that progress will be faster if government stays out.) Very few politicians have spoken out enthusiastically for gay rights, but can anyone say he or she would rather be openly gay 20 years ago than now? Can anyone say he or she would rather be openly atheist 20 years ago?

On the other hand, monetary policy and free trade do not seem to get increasing support over time without political support (at least not at this time). Although I cannot exactly explain the reasons, libertarian social issues seem to be progressing much faster than libertarian economic issues.

After this criticism, I feel it's necessary to say again: I agree with 100% of Professor Horwitz's post on the level of political philosophy. I only disagree with him on the level of practical politics. Yes, this does reflect very poorly on modern politics, but I don't know of any self-described libertarian who is satisfied with the current political climate.

Professor Horwitz is criticizing Paul's campaign, fairly, from a purely ideological standpoint. I guess my disagreement stems from my frustration with politics in general. In a perfect world (or even a semi-perfect world), we might have a candidate for president who fits the libertarian blueprint detailed in Horwitz's post. But the current political scene is not even close to perfect. So I can't help but be enthusiastic about Ron Paul's candidacy, simply because he's the best candidate in my lifetime who is actually making headlines. And now that a protectionist nanny-statist is leading the GOP polls in Iowa, Ron Paul's imperfect libertarianism is still very refreshing to me.

In case you don't already know, the post title is explained here.

An End of an Era

The last member of the Singing Senators still holding office will be resigning this year from his US Senate seat. Best news I'll hear all week.

New Poll

Ron Paul is at 8% in new Hampshire in the latest CBS poll, up from 7% previously. 4% in Iowa. Rest of the field -- Romney well ahead in NH, with McCain creeping up, now tied with Giuliani for second. Romney also still doing well, leading in Iowa with Huckabee showing strong at 21%. I'll give him a good showing in Iowa.

Full pdf here. Via The Corner.

Read

Jacob Sullum's post.

and..

This guy's post on Afghanistan.

Friday Links

No jokes here. 18 year old arrested for the rapes of two Baltimore women, ages 88 and 73. The 88-year old is also a cancer patient. With youth like this, how could one be pessimistic about the future of our fine city. Remember folks, just Believe!

I betcha this Anne Arundel County (MD) judge knows how to have some fun.

But Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Paul Harris, in a decision that has victims' rights advocates crying foul, acquitted the man charged with second-degree assault after he was accused of striking his girlfriend three times in the face. The judge said that without the woman's testimony, he could not be sure that she hadn't consented to the attack

[...]

And in a comment that has riled victims' advocates and prosecutors, Harris added, "You have very rare cases; sadomasochists sometimes like to get beat up."

Cameras no longer enough to police the mean streets of London. Say hello to street level listening devices, intended to "infiltrate gangs of youth."

I really don't like David Brooks. Never have -- but now I've developed the nearly unstoppable urge to face-fuck the douche, in his itsy-bitsy mouth, while he's wearing his overtly homosexual turtle-rimmed glasses. Is it just me? From today's Brooks column on the chances of a Huckabee win. I know, I know, I too was guessing he was talking about checkers, or some game involving guessing the number of jellybeans in a jar, because obviously he couldn't be talking about any type of electoral win, whether it be in Iowa or any other state. I was wrong.

[....]Second, each of the top-tier candidates makes certain parts of the party uncomfortable. Huckabee is the one candidate acceptable to all factions.

Third, Huckabee is the most normal person running for president (a trait that might come in handy in a race against Hillary Clinton). He is funny and engaging — almost impossible not to like. He has no history of flip-flopping in order to be electable. He doesn’t seem to be visibly calculating every gesture. Far from being narcissistic, he is, if anything, too neighborly to seem presidential.

Whoa. I should have saved this for a separate post, but quickly -- First, "Huckabee is the one candidate acceptable to all factions". Huh? That GOP tent has gotten so big that they had to push us libertarian leaning, limited government types out of the tent to make room for all those compassionate, social conservatives. Enjoy the circle jerk fellas. [I've made substantive arguments against Huckabee, just click through the Huckabee tag] As for this line, "Huckabee is the most normal person running for president." Do I need to reiterate that this is the guy who said it his religious beliefs are not important to the question of whether he could or should be president? Even if his religious beliefs claim that the earth was created 3,000 years ago, and that evolution is just a silly guess made by some guy named Darwin. Or that kids in elementary schools should be weighed by the state. If this is the "most normal person running for president" then we have some serious issues as an electorate.

Last, but certainly not least, one of the last two brewpubs in Baltimore -- and the closest one to me -- is looking to leave the city. It's part of a disturbing trend that has brewpubs fleeing high-rent, urban areas for the spacious suburbs. I'll end it with my quote of the week, from the above article:

"It's sort of like the melting of the ice caps," said Dominic Cantalupo, a 46-year-old Catonsville resident and president of the Chesapeake Bay branch of the Society for the Preservation of Beers from the Wood. The society promotes beer brewed with traditional methods.

Money and Polls

That's quite a 3rd quarter for Ron Paul. Over 5 million cash on hand.

Related Election '08 News: Latest ABC-Washington Post Poll data -- Hillary has a 33 point lead over her closest rival, Obama. While Rudy has a 17 point over somebody...Really, does it even matter?

All the poll-data goodness can be found here.

Scary Election 2008 Moment

Mail in my inbox with the subject line: "Working to Win in '08"...Sender: President George W Bush.

Don't worry; he wasn't referring to himself, more of a whole Republican Party victory in '08.

I wasn't concerned about Bush declaring martial law and suspending elections; only that someone hadn't bothered to tell him he could only run for 2 terms.

Assorted Political Links

First time in awhile; some bad polling news for Democrats.

Maryland set to raise income taxes, sales tax, and tobacco taxes. Somehow though, according to O'Malley, more Marylanders will be paying less in taxes. Make sense? Yeah, it doesn't. Note to Gov O'Malley -- When the Baltimore Sun is critical of your tax plan, it might be a warning of trouble to come. Just a thought.

Ron Paul is set to debate Ron Paul in Baltimore this week. Just kidding. Duncan Hunter will be there too. From the Sun piece on Paul:

A longtime foe of the government's drug war and of mandatory prison terms for nonviolent crimes, he would permit the use of medical marijuana. Like former Baltimore Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke, he talks about decriminalizing drugs.

Paul's eyes light up at the thought that Schmoke might attend the debate at historically black Morgan State University about issues of particular interest to urban and minority voters .

"Oh, wouldn't that be neat? I'd love to meet him," he says.

He talks about decriminalizing drugs? I certainly haven't heard a peep out of him in regards to drugs...He's been conspicuously quiet on the subject on the campaign trail. My opinion --- You want one reason to be pessimistic about the potential for drug policy reform, look no further than Ron Paul's unwillingness to speak on the matter when he has the huge stage that he has right now. It's a shame, and it's demoralizing for the movement as a whole.

Brief Thoughts on Ahmadinejad

This Ahmadinejad issue at Columbia is a tough one...

If Columbia was completely private, I'd have no problem with Ahmadinejad being invited to speak there. However, Columbia appears to be 1/4 funded by the government, so this necessarily throws politics into it. But let's set this aside for the sake of discussion.

I guess my issue is that I just don't see any educational benefit coming out of a speech by Ahmadinejad. First of all, he's a politician, which makes him ideologically dubious anyway (at least in my humble opinion). But primarily, he's a dictator. So besides being able to ask him questions about his wacky but well known comments from the past - questions which he will most likely dodge anyway - I don't get what anyone is expecting from this speech.

So there are really only two reasons I can think of for Columbia inviting Ahmadinejad.
1) They want a chance to challenge him on his comments (which, like I said, I suspect he'll sidestep)
2) Publicity

If it's just publicity the school is after... well, they're certainly getting it.

But if it's the latter, then this is one of these cases where I seriously hope to be wrong about my predictions.

Let's hope something besides hype comes of this speech...

Craig Not Going Down Quietly

The Republican Party really is imploding. Looks like the rumors of Craig reconsidering his resignation are true:

CBS/AP) To the dismay of fellow Republicans, Sen. Larry Craig launched a determined drive to save his seat on Wednesday, vowing to stay in office if allowed to withdraw his guilty plea in a men's room sex sting.

[...]

“It is my intent to fight the case before the Ethics Committee while I am a sitting Senator. I would prefer to have that case resolved on its merits.

“The letter sent today from the Committee to Senator McConnell does not address the arguments laid out by my attorney earlier today. I hope that Committee addresses those arguments sooner, rather than later, so that I can have my name cleared.”

Craig's decision to deploy his legal team marked a reversal of his pledge to resign on Sept. 30, and raised the possibility of a protracted legal and political struggle, much of it playing out in public, with gay sex at its core.

That sound you just heard was a collective "Fuck You" from every Congressional Republican..Full article here.

Karl's Out...

heading back home to Texas. Texas happy, Oklahoma said to be worried and in discussions with Kansas about mutual security concerns.

Happy VJ Day!

Mike Huckabee?

I'm not in a position to criticize bloggers for saying outrageous things. Turns out, if you go back through the archives, I've written some pretty awful things. Still though, I have the refuge of knowing that rarely if ever, am I sober when posting. So that's my excuse -- What's Jim Henley's?

Meanwhile, let me be the first to predict that Mike Huckabee will be the Republican nominee for President - or close to the first.

Humm...How's that?

He scores high on likeability. He’s conservative as such things are defined today, with a longer track record of support for Christian Right issues than the current front-runners. The Mormon and the cross-dresser make spectacularly flawed candidates to “the base,” and I suspect that Fred Thompson, if he runs, will turn out to be too transparently stupid even for the GOP. The cat has already curled up on the bed of the McCain campaign. Tancredo and Brownback aren’t TV-friendly. The 26%ers despise Ron Paul.

That's just plain silly. Huckabee is a nobody candidate, with no support or name recognition nation-wide. Tancredo won't win because he is fucking nuts and everyone knows this. Brownback is a nobody with zero political skills (See the way he handled the immigration debacle in the Senate---In the worst possible way.) I'd say Ron Paul has a better shot at the nomination than Huckabee. Not that I think Ron Paul has a shot, but I'm saying that you could see a scenario like a 1964 possibly evolving. Huge odds against it, it won't happen, but at least a candidate like Paul has an opening. Same thing with Gingrich. If anyone has a shot at this thing besides the top three candidates (which I don't think is the case) it's gotta be Gingrich. Him or Thompson. My guess would be Gingrich. And I don't say that because I agree with Jim or the CW that Thompson is an empty suit -- I highly doubt he's any dumber than our average politician. I go with Gingrich because I don't think Thompson -- politically that is -- is ready for a presidential election...and I'm talking about the primaries here. The guy hasn't even formally announced and he's gone through three campaign managers. When he's questioned he has a look -- not of a moron -- but of a candidate who has never been prepared for a question. My guess -- he runs out of steam early.

Let me make one last point about something that annoys the fuck out of me. Giuliani can and most likely will be the Republican nominee for President. He is by far the strongest guy in the field for both the primary and the general election. How it's possible for the front runner, who has consistently been leading the rest of the field by 8-10 points for the past year, to be looked at not as the front runner is mind-boggling. Plain stupid. My opinion, and my opinion only, is that the case against Giuliani is being way overstated. Again politically. Please don't berate me about how he is going to be the next totalitarian President of our great country. Don't care about that. Right now I'm only concerned with who will win and who won't. And there is no reason he won't, barring a collapse of course, but the guy is a strong politician in every way. To act like his support will vanish once people learn about his stances on abortion, gun control, gay rights, etc. is foolish. People are worried about it and are talking about it. But his numbers stay steady and they only increase if McCain dies. And by dies, I actually mean dies. Have you seen the him lately? Yikes. As for the base; right now it's all about the wars. War on Terror and the Iraq War. Once you get past that, it's who can beat Hillary.

Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Vote for a Democrat...

...they are going really left. Just about everyone in this world hates the presidency of George Bush, and his Republican party takes a big ding by association. So the Dems have a wide open door to take the White House. But they are fumbling the ball by catering to left-wing economic politics.

The Dem candidates have all adopted Edwards' Two Americas theme, which focuses on income inequality and how to "solve" it. Income inequality is something that no one likes, as who likes the next door neighbors making more money that I do? But, beyond that envy, does it really matter?

No. The fact that the founders of Google are billionaires absolutely took no money out of anyone's pocket. Capitalist societies create wealth. Without the brilliance of Page and Brin, our country and stock market would be without the $162 BN, whooa, of market cap. They created wealth and created thousands of lucrative jobs and many millionaires, and certainly did not in any way subtract from the wages of anyone.

The idiocy of focusing on wage disparity is that as our country creates success the disparity grows. But there is not a zero sum. Would any person in their right mind wish that Google did not exist?

YouTube Debates

I'm looking forward to the CNN/YouTube debate on Monday. I like the idea of having the general public submit questions for the candidates rather than the same old politically correct questions that seem to come from reporters and moderators. It has potential to be a great step forward for presidential debates.

However, I say "has potential" because it also has potential to be pretty disappointing. The questions will be screened by a CNN VP and Political Director.

So the big question is: How much different will the selected questions turn out to be? Of course, many will consist of the same topics found in any of the debates: health care, immigration, abortion, the war, and so on. But I'm sure YouTubers are also submitting questions on the drug war, decentralization of education, and separation of church and state. I especially hope for more meaningful environmental questions (e.g. "How will your plan for cutting carbon emissions affect the economy, and do you think the benefits outweigh the costs?")... the kinds of questions that demand a stronger response than the usual sugar-coated but content-free responses to environmental concerns.

There is no doubt in my mind that the general public will think of better questions than those who have moderated debates in the past. The success of the CNN/YouTube debates will depend on whether the selected questions are clever and new, or whether they are the same old questions asked by different people.

I'll be at work during the live debates, but I plan to watch the entire thing on rerun. Whether the format of the debate is revolutionary or just a gimmick will determine the anger level of my Tuesday post. See you there.

Friday links

The WaPo publishes a predictably anti-Giuliani piece....But did they really have jerk off Bloomberg this hard? I have to add -- and you'll notice this if you read the piece -- what voters, and in what election will they defect from Giuliani to Bloomberg? The article makes some huge, and in my opinion, wrong assumptions...

"The government tells us about not smoking and safe sex," he says. "Why not handshaking?" Hummm....Good point.

What's the over/under for Pakistan remaining a fairly stable, military dictatorship?

McCain bails on Florida. Does anyone believe he will still remain in the race come primary time?

My Kind of Campaign Announcement

Baltimore wouldn't be the same without this socialist nutcase. [emphasis mine, spelling mistakes the Sun's]

A. Robert Kaufman, a long-time political activist, announced officially today that he would run for mayor, then proceeded on a door-to-door campaign along The Block, where he outlined his socialist agenda.

Kaufman, 76, said he wants to create a "red-light district" where drugs and prostition would be legalized. He said he figured he would find sympathy for his platform in the downtown cluster of strip clubs and pornography shops.

Kaufman acknowledged having "absolutely no chance at winning the race," but said he wants to use his campaign to foster discussion on creating jobs, pushing for a living wage and treating addiction as a medical problem.

Full article here. More on The Block here. Interview with Kaufman from '05 after a beating he took from a tenant of his, here.

I'm not planning on voting in the Mayoral election because of an utter lack of competence among the candidates -- and I have never brought myself to vote for a socialist of any stripe in any election -- but if I do vote, it might just have to be for Kaufman. If nothing else the guy has provided some colorful moments over my time in Maryland. Not to mention I hear nothing, not even a peep, from the legitimate candidates about the futility of the Drug War.

SC State Treasurer Blows His Chances for Senatorial Run

Charleston Post and Courier:

State Treasurer Thomas Ravenel was indicted Tuesday on charges of cocaine possession and intent to distribute it. Gov. Mark Sanford immediately suspended him from state office.

[...]

At a press conference late Tuesday, South Carolina Law Enforcement Department Chief Robert Stewart said Ravenel emerged as a participant in an ongoing cocaine sting in Charleston County. He said Ravenel was charged with possession and was sharing — not selling — powder cocaine with an undisclosed number of people.

All of the charges stem from incidents that date back into 2005, meaning Ravenel was in possession of cocaine during his 2006 campaign for state Treasurer. He defeated longtime incumbent Grady Patterson in that race.

This guy was supposed to be a rising GOP star in South Carolina. These indictments might have an impact on his career. Via The Corner. Full article here.

Debate--I Do It Because You Won't

I've had a few drinks; but this debate is pretty decent, much better then what I saw of the Democratic Debate. Minus Tommy Thompson. And Duncan Hunter. The immigration stuff has been great to watch, Rudy seems very much alert and with it as opposed to the last debate. Much better on abortion and very good on immigration. Ron Paul is with it tonight as well. He handled the border wall question very nicely and he got some applause with his anti-war comments.

Oh yeah, Mike Huckabee "doesn't know" if the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, and says it means nothing as to whether he should be President. I like to think it does matter if a potential Republican candidate for POTUS is fucking retarded. Silly me.

Update:

God Bless Ron Paul and his defense of federalism.

McCain has a problem with "oil companies making profits". What about grocery stores? Or Best Buy? Will anyone admit that they would ever vote for this guy? Anyone??

Bingo. Paul nails another one, when asked about oil company profits. Foreign policy, corporate welfare.

Be sure to check out Weigal. And The Corner.

And again Paul uses gays in the military to hit the "rights culture". Really brilliant move. He sounds like a legitimate candidate.

Does Thommy Thompson think he is on Star Search? What's with the rubbing the chin and shitty one-liners? Horriable.

Update II:

Candidates are sitting, rocking chairs would be even more folksy and down home.

Uh oh, McCain is getting on the straight-talk-express. CHOO-CHOO!!!

I like Rudy's health care answer. "Government and employer dominated". We need a free market solution, etc. I'm paraphrasing here. But it was a good answer. Tommy Thompson has never gotten out of a chair as quickly as he did when asked about health care. He was itching to lecture fatties and smokers.

Where is Ron Paul?

Dave Weigal

8:43: That's a pretty fat finger that McCain just stuck in base voters' eyes. He tells Romney "muchos gracias" and then calls sneaking across the border "accelerating their citizenship."

Just finished telling my roommate that same thing, in a much more convoluted way.

Is it just me or were the canidates sitting uncomfortably close on stage; paired off like they were contestants on some sort of dating game. I was half expecting Rudy to reach over and graze McCain's leg with his hand...

[ed-Sorry for the typos. Moving fast, more than a few drinks by the end. FWIW, edits have been made]

Saul Anuzis Must Go

It's my hope that good Republicans - libertarians and real conservatives - have enough clout to get Saul Anuzis, head of the Michigan Republican Party, fired for trying to get Rep. Ron Paul excluded from future presidential debates. This is a make or break issue for the future of libertarian/conservative fusionism. Either libertarian ideas - and for that matter the truth - are welcome in the Republican Party or they're not. It is unacceptable for a high-ranking Republican official to be drafting and circulating a petition in support of barring a fellow Republican from participating in future Republican debates. Saul Anuzis must go. If he is not fired, it's obvious that libertarians, true conservatives and other supporters of a non-interventionist foreign policy are not welcome in the Republican Party.

So call the Michigan Republican Party and tell them that Saul Anuzis must go - 517-487-5413.
E-mail address: elephant_ear@migop.org.

And call the Republican National Committee, as well: 202-863-8500. For lack of a better e-mail address, info@gop.com.

Republican Chairman to Libertarians: We Don't Want You, Join the Democrats

I bet it was nice for a while being a war-mongering politician, party hack or political pundit. Beating your chest, feeling like a real man's man, acting tough (although not actually doing anything tough, like you know joining the military and putting your life on the line.) But then reality set in. Thousands of dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq. A growing - not shrinking - terrorist movement. And a nagging feeling deep inside that your support for a reckless foreign policy is at least partially responsible for the chaos in Iraq and the global anti-American blowback. So when someone like Rep. Ron Paul comes along and makes you feel uncomfortable by pointing out the obvious, it's only natural to try to literally run him off the stage. Much easier to sleep at night if no one is allowed to suggest that the policies you helped erect are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, the fleecing of American taxpayers, an increased police state, and an America made less safe. What else can one make of all the attacks on Rep. Ron Paul from Republican circles (see here, here, here, and here) and the movement to get him barred from future Republican debates?

Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates....

"I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party,” Anuzis said during an RNC state leadership meeting...

Anuzis said his petition would go to debate sponsors and broadcasters to discourage inviting Paul.

I guess if Ron Paul should leave the Republican Party, then so should I. Thanks for the advice, Saul. I'm changing by party registration. After I vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, of course. There is obviously nothing left for libertarians in the Republican Party. Nothing. Let them wallow in their big-government-loving, war-starting, individual-rights-hating, shrinking party alone.

You can sign a petition to keep Ron Paul in the Republican debates here. And sign a petition urging Giuliani to debate Paul on foreign policy here. Both via LewRockwell.com, which has excellent ongoing coverage of the blowback over the blowback.

Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) for President

It's not every day you hear a Congressman speak so much truth. Highlights from David Weigel's interview with him.

if you want to be loyal to the troops in the field, if you're saying you're patriotic, then you'll read a book like Anthony Zinni's The Battle for Peace. You'll read a book like Fiasco. You'll turn the damn television off every night for two hours and read some objective opinions on this thing. Ignorance is pervasive in any culture and ours is not an exception.
[...]
I think the GOP was dissolving. Now it's drying up and the wind's going to blow it away. I just don't think we have the depth of knowledge, intellect, and experience necessary for a viable political party any more.
[...]
I don't worry about a primary challenge. It's inconvenient. My eternal soul will last a lot longer than my short, pathetic political career.

Politics is Like a Box of Spiders...

I've been trying to think of a good metaphor for being subjected to the stale, largely authoritarian nonsense coming out of the mouths of Republicans during their recent MSNBC debate. This is spot on.

What began as a faint popping in a 9-year-old boy's ear -- "like Rice Krispies" -- ended up as an earache, and the doctor's diagnosis was that a pair of spiders made a home in the ear. "They were walking on my eardrums," Jesse Courtney said.

Dr. David Irvine said it looked like the boy had something in his ear when he examined him.When he irrigated the ear, the first spider came out, dead. The other spider took a second dousing before it emerged, still alive. Both were about the size of a pencil eraser.

Jesse was given the spiders -- now both dead -- as a souvenir. He has taken them to school and his mother has taken them to work.

Substitute "Tancredo" for "dead spider" and "McCain" for "living spider" and you know what it was like to listen to the debate. I imagine the Democratic debate was the same, only the spiders probably had 12 babies and made you pay higher taxes to support them.

Thanks Jenny, for your spidey sense.

The Huffington Post

From an Arianna Huffington post/editorial:

There is a major disconnect in the 2008 Democratic race for the White House.

While all the top candidates are vying for the black and Latino vote, they are completely ignoring one of the most pressing issues affecting those constituencies: the failed War on Drugs, a war that has morphed into a war on people of color.

[...]

But what to do about the legion of nonviolent -- predominantly minority -- drug offenders has long been an electrified third-rail in American politics, a subject to be avoided at all costs by our political leaders, who fear being incinerated on contact for being soft on crime.

You might have thought this would change during a spirited Democratic presidential campaign. But a quick search of the top Democratic hopefuls' websites reveals that not one of them -- not Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, not John Edwards, not Joe Biden, not Chris Dodd, not Bill Richardson -- even mentions the drug war, let alone offers any solutions.

I would love it -- if she was right about the politics of the issue, but I'm afraid she isn't. Kudos to her for bringing visibility to the Drug War, and for encouraging the candidates to talk about it, but it seems to me, it's hardly in their political interest to do so. What's to gain? Or who's to gain? Someone like a Kusinich can get out there and make honest, and controversial statements about an issue as polarized as drug policy, but that's only because he running one race. The Democratic primary. The whole point of a guy like that is to bring issues to the table and force the realistic candidates to respond to a few of the typically hot-button ones. Drugs aren't going to be that hot-button issue. Not in this election cycle. Look, you can't even get Hillary to apologize for her vote on Iraq. You think she is going to get out there and talk about an issue (talk about it in any way that would change the situation for the better) like drugs? She would have to be insane to do that. She has a general election to win, and even for the people whom oppressive drug policy harm the most, it isn't on the top of their concerns. Exit polls have shown this. Iraq War, economy, health-care....It's very much the same for latinos and blacks as it is for middle-class whites. That's not to say that violence, police corruption and the whole host of corollaries stemming from the Drug War are not concerns for urban minorities. Of course they are. But do they all see eye-to-eye on what the major causes of those problems are? I'm honestly asking the question, but I'm pretty sure the answer is no. For many of us (I'm thinking your typical TtP reader) it's pretty easy to blame prohibition for most everything. I'm comfortable that I'm right about that. But the urban black community? I don't hear those type denunciations coming out of the city's, black religious leaders consistently (who, at least in Baltimore, put city politicians in power). And why should they? Their community wants to deal with people who murder 16 year old girls like Estefany Gonzalez, and have little patience for the seemingly contrarian argument that drug prohibition causes these deaths, as much as anything is to blame for them.

Counter-point to my argument: I'm reminded of a Democratic and black Mayor of Baltimore, Kurt Schmoke. The guy came out and said similar things that I say everyday in denouncing the Drug War. Toned down of course, but that's kind of my point. Basically he said that we really needed to think about whether the War on Drugs was a good idea (in '88). That it might be the biggest obstacle to creating a safe and prosperous Baltimore. On a local, city level it worked pretty well for him. He won in a landslide the following election, and instituted some actual policy changes. It didn't stick however. The current Democratic star of Maryland politics made his name taking a zero-tolerance, arrest-everyone-you-can approach to Baltimore problems. After serving as mayor, O'Malley is now currently running the state (into the ground most likely) and has rumors of national aspirations swirling around him. This is the guy who made his name arresting street-level dealers, "quality of life" offenders and just about anyone else the city police could fit cuffs on.

I'm not trying to discourage the conversations that need to occur for the needed change to happen. Obama or Edwards do not take their political cues from a blogger named Rob at TtP. I just think a lot more work needs to be done on a local level, changing minds and policy, before national politicians will be brave enough to talk about a subject that desperately needs to be talked about.

Huffington's post here. The National Review editorial -- containing a piece written by Mayor Schmoke -- that as a young kid was instrumental in forming my own opinions on the War Drugs and the changes needed, here.

Update: Reading this over, it struck me that you could take me for suggesting that I would like a Hillary or an Obama to win in '08. Not the case. I was merely looking at the Democratic field. Wanted to add that.

Law & Order

I admit that I'm excited about Fred Thompson entering the presidential race solely because I can't get enough of Law & Order and the show's addicting "dun dun" opening sound. Which is why I love this mock Thompson campaign ad by Slate.

Bonus Slate video: Why is Will Ferrell Funny?

Protest Away

I got a kick out of this:

Heckling protesters briefly delayed the car carrying top White House aide Karl Rove last night as he left the American University campus, where he had just given a speech. No arrests or injuries were reported after Rove's invitation-only talk.

[...]

Josh Goodman, an AU junior, said other students kicked the car "and tried to stop it as best as they could."

[...]

Goodman said students went to the Ward Circle building where Rove spoke to make a "citizen's arrest" of the presidential adviser. He said the students claimed they had compiled evidence indicating that Rove had violated what they say is a presidential records act stipulating that all presidential e-mail be recorded on White House servers

Then, later that night, Goodman and his friends went out to the bars hoping that something just as improbable as their attempted "citizen arrest" would happen: Getting laid.

Full article here.

E.J. Dionne Would Let Hitler Become U.S. President

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne makes a good, but not great, case for electing U.S. presidents by popular vote instead of through the electoral college. Given the rising support among voters and politicians for such a sweeping change to the U.S. Constitution I think it's only a matter of time before it happens. I find this mass ignorance of the difference between majority rule and democracy startling. Democracy is a system of government in which the people rule. All people. Not just 51% of the population. As such, something can be democratic even if it's anti-majoritarian. Like the Bill of Rights. And the electoral college, which serves two functions crucial to protecting both liberty and democracy.

1) The electoral college ensures that presidents at least try to represent all Americans, no matter where they live. Eliminate the electoral college and presidential candidates will skip campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, Kansas, New Mexico, Indiana and pretty much any state with a small population. Once elected, a president would care less about how a particular policy affects people in Nevada, Kentucky, Wyoming, etc. It's the electoral college that makes small states relevant politically. It keeps America democratic. Without it Californians, New Yorkers, and Floridians would rule over the rest of the country, at least when it comes to the presidency. People can cry all they want about how Gore won the majority vote in 2000, but his support was based in only 20% of U.S. counties. Bush won a majority of the vote in 80% of America. Look at this map and decide for yourself who represented most of America.

2) The electoral college is the last line of defense protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If the day ever comes when the American people are so stupid that they vote for a Presidential candidate who pledges to suspend the constitution, put Muslims in concentration camps, and rule by decree - all in order to better fight the war on terror - members of the electoral college could - and should - ignore their votes and elect somebody else. In E.J. Dionne's world view, the majority should be able to elect whoever they want - including Hitler. That's not democracy.

Harold Ford Jr: Idea Man

Inspirational words of hope from the new DLC Chairman Harold Ford Jr. :

"Today we face a host of challenges," Ford said. "And thanks to this administration, we face a political climate in Washington that believes the purpose of politics is to grab and gain and accumulate power, rather than to help Americans do better....

Wait..isn't that the definition of politics? Cause I'm pretty sure it is actually. For all I know, Bush might be the devil incarnate; but I don't think he can take credit for inventing the role of the egotistical, power-hungry politician. Ford doesn't have to look much further than his own family to see that.

Ford laid out his plan to make the country more secure, to guarantee college education in exchange for public service, to make the government accountable and to end poverty for all who work.

Great. Jesus Christ. Let's make college cheaper and give everyone making under $22,000/yr another $10,000 for bread and meat. Can we take away their cellphones and flat-screen TVs first?

"We must not forget what sets America apart as the greatest experiment in human history," he said. "All of us have the same dreams, and every one of us should have the chance to reach them."

Does Harry know my dreams? I doubt it. I really hope not. Because my dreams involve buckets of cum and elephants. And Scarlett Johansson. And perhaps a bowel movement or two. I really can't say any more. They might be watching.

Silly me, I thought the Constitution, freedom and an environment that encouraged entrepreneurship had something to do with America's success. I guess I'll have to go back to the history books.

Full article here. Via The Corner.

UPDATE: This post is playing hide-and-seek as I experience some blogger induced technical problems. Has anyone else had issues with the "Post time and date"?

Don't You Wish Your Elected Official Was Hot Like Me?

Imagine a legislature full of politicians as hot and charming as me. Just a (crack) pipe dream? Not any more.

Finnish voters searching for trustworthy politicians to elect in March polls can now use an Internet Web site to summon up photographs of candidates who resemble themselves.

The Intopii computer firm says its Web site was inspired by studies suggesting people are more likely to trust those with similar features to their own; but it is being offered largely for fun and to demonstrate its software.

Voters can feed their own pictures onto the website http://www.naama.fi furnished with some 800 images of candidates for March parliamentary elections. The software identifies common characteristics and gives closest matches. Candidates include former Miss Universe Pohtamo, and former Miss Europe Riitta Vaisanen.

Better Than Kucinich

You should already know that Ron Paul is in the Republican race. Now read Radley Balko's take on Paul's impact on the race.

Paul's presence in the race is important because he'll put issues on the table that would otherwise be completely ignored. His presence in the primary debates alone will make them far more substantive and interesting than they've been in a generation. One example is the continuing disaster that is the drug war, which Paul rightly believes to be both immoral and unconstitutional. Paul also opposed the war in Iraq from its inception. Those two issues alone will differentiate him from every other candidate on the stage.

Cannabis: So Harmful That it Might Make You Become a Politician

British Conservative Party leader, David Cameron doesn't let a pesky problems such as his past or the facts stand in the way of his political aspirations. Drugs! Easy political points! From the Telegraph

David Cameron is urging the Government to take a harder line on possession and supply of cannabis use despite reports of his own youthful indiscretions with the drug, the Conservative Party said yesterday.

Mr Cameron believes cannabis should be reclassified as a Class B drug – reversing Labour's decision to downgrade it to Class C three years ago.

He believes the downgrading of cannabis sent out the message that it was a soft, safe drug and encouraged consumption. Police are now more likely just to confiscate the drug and give users a warning.

It gets better

Mr Cameron, 40, admitted there were things in his past which he regretted, but insisted politicians were entitled to a "private past".

The Conservative Party's information telephone line took about 20 calls yesterday on the issue. Officials said only one of the callers expressed criticism of the Tory leader.

The other 19, many of them from younger people, were supportive, saying the reports of drug use in his youth had no bearing on his abilities as a politician, and if anything "made him appear more human".
[snip]
However, Mr Cameron believes that cannabis is a "harmful and dangerous drug", and the stronger strains of cannabis now available on the street mean that it should be re-classified

Huh? He is entitled to a "private past" as a privileged politician, while the rest of the public must operate in a society so devoid in privacy rights that they can not even choose what to put in their bodies. That makes sense in a way that makes no sense at all. Party officials also cite the calls of support for Cameron's past drug use, while simultaneously denouncing marijuana as "harmful and dangerous" and calling for tougher measures against the drug. Dizzying.

He might also want to consider what it means for his hopes of the Premiership when voters are using phrases like "appear more human" when talking about him. I would think proving your belonging with mankind should be an early campaign exercise. I'm also not a close follower of British politics, so what do I know.

Via The Corner. Full article here as well as more here.

Boobies in The Workplace

I rarely find myself in a position of opposing work-place breast exposure. It's traditionally one of my stalwart positions. Yes on breasts. But this attitude that the US workplace trails behind the rest of the world in regards to taking care of employee family concerns is scary. Since when did the right to breast feed at work become a right? Or better yet, since when did bringing your kid to work become a right?

The United States lags far behind virtually all wealthy countries with regard to family-oriented workplace policies such as maternity leave, paid sick days and support for breast-feeding, a new study by Harvard and McGill University researchers says

Fortunate for the three TtP readers that have kids (or kids they know about) Washington and state capitals around the nation are hammering out the details on a plan that would fix low unemployment and impressive economic growth.

The Labor Department is examining regulations that give workers unpaid leave to deal with family or medical emergencies — a review that supporters of the rules worry might be a prelude to scaling back these protections, as requested by some business groups. Comments to the agency on the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act — which grants eligible workers up to a total of 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year — are due by Friday.

At the same time, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., plans to announce Thursday that he will propose new legislation that would enable workers to take six weeks of paid family leave. Congress also is expected to reconsider the Healthy Families Act, a bill introduced last session that would require employers with at least 15 employees to provide seven paid sick days per year.

Full article here. Related good news on our economy here. And yes, the only non-drug subjects I blog on are the ones that greet me when I open internet explorer. Deal with it. See anyone else around here today?

Since Nothing About Porn or Vegas is Ever Subtle, Her Motto is Naturally 'Keeping the SIN in Sin City!'

It's official. Former porn star Mimi Miyagi (nee Melody Damayo) filed papers today as part of her effort to become the next mayor of Sin City, running as a Libertarian. Miyagi placed fourth in the state's most recent Republican gubernatorial primary.

According to here Wiki entry, Miyagi was best known as an actress "for her abilities to take well-endowed men during vaginal and anal scenes, as well as for her exceptionally long tongue and enthusiastic fellatio scenes."

Mimi's for legalizing pot and prostitution, and favors lower taxes. I'd vote for her if I could stand to set foot in Vegas -- nevermind live there. Not that the current mayor is all that bad -- he certainly has his moments.

I find it worth noting that if that boozer Mr. Miyagi was still alive, he'd probably sue poor Mimi.

More photos (some NSFW) of Mimi at her blog here.

Thanks to Sean Higgins, who interviewed Mimi for the National Review in July, for the tip.