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