Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Campaign quick hits

The last two days, as the semester started at DSU, have been chaotic, and the run-up to that has precluded consistent blogging.  Apologies for that.  Now some quick hits:

1.  Paul Krugman discovers that Paul Ryan was influenced by Ayn Rand.  How did he find out this well-guarded secret?  From reading Ryan's speeches, where he talks about it pretty much all the time.  Next week Krugman may discover that the sun rises in the east, but I'm not holding my breath.

2.  Josh Barro at Bloomberg joins a growing list of people attacking Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson as doomed because he's not more like Republicans and Democrats.  This is a good thing, since we've moved beyond the "ignoring" phase into the "attacking" phase, but you have to love the money quote here:
Johnson won two solid victories in his races for governor; in 1998, he took 55 percent of the vote. With a similar agenda at the national level, a Libertarian candidate ought to be able to poll higher than 1 percent. But it would require the Libertarian Party to give up on being more extreme than Republicans and Democrats.
So if only the Libertarians would become less socially conservative to be more like Democrats, and less fiscally conservative to be more like Republicans, people would vote for them because--after all--people are only interested in voting for candidates who, you know, sound like Dems and GOPers.

3.  In Delaware, 32nd Rep District primary candidate Ellis Parrott says you can't just let anybody run for office or participate in debate--especially not Will McVay.  My two favorite quotes:
“He paid the fee as a candidate,” Parrott told the Dover Post. “That doesn’t make him a legitimate candidate. I have no problem debating any legitimate candidate.”

“The problem is, where do you draw the line if you allow a Libertarian to debate? Parrott said. “You have two major parties in this state. Do you allow the other minor parties to debate as well? Nationally, there is the same question."
In other words, your opponent's sensibilities and not the Delaware Department of Elections now decides who is a "legitimate" candidate, and--you know--if you let Libertarians debate real candidates you never know what might happen.

The real laugher, Ellis, is your contention that we have "two major parties" in this State.  In case you hadn't noticed, the GOP is tanking as fast as it can manage, and you guys now consider a good statewide election one you only lose 60%-40%.

4.  And in an excellent piece I read several days ago but neglected to cover, at HuffPo Jonathan Turley makes the case quite convincingly that--as far as civil liberties go--Barack Obama is one of the worst presidents we have ever had in the Oval Office.  Here's just one Secret evidence
The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security -- a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government's actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.


Tyler Nixon said...

"where do you draw the line if you allow a Libertarian to debate?"

Who is this mystical "you" of whom Mr. Whatever-His-Name-Is speaks??

By what authority or legitimacy does this "you" draw line[s] and 'allow' other balloted candidates to participate in debates for elected public offices?

I think Mr. GOP-Stand-In-Spoiler meant to say "we" or "I", not "you".

Let's face it, this control trip mentality is the essential rot that's rife throughout the zombified carcasses of the two dominant/domineering political juntas...err, "major parties" America.

It's all about control, period. That they treat Libertarians or libertarians or any other political participants as threats to be controlled and excluded says all you need to know about them.

Libertarians are a concern....liberty, not so much...vigorous, open political discourse...well, that's just flimshaw, dear boy!

Let the rot continue and emit more such dying gasps...the inevitable is just a matter of time, friends...and their perpetual control and suppression ain't it.

Will McVay said...

^i think i like this guy.

tom said...

So what is Ellis Parrott really trying to say?

kavips said...

Tyler, his name is Parrot and parrots can't speak their own thoughts; they copy sounds they hear others say...

The joke is on Mr. Parrot. He just implied that no one matters, unless they are Republican, his type of course, You have a small group, and everybody else's rights don't matter...

It is telling, what he is quoted as saying. Arrogant is probably the word that should be used....

At least should Mr. Parrot lose, "Talk Like A Pirate Day is only 8 days after the election..."

"Talk Like a Pirate, Brawk.."
"Talk Like A Pirate, Brawk.."

Is anyone in Dover dumb enough to vote someone whose name is Parrot to represent them? Really?

kavips said...

Steve, i wouldn't call that an attack on Johnson... they guy works for Bloomsberg... He is, by definition, myopic.....

But, seriously, you should email Gary Johnson to get up to Maine right now. He could take that state now that Paul's delegates were made to disappear like they were never elected. Capitalize on anti Romney...

Eric Dondero said...

It is wrong to characterize us Libertarians as aligned with Democrats on social issues. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Today it's Republicans who are proposing marijuana legalization from Idaho to Colorado to neighboring Maryland.

Republicans oppose seat belt laws, Democrats love them.

Republicans are for the 2nd Amendment.

Republicans oppose trans fats bans.

Republicans oppose efforts by ninny Bloomberg to outlaw 32-ounce sodas at the WaWa.

Republicans support internet freedom as recently enshrined in the RNC platform.

Democrats want affirmative action. We Libertarians oppose racial quotas.

Democrats want government intervention in marriage, forcing the state to adopt gay marriage laws, and forcing Catholic preists to perform gay marriage ceremonies. We Libertarians oppose force and coercion.

Republicans have even come around on sexual freedom issues. Former strippers are even running as Republicans for congress (Arizona, Florida).

There is virtually no social issue where Libertarians and Democrats agree, unless you count abortion, and half of us Libertarians are pro-life. So, that's out the window.

In short, in today's political world, Republicans agree with virtually all of the social agenda of us Libertarians. But unfortunately, they're not strong enough on economic freedom, only 60 to 70% there. We want to abolish all these government agencies. Republicans want to just hold the line on further growth, with occasional calls for downsizing. (Not good enough! That's why we need the Libertarian Party around to coax Republicans more towards an Abolish! agenda)

tom said...

That's intellectually dishonest Eric, and you damn well know it!

I have no doubt that for each of those statements you can cite 3-5 Republicans for whom it is actually true.

But an examination of voting records would prove that the vast majority of Republicans in Federal, State & Local office are just as anti-liberty as the majority of Democrats in office.
And the Republican party leadership is even worse.

Go back to hating muslims. You are much more believable at that.

kavips said...

I think Eric is on to something here... I think you have two trends of philosophy, that of Democrats and that of Libertarians... The Republicans borrowed from the Libertarians until they have enough democrats they didn't need them anymore... In fact the Libertarians got replaced by Pat Robertson, Jim Baker, Jerry Falwell, and he new Republican party was born in 88....