Libertarians for Obama

Closing Things Out

2008-11-09T22:12:00.002-05:00

We've had a good run: nine months, dozens of inbound links, over 100 posts, over 10,000 unique visitors and a mention in The Economist. But it's almost time for me to pack up this blog and move on. I'll leave it up for another week or so, in case anyone has any parting comments/questions/attacks. Consider this an open thread.

Once again, congratulations President-Elect Barack Obama. I look forward to both supporting and opposing you over the next four years.

Congratulations Barack! I Now Enter the Loyal Opposition

2008-11-05T20:29:00.002-05:00

You might think that I'm thrilled that the candidate I've supported so strongly - with my money, my volunteer efforts and many hours of blogging - has now won. I am, of course, but I'm not reveling in my excitement. Not for a minute. I supported Obama because he was the best candidate in the race (the best in the last several races, really). But Obama isn't perfect, and I never thought that he was.

I encourage my fellow libertarians, no matter who they supported, to join me in the following:

Support the libertarian parts of Obama's agenda.
Ending the war, closing Guantanamo Bay and rolling back George Bush's curbs on civil liberties won't be easy. The same Republicans who called Obama a coward or a terrorist during the campaign will redouble their efforts when he starts to wind down the warfare state. He'll need all of the libertarian allies that he can get.

Stand up to him when he backslides.
Obama has made some bold pledges, including his promises to seek out and eliminate wasteful government spending and put caps on farm subsidies. Libertarians who supported him shouldn't let him get away with shying away from these promises.

Push him in a libertarian direction.
On several issues, Obama takes a liberal position that I don't think he passionately believes in. Consider gun control. Obama is in favor of some gun control, but it's never been a central part of his political philosophy. Now that he's done with a campaign in which he's seen the passion of the pro-gun community, maybe he can be convinced to move in our direction. Call me a starry-eyed optimist, but I believe that he's changeable on guns, military aid to Columbia, school vouchers and other issues. Let's help the change candidate do a little position changing.

Fight him on the issues where we disagree.
Obama believes in card check. I don't. I'm going to join with the Republicans on this one and fight him as hard as I can. Same for the Fairness Doctrine (though I doubt Obama will even try to bring that up).

Spread the word to other libertarians.
Obama is not our enemy. He's a smart man who believes in classical liberal values like tolerance, separation of church and state and the rights of the accused. He understands and appreciates the Constitution. Don't throw away a chance at a productive relationship by believing this crap about him being a communist or a dictator in waiting.

Bring libertarians in from the cold.
Bob Barr's candidacy was a complete failure. Same thing for down-ticket libertarians. I still like third parties, and I'm sure I will continue to vote for some third party candidates from time to time. But if anyone wants to make serious political change instead of just registering their dislike for the system they will engage more with a major political party. And I've got news for you, libertarians: The Republican Party is not your natural home. Look at the hatred that Republicans showered on Ron Paul. Watch the post-election fight for the soul of the Republican Party. If the libertarian faction takes over I'll eat my hat. No, the Republicans are descending into a Bible-thumping, war-mongering, xenophobic, populist party of the South. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is now swollen with young, libertarian-minded suburban professionals who've been driven from the Republican Party by Bush, Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin. In other words, the Democratic Party is now ripe for change in a libertarian direction.

So the next stop in my political journey is the Democratic Freedom Caucus, where I hope to work with like-minded libertarian Democrats to advance my ideals. Consider joining me.

Cheney Emerges from his Undisclosed Location to Endorse McCain

2008-11-02T21:16:00.004-05:00

Obama already has an ad mocking the endorsement that you can see here.

And here's Obama's statement:

"I'd like to congratulate Senator McCain on this endorsement because he really earned it. That endorsement didn't come easy. Senator McCain had to vote 90 per cent of the time with George Bush and Dick Cheney to get it. He served as Washington's biggest cheerleader for going to war in Iraq, and supports economic policies that are no different from the last eight years. So Senator McCain worked hard to get Dick Cheney's support."

Election Eve Eve Fun

2008-11-02T19:12:00.000-05:00

Palin as president.

Reason Goes for Obama

2008-11-02T16:01:00.004-05:00

Every presidential election year Reason magazine takes the pulse of the libertarian world - academics, celebrities, Reason editors. Here are this year's results:
Twelve votes for Obama (and two more deciding between Obama and someone else)
Ten for Bob Barr (and four considering Barr)
Ten for none of the above or didn't answer (and three considering that option)
Four for McCain (one possible McCain)
One Ralph Nader

The Obama voters are Ronald Bailey, Bruce Bartlett, David Brin, Tim Cavanaugh, Steve Chapman, Craig Newmark, Steven Pinker, Ryan Sager, John Scalzi, RU Sirius, Doug Stanhope, David Weigel and possibly Peter Bagge and Julian Sanchez.

Here are some of the best answers to Reason's questions:

Who are you voting for in November? Barack Obama, because he most exemplifies Reason and Free Minds (sorry, the country is in no mood for Freer Markets). The contrast between his discernment and eclecticism and the Republican ticket’s impulsiveness and idiot populism is vastly more important than any differences in their adherence to libertarian first principles.
- Steven Pinker, Harvard professor and author

Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000? I could tell that the neocons were mad in 2000 and that their allies were fanatics or thieves. It was blatant in 2004. Those who act shocked (shocked!) and betrayed today were fools then and are likely fools now.
- David Brin, science fiction author

Who did you vote for in 2004 and 2000? Gore in 2000; Kerry in 2004. In 2000 I suspected Bush might have the intellectual depth of a custard; in 2004, sadly, I knew it all too well.
-John Scalzi, science fiction author

What will you miss about the Bush administration? Nothing. Worst president ever. The damage his administration has done to this country is mind-boggling.
- Peter Bagge, Reason contributing editor

What will you miss about the Bush administration? Their perfect purity of purpose. I have looked for a single example of their acting in the best interests of the American people, the republic, or even decent conservatism. There are no examples, whatsoever. Such perfection belies the "Standard Model" that they were merely venal morons. Such uniformity of accomplishment smacks of deliberate intelligence.
- Brin

What will you miss about the Bush administration? The idea that $438 billion is a big budget deficit.
- Jacob Sullum, Reason editor

Is this the most important election in your lifetime? I'm not convinced that many elections in the United States are that important, but the tragicomedy of American life is that we have a generally representative government, which is a damning comment on us.
-Nick Gillespie, editor of Reason Online

Is this the most important election in your lifetime? This election probably is the most important. Obama appears to be against wars of aggression, while McCain is clearly a war-monger. More generally, Obama is clearly deliberative and thoughtful and—while he won't often reach the same conclusions as I or other libertarians would reach—he's preferable to McCain, who relies on "gut feelings" and is as intellectually non-curious as George W. Bush.
- Rob Campia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project

Leaving George W. Bush out of consideration, what former U.S. president would you most like to have waterboarded? None of them. The sooner we stop coming up with lists of people to waterboard, the better.
- Drew Carey, host of The Price is Right

Sarah Palin's Bad Halloween Joke

2008-10-31T18:15:00.002-04:00

It was a joke, right? This governor of an American state - and candidate for federal office - didn't just seriously say that the press is threatening her First Amendment rights by criticizing her? She's talking about the same First Amendment that promises that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..." Is this what a McCain/Palin administration would be like? I don't like all of Barack Obama's positions, but at least he knows what the Constitution says (he was a professor of Constitutional law, after all).

We've Made the Economist

2008-10-27T22:31:00.004-04:00

My favorite weekly magazine usually comes on Saturdays, but this week it was late. So it wasn't until today that I opened up The Economist and read "The Rise of the Obamacons":

"The biggest brigade in the Obamacon army consists of libertarians, furious with Mr. Bush's big-government conservatism, worried about his commitment to an open-ended 'war on terrorism,' and disgusted by his cavalier way with civil rights. There are two competing 'libertarians for Obama' web sites. Cafe Press is even offering a 'libertarian for Obama' lawn sign for $19.95. Larry Hunter, who helped to devise Newt Gingrich's Contract with America in 1994, thinks that Mr. Obama can free America from the grip of the 'zombies' who now run the Republican Party." [My bold, of course]

Here's the other Libertarians for Obama site (my friendly rival, I suppose). He got the better web address (www.libertariansforobama.com) but he hasn't updated his site since June, so I'll take the liberty of considering this site the leading libertarians for Obama destination on the web.

Thanks, The Economist.

Update: The Economist - probably the world's most widely read magazine with libertarian sympathies - has endorsed Obama. From the endorsement: "The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence ... Voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead." Past Economist endorsements: Dole in 1996, Bush in 2000 and this from 2004: "With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd." (Thanks for the tip, Hrafn)

The Next War

2008-10-26T22:38:00.004-04:00

U.S. special forces attacked a village in Syria yesterday, killing eight people.

Here's John McCain's view of Syria. If you don't feel like reading, here's a summary: Syria and Iran are responsible for all of the bad things happening in Iraq right now, and "the answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior."

Cross-Party Endorsements

2008-10-26T20:12:00.006-04:00

Republicans for Obama is a grass-roots effort, but it's a good looking site. It has video, blogs, Republicans for Obama T-shirts and an inspiring quote ("Senator Obama is the one candidate who can unite the American majority that wants to move forward and improve the long-term economic well-being and independence of our nation."). It also has a good list of prominent Republicans who have endorsed Obama. The list includes four former governors, three former congressmen, one sitting congressman, Colin Powell, Francis Fukuyama, Scott McClellan, Christopher Buckley and Ken Adelman.

Contrast this with Wikipedia's list of Democrats who have endorsed John McCain. Other than Joe Lieberman (who doesn't really count, since he is no longer a Democrat), there isn't a single name on the list that I had ever heard before. Wikipedia's editors could only find 14 Democrats for the list, including four state legislators, the former mayor of Concord, N.H. (population 40,000) and the president of a local chapter of the National Organization for Women, one of several bitter Hillary Clinton supporters on the list.

Why are these lists significant? Because McCain's last, desperate campaign strategy is to paint Obama as so far to the left that he'll drag the country toward socialism. But Obama has always been a politician of the center, who has worked with Republicans and respected their opinions. McCain is the one who wants to wrench America towards the fringe. And Obama has the endorsements to prove it.

Who is a Libertarian, Redux

2008-10-22T20:15:00.004-04:00

In the comments section of a recent post, a poster named Brian suggested that I was not a real libertarian, ipso facto, because I support Barack Obama. Brian's definition of a libertarian seemed pretty good to me: "A libertarian is a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty, smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom." Here's why a vote for Obama squares with that:

Upholds the principals of individual liberty: Advantage, Obama. Here are some of the principals of individual liberty which Obama supports and John McCain does not: a ban on torture, gay rights, separation of church and state, privacy and free speech. Obama isn't perfect in this category (he's against gay marriage and has given qualified support to warrantless wiretapping), but I have faith that his heart is in the right place overall.

Wants smaller government: Advantage, Obama. McCain talks a good game on this front. And I certainly appreciate his work against earmarks and other wasteful spending. But, as Bleeding Heartland points out, the cost of earmarks in 2007 was about $17 billion. The cost of the Iraq war, which McCain wants to both continue and expand, is about $165 billion. And earmarks don't breed new government programs that destroy our civil liberties.

Supports lower taxes: Advantage, McCain. Obama wants to lower taxes for everyone making less than $200,000 and raise taxes for those making over $250,000. McCain wants to lower taxes for the rich, and lower them less than Obama for the middle class. A hybrid plan would be nice, but if these are the only two choices, McCain's is better from a libertarian perspective (even though it's worse for me personally). But beware: One of McCain's top advisers recently said that, if elected, McCain plans to raise taxes too.

Wants more personal freedom: Advantage, Obama. Only one major candidate is pro-choice, against a ban on flag burning and wants to soften drug laws and reduce the use of mandatory minimum sentences.

Shocker: Al Qaida Hates Peace and Loves War

2008-10-22T20:13:00.002-04:00

Why else would they be supporting John McCain?

The State Sponsors of Terrorism List is a Joke

2008-10-19T20:21:00.003-04:00

More silliness from George Bush's war on terrorism this past week: Bush has removed North Korea from the State Department's State Sponsors of Terrorism list. Being on the list activates a number of sanctions, including prohibitions against U.S. citizens doing business with the target country.

Now, North Korea is clearly an unpredictable, insane, evil place that's armed to the teeth. But state sponsor of terrorism? What terrorism was North Korea sponsoring? And what did it do to get off the list?

As the Council on Foreign Relations notes: "North Korea has not been associated with any acts of terrorism since 1987, when it was linked to the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight."

Oh, so it just took a while for them to prove that they're no longer sponsoring terrorism, right? Wrong. North Korea was removed from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list because it stopped reprocessing nuclear fuel. But what does that have to do with sponsoring terrorism? Nothing.

It turns out that the State Sponsors of Terrorism list has nothing to do with terrorism.

Now that North Korea is off the list, it contains only four countries: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria.

Cuba??? Again, awful government. But terrorism sponsor?

Even though Cuba hasn't actually sponsored any terrorist acts since the fall of the USSR in 1992, the State Department justifies its inclusion because "Cuba continued to publicly oppose the U.S.-led Coalition prosecuting the War on Terror. To U.S. knowledge, Cuba did not attempt to track, block, or seize terrorist assets."

So a country gets on the list because it isn't sufficiently enthusiastic about Bush's war on terrorism? Even if it hasn't sponsored any terrorism itself? What terrorist assets does the U.S. seriously expect Cuba to track, block or seize, anyway? The Al Qaida training camps in Havana?

So if Cuba is one of the world's four biggest state sponsors of terrorism, who didn't make the list? Afghanistan, for one. That's right - the country that sheltered Osama bin Laden for years has never been considered a state sponsor of terrorism, not even during Al Qaida's heyday in the 1990s.

Also not on the list: Venezuela and Colombia, which sponsor left-wing and right-wing (respectively) paramilitaries fighting in Colombia's civil war. And Russia, which supports paramilitary thugs in Chechnya, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Of course Saudi Arabia and Pakistan never made the list, even though each of them have supported Al Qaida far more than all of the four countries on the list combined.

But Cuba made the list because it isn't sufficiently supportive of the effort to catch bin Laden. And North Korea gets removed not because it stopped sponsoring terrorism 21 years ago, but because of a nuclear deal that has nothing to do with terrorism.

Iraq used to be on the list too because, under Saddam Hussein, it sheltered the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, a group fighting to overthrow the government of Iran (something the U.S. has also tried to do). The State Department removed Iraq from the list in 2003, after the U.S. invasion. The only problem? The Mujahedin-e-Khalq is still in Iraq, still fighting to overthrow the government of Iran. Wikipedia has a good history of the organization. Iraq was also temporarily removed from the list between 1982 and 1990 so that the U.S. could sell it weapons to use in its war against Iran. (Remember this?)

I'm not enough of a libertarian purist to say that the government shouldn't impose sanctions against countries that have sponsored terrorism against us. But if there's going to be a State Sponsors of Terrorism list, shouldn't it, you know, be composed only of countries that have sponsored terrorism recently? Let's hope that this is just more of the same war on terrorism foolishness that Barack Obama will put an end to in a few months.

The Only Flag in Palin's Office?

2008-10-19T19:49:00.000-04:00

"The only flag at my office is an Israeli flag," Sarah Palin told Israeli President Shimon Perez, according to the (now-defunct) New York Sun. "I want you to know and I want Israelis to know that I am a friend."

Remember all the fuss about Barack Obama not wearing a flag pin? Seems a bit silly compared to the governor of an American state having a foreign flag in her office instead of an American flag. Even if Palin misspoke and she meant that the Israeli flag is the only foreign flag in her office, what is she doing with foreign flags in her office? And if she's going to start putting up foreign flags, is she seriously saying that Israel (a country she has never visited) is more important to Alaska than Canada, where she wants to build a giant natural gas pipeline? Or Russia, a country from which Palin claimed to receive trade missions, but apparently never did?

Maybe her support for Israel has something to do with her church's view that terrorist attacks against Israel are a good thing, because they are the beginning of the final battle between good and evil that will result in the slaughter of the Jews and the return of Jesus.

(Via Andrew Sullivan)

Bruce Ramsey and More Libertarians Supporting Obama

2008-10-14T21:20:00.004-04:00

Every year, Liberty magazine prints several endorsements, one for each candidate that libertarians might be interested in voting for. This year there are endorsements for John McCain ("I don’t like him. Actually, I detest him," but he'll lower taxes, argues Stephen Cox), Bob Barr and None of the Above (No endorsement for Chuck Baldwin. Go figure.).

Bruce Ramsey wrote the Barack Obama endorsement. Here's an excerpt:

"McCain was for starting a war with Iraq. Obama was against it. When the occupation went bad, Obama talked about taking soldiers out. McCain talked about bringing them in. McCain, having been a prisoner, was sensitive to the issue of torture, and that is to his credit. But a vote for McCain is a validation of Bush on war and the other things, financial, legal, and cultural, that come with war. And on this issue, McCain is worse than Bush. Military service has defined McCain’s heritage and his life. His moral touchstone is honor. He’s got war written all over him.

"That is why some libertarians will cast their vote this year for the nominee of a party that libertarians do not usually support."

Read the whole thing at Liberty Unbound. What was interesting to me about the endorsement was all of the references that Ramsey made to other libertarians who have written in favor of Obama. I knew about Camile Paglia, Scott Flanders and David Friedman.

But Ramsey also points out that libertarian blogger Megan McArdle has said she'll "probably vote for Obama." And he goes the extra step of calling up Brink Lindsey and Gene Healy, who both tepidly support Obama (at least to the extent that he is better than McCain and the other options).

Lindsey: "My sense of fundamental democratic accountability says that when the party in power messes up royally, it should be thrown out on its ear. For Republicans to be rewarded with another term in the White House after eight years of Bush seems really wrong to me."

I'm adding McArdle and Healy to my blogroll. Unfortunately, Lindsey's blog hasn't been updated for almost a year, when he had this interesting post about why he doesn't support Ron Paul.

Wayne Allyn Root and Sarah Palin

2008-10-12T22:34:00.001-04:00

Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root continues to embarrass himself by fluffing Sarah Palin - supposedly his opponent - most recently in a Pacifica Radio interview. I listened to the 8 minute interview so you don't have to. The highlights:

Root describes Palin as "a female actress portraying me."
He brags about never having held any elective office, and how this qualifies him to be vice president.
He blames the economic crisis on "community activist groups." Please, Wayne, name names.
He claims that Barack Obama has been in government his whole life. I guess he's forgetting about his community organizing years. And his time as a constitutional lawyer. And the constitutional law professor days.
But that experience doesn't count, I guess, because according to Root "The enemy of this country is lawyers."

If that's not enough Root silliness for you, on his blog Root claims that Palin won the vice presidential debate, despite overwhelming voter sentiment to the contrary. Why does Root think that his favorite vice presidential candidate cleaned up?

"Palin lacks the U.S. Senate pedigree, law degree, or the D.C. Beltway credentials of Biden, but she has Reaganesque-like (sic) charm, charisma and middle American values. She also has something that even a brash New Yorker like me appreciates- CHUTZPAH. Sarah, in an “aw shucks” kind of way, is more confident of a speaker and debater than any 5-term United States Senator. Like Reagan, she knows how to connect to her audience- soccer moms and NASCAR dads (or as she calls them “Joe Six Pack”)."

I'll just let that speak for itself.

But since we're on the subject of Palin's popularity, check out this video of hockey fans in Pennsylvania booing her mercilessly.

Libertarian Obama Gear

2008-10-06T23:08:00.002-04:00

Check out the new page art: the new "libertarians for Obama" yard sign that the campaign created. For a mere $41.99 (ugh) you can order one here and have it up in your yard by election day (via Carrie Tomko). Even with the high price, I have a feeling that these are selling a lot better than the official "African Americans for McCain" T-shirts.

Democratic Stuff sells all sorts of Obama T-shirts and buttons, including "Bee Keepers for Obama," "Beer Brewers for Obama" and "Moustaches for Obama." Much better than these racist anti-Obama buttons from the Republican Party of Texas.

Here's an email I wrote to Democratic Stuff a few weeks ago. I'm still waiting for a response.

To Whom It May Concern:

I have been a Barack Obama supporter for over a year now, but only today did I discover your site. I'm already a big fan, and I am considering purchasing either a Vegetarians for Obama or Oil Tycoons for Obama button (or possibly Hipsters for Obama, but I'm not sure if I qualify). What I really want, though, is a Libertarians for Obama button, which I did not see on your site. You may not be aware that, according to polling firm Rasmussen, four percent of Americans are libertarians (believers in limited government and personal freedom) and this group supports Barack Obama over John McCain, 53% to 38% (source: http://libertarianobama.blogspot.com/2008/07/libertarians-prefer-obama.html). I'm sure that I'm not the only libertarian who would love to demonstrate his support for Obama with a button. A Statue of Liberty image would be appropriate, but a Liberty Bell, picture of Thomas Jefferson or "Don't Tread on Me" picture would also be a good fit. Please let me know what you think of my proposal.

-Mark
Libertarian for Obama

P.S. If you start selling Libertarians for Obama buttons, I would be happy to include a link from my Libertarians for Obama blog (libertarianobama.blogspot.com).

From the Comments

2008-10-05T22:02:00.003-04:00

I get a lot of great comments on this blog, and usually I try to answer them in the comments sectoin. But since I've been out of town recently, I thought I'd post a few of the good ones here.

- "Laughing Libertarian" points out that conservative writer Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley and author of Thank You for Smoking, says he is likely to vote for Barack Obama. Buckley said that his main reason for supporting Obama was John McCain's similarity to George W. Bush.
- Pam Pescosolido, past chair of the Tulare County (Calif.) Libertarian Party posted a letter she has written explaining her endorsement of Obama. While Libertarian Republican blogger Eric Dondero claims that libertarians will rally to McCain because of his "libertarian" vice presidential pick, Pescosolido disagrees. "Palin believes that the Bible is the literal word of God; that creationism is “the truth” and evolution just some cockamamie scam; and she would be willing to try to force that belief onto everyone else through whatever means," Pescosolido writes. Full letter here.
- An anonymous commenter claims that "Obama would be the most anti-gun President of all time." I've heard this line before, but I'm not sure where the idea comes from. Obama isn't as solid on guns as I'd like him to be, but he's one of the few nationally prominent Democrats to assert that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. He's said that he doesn't want to license or register handguns - and he certainly doesn't want to take them away. Obama does support gun ownership restrictions such as requiring manufacturers to include child safety locks with guns, but this is pretty mainstream stuff. For more on Obama's positions on guns, check out this independent watchdog site.

This past week I've been on vacation in North Carolina. A week ago, I didn't really believe all of the poll numbers showing that Obama has pulled even in the Tar Heel State. But judging by the number of Obama yard signs and bumper stickers that I saw down there, I'm no longer quite so sure that North Carolina is out of reach.

P.S. - Keep the correspondence coming. If you don't want to leave a comment, email me at libertariansforobama@gmail.com.

Countries John McCain Doesn't Like

2008-09-25T20:09:00.003-04:00

In alphabetical order:
Bolivia - McCain won't talk to Bolivia's president, calls him "very similar" to Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro, leaders McCain has repeatedly vilified.
Cuba - Unlike in 2000, the John McCain of 2008 wants to strengthen the embargo on Cuba. Barack Obama wants to ease it.
Iran - "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"
Lebanon - McCain says he will "drive Hezbollah out of Lebanon." Hezbollah is part of the democratically-elected government of Lebanon.
Myanmar - McCain wants more sanctions.
North Korea - McCain thinks George W. Bush is too soft on North Korea.
Palestine - McCain co-sponsored a bill to take a harder line on the Palestinians.
Russia - Russia deserves "harsh treatment," McCain says.
Spain - McCain would not meet with the president of Spain, a member of the NATO alliance, because he opposed the Iraq war.
Sudan - McCain wants to invade.
Syria - McCain blames Syria for the violence in Iraq, wants to depose its leader and urges Israel not to make peace with Syria.
Uzbekistan - McCain wants sanctions.
Venezuela - McCain wants to isolate Venezuela, and calls Venezuelans "wackos."
Zimbabwe - McCain wants sanctions.

The Welfare State of Alaska

2008-09-23T19:59:00.002-04:00

A letter in this week's issue of the Economist dovetails nicely with my thinking about Sarah Palin's experience as mayor of Wasilla. The letter:

SIR – Alaska is very different from the rest of the United States, and this difference affects the fitness of Mrs Palin to be vice-president. Fundamentally, Alaska is a pre-modern welfare state, where the economy is almost purely extractive (with the exception of defense and tourism). If you don’t kill it, dig it or cut it down you don’t get it. From that perspective “bridges to nowhere” are simply further extractions, or tokens for transfer payments from the rest of us, as are the annual payments to residents from North Slope oil revenues.

Not surprisingly Alaska is largely an innovation-free zone. It is also the only world that Mrs Palin has known. Along with her chronological and career inexperience this background renders her unprepared to lead the country.

Michael Golay
Professor of nuclear science and engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts

[When Golay says that Alaska is "the only world that Mrs. Palin has known" he is, of course, leaving out the six-or-so years that Palin spent getting her BA at four different colleges in Hawaii and Idaho]

Palin Spokesman has an Unguarded Moment

2008-09-22T19:30:00.005-04:00

Ben Porritt, a spokesman for Sarah Palin, told a group of college students at his alma mater over the weekend that he didn't think that it was a big deal that Barack Obama used the phrase "lipstick on a pig" when comparing the policies of John McCain and George W. Bush. He "felt Obama was just using an expression," according to a story in the Peoria Journal Star. But then he told the rest of the Palin media team about Obama's comment, and they "flipped out," he said, flogging it for days. Somehow I doubt this guy has a bright future in media relations.

Obama Promises to Cut Federal Spending

2008-09-22T19:19:00.003-04:00

"I am not a Democrat who believes that we can or should defend every government program just because it's there," Barack Obama said today at a rally in Green Bay, according to the Associated Press.

These words aren't, by themselves, a big deal. Democrats have been extolling the virtues of small government and the free market for years, just as Republicans like to talk about how much they respect personal freedom. But nice words don't mean much when they're contradicted - as soon as the election is over - by big spending Democrats and Big Brother Republicans.

But Obama didn't just offer words today. He spelled out specific federal expenditures that he plans to cut, including cutting $40 billion in spending on contractors. I don't remember John Kerry or Al Gore ever doing that.

Former National Review Publisher Wick Allison Endorses Obama

2008-09-17T20:21:00.008-04:00

Wick Allison, current editor-in-chief of D (Dallas) Magazine (via Daily Kos):

In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board of National Review. I later became its publisher [...]

[T]oday it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth ...

I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American national interests are directly threatened.

“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause, conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.
[Read Allison's whole endorsement to find out why he thinks Obama has conservative "instincts and predispositions."]

Happy Constitution Day

2008-09-17T20:21:00.004-04:00

That's right, 221 years ago today the Founding Fathers ratified the U.S. Constitution. So I think today's a pretty good day to share my three favorite passages from the Constitution (not counting the Bill of Rights. That wasn't ratified until Dec. 15 - Bill of Rights Day).

"The Congress shall have Power To ... declare War"

The Constitution doesn't have anything to say about vague Congressional use-of-force resolutions that leave all of the war decisions in the hands of the president.

"... no Appropriation of Money to that Use (to raise and support Armies) shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

The implication here is that the Framers didn't intend for the federal government to maintain a permanent standing army. By contrast, there is a specific provision for the creation of a standing navy. Navies and state militias are useful for repelling invasions. Armies are better suited for invading other counties or putting down domestic opposition.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Last I checked, the United States hasn't been invaded or had a rebellion lately (9-11 was an attack, not an invasion). So why no habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo prisoners?

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States"

The president isn't the "commander in chief." The president is the "commander in chief of the army and navy." Big difference. Can we please stop using the title "commander in chief" without the "army and navy" qualifier? The president commands the military, not every aspect of the country. The presidency isn't a democratically elected dictatorship, it's a job with specific responsibilities. And no, those responsibilities aren't whatever the president says they are.

Who is a Libertarian?

2008-09-16T21:10:00.002-04:00

Here are some recent quotes from the comments section:

"IF they are Obamatards, and think they are libertarians, they have no clue what a libertarian really is."

"I'm sorry, but anyone who supports Barack Obama cannot be a true libertarian."

"Any Libertarian voting for Obama is not very Libertarian or hasn't looked closely enough at him."

These commenters raise an interesting question: What does it mean to be a "real" or "true" libertarian? What's a good comprehensive definition of "libertarian?" Can one meet this definition and also support Barack Obama? Are there any specific policy positions that, by themselves, disqualify one from being a libertarian?

Merriam-Webster defines "libertarian" as:
1. An advocate of the doctrine of free will.
2a A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
2b A member of a political party advocating libertarian principles.

Definitions 1 and 2a are pretty vague and all inclusive. 2b doesn't really apply to what I'm talking about.

My personal definition would be: A person who opposes war and tyranny and wants less government, an economy based on the principals of the free market, personal freedom and civil liberties. I think that Obama meets this definition (though I don't call him a libertarian). I know that many of my readers disagree.

I've also seen various people call themselves libertarians while supporting either aggressive war, detention without trial, a crackdown on immigrants, the war on drugs or high tariffs.

So who gets to claim the label? Or is it un-libertarian to try to be so exclusive?

Top McCain Advisor Says His Candidate Will Raise Taxes

2008-09-12T20:53:00.004-04:00

Time has the story. If this is true - and I don't doubt it, since no Republican president in recent memory has actually cut spending - what do the libertarians supporting McCain have left? Since Obama clinched the nomination, it's been an endless chorus of "Obama will raise taxes! Obama will raise taxes!! Obama will raise taxes!!!" He probably will (by a modest amount), but if McCain will do the same, just like George H.W. Bush did, what do small government types still see in McCain? Do they actually believe the small government rhetoric? "This time, the Republican will be different. This time, the Republican's small government promises are for real. This time ..."

Update: Alan Greenspan's not a fan of McCain's tax plan. And, as Don the Libertarian Democrat points out, the Tax Policy Center refutes the myth that Obama will raise taxes across the board, and McCain will balance the budget.

Freedom Democrats: What a McCain Victory Means

2008-09-12T20:45:00.004-04:00

"Given that the 'Bush Dog' capitulations are consistently on issues of foreign policy and civil liberties, a Republican Presidency with a working conservative majority in the Congress is an abysmal prospect for libertarians, regardless of ultimate partisan affiliation. Despite Barack Obama's own dismal stance on FISA, I view an Obama Administration as less likely to push for a continued imperial foreign policy and statist War on the Bill of Rights. He may well capitulate to Congress on these issues, but I think he's unlikely to actively push such legislation."

Read the rest of this excellent post - and its follow up - at Freedom Democrats.

The Libertarian Party of Alaska on Sarah Palin

2008-09-11T21:33:00.004-04:00

Eric Dondero - a blogger and self-described "strong on defense libertarian" - raised an interesting point in the comments section of my "Welfare State of Wasilla" post from earlier this week. How can I claim that Sarah Palin isn't a libertarian, he asked, when the Libertarian Party of Alaska endorsed her in 2006? My simple answer is that I certainly don't take political positions because the Libertarian Party tells me to. But his question did get me wondering: How can the party of small government endorse a woman who's spent most of her career fighting for more federal pork?

I couldn't find an answer online, so I called some of the phone numbers listed on the contacts section of the Alaska LP web site. I reached party Secretary Rob Clift on the phone and asked him if I could ask a few questions for the blog. He was happy to talk.

First of all, Clift wanted to make clear that the Alaska LP did not endorse Palin. They said that they liked her, as did LP gubernatorial candidate Billy Toien, but there was never an official endorsement. Clift also said that the state party won't endorse the McCain/Palin ticket, though he might vote for them.

But why? For one thing, Palin's always been friendly to the party, Clift said, speaking at a few of their meetings and asking for their support. He also said that he sees her as a straight shooter, who doesn't try to hide her disagreement with libertarians on drugs, abortion and other social issues.

But what about the elephant in the room: her love of federal pork? On this point Clift was a bit apologetic, but not really phased.

"There's definitely a lot of federal money coming in here," he said. But the federal government is taking advantage of the state in numerous ways, such as controlling many acres of its land and restricting its shipping. "So you can see why we might like to get some of those earmarks. Get our money back."

Palin is, by Alaska's standards, not a big pork barrel spender, he said. Plenty of Alaska Libertarians support her, he added, and aren't bothered by the pork.

But what would she do about big spending as a federal politician? Clift said he didn't know.

Rappers for Obama, Redux

2008-09-10T22:02:00.002-04:00

This has nothing to do with libertarians, but it's still fun: Puerto Rican reggaeton stars Daddy Yankee and Fat Joe are feuding because Daddy has come out for John McCain, while Fat Joe calls him "ignorant" and a "sell out." Fat Joe - who supports Barack Obama - has even offered to debate Daddy Yankee on the issues. No response from Daddy yet, but I'll bring you an update as soon as I have one.

Here's my original "Rappers for Obama" post.

And here's a great reggaeton Obama video:

Libertarians for Obama in the News

2008-09-10T21:11:00.002-04:00

Alex Tabarrok makes the case at Marginal Revolution.

"With war has come FEAR, magnified many times over by the governing party. Fear is pulling Americans into the arms of the state. If only we were better at resisting. Alas, we Americans say that we love liberty but we are fair-weather lovers. Liberty will flourish only with peace."

Co-blogger Tyler Cowen agrees.

"In my view the current priority is avoiding a war with Iran," he writes in the comments of Tabarrok's post.

Even the New York Times acknowledges the libertarian movement toward Obama with a post on its Opinionator blog.

The Welfare State of Wasilla

2008-09-08T22:09:00.007-04:00

FiveThirtyEight.com has a graphical representation of "maverick," "reformer" Sarah Palin's home town of Wasilla, which receives 30 times as much federal pork per person as Boise. The rest of Nate Silver's post suggesting a new ad strategy for Obama is also worth reading.

What's Wrong with Being a Community Organizer?

2008-09-07T22:29:00.003-04:00

Sarah Palin's been getting plenty of mileage this week out of her joke that being a mayor is "sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities." Michelle Malkin says that community organizers deserve ridicule because Obama was a "rabble rouser" who used "bully tactics," like bringing dozens of angry residents to a city planning meeting to oppose a landfill.

Call me a pinko, but I personally prefer a candidate who spent the youthful idealism phase of his life trying to solve public policy problems by joining a non-profit and organizing voluntary actions, rather than getting into traditional politics. Or being a TV sports reporter in Anchorage.

If you're curious to know what community organizers actually do, Joe Klein explains.

Palin's Pork

2008-09-06T23:13:00.003-04:00

Some libertarian blogs are going gaga over Sarah Palin this week. The reason for their excitement: Palin's supposed hatred for pork. I don't know where this rumor got started, but it's got to stop.

As mayor of Wasilla, Palin paid the lobbying firm Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh nearly $100,000 to get federal earmarks for the town. The firm succeeded, to the tune of $27 million - or about $5,000 for every resident of the town at the time (check out Palin's handwritten comments in the picture to the left). The earmarks included $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project linking Wasilla and the ski resort community of Girdwood. As the Anchorage Press notes, "This is a town where about 500 people turn out to vote, where the city pays for the mayor’s car and a tiny government runs a $15 million hockey barn/sports arena." She also supported the $200 million "bridge to nowhere," though she now claims she opposed it (check out this picture).

So the next time you hear Sarah Palin bragging that she both cut taxes and improved services in Wasilla, ask yourself who might have paid for that. Then ask yourself if you believe her when she says that "I have championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress."

Update: "I am not denying that Sarah Palin may have great skills. She may well. I am insisting that neither you, nor I, nor John McCain has any valid reason to believe that she does. This is not an argument about the attributes she lacks. It's an argument about the information we lack. I am pleading with my fellow conservatives: Please demand more and better knowledge before you commit yourselves to a political leader. That's all." - former Bush speech writer David Frum (via PoliticalWire)

Update II: Not only did Palin support the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, but even after she started opposing it, she didn't oppose it quite enough to send the money back to Washington. Alaska kept the $200 million and spent it on other pork barrel projects.

Update III: "John McCain and Sarah Palin criticized Democrat Barack Obama over the amount of money he has requested for his home state of Illinois, even though Alaska under Palin's leadership has asked Washington for 10 times more money per citizen for pet projects." - The Associated Press, via TalkingPointsMemo.

Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin

2008-09-06T10:13:00.005-04:00

Next week Congressman Ron Paul will hold a joint news conference with presidential candidates Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin at the National Press Club. Now, readers of this blog know my feelings about Barr, but I can certainly understand why Paul might want to help him out. But Baldwin? This guy's a theocrat through and through. His party, the Constitution Party, is an explicitly Christian party that wants the United States to be governed by biblical law. Ron Paul the libertarian wants to support this?

According to its party platform, the Constitution Party:
- Would ban gambling.
- Would ban pornography ("government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards")
- Proposes a complete moratorium on all immigration, describing immigrants (legal and illegal) as "people with low standards of living."
- Wants to deploy the military within the United States to stop immigration.
- Plans to persecute gays ("We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior.")
- Will continue the war on drugs that Paul has fought so hard against.
- Wants to repeal the Voting Rights Act (which allowed the federal government to force states to uphold their constitutional responsibility to allow all of their citizens to vote)
- Supports high taxes on imports to keep out goods made overseas.
- Opposes "efforts to confer statehood upon the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or expand statehood beyond the current fifty states." Now that's just weird. Puerto Rican statehood hasn't been much of an issue in this election, but why wouldn't the Constitution Party want Puerto Ricans to pay federal taxes (so long as the rest of us do)? Even if the motivation is hatred of brown people, Puerto Ricans are already U.S. citizens and can travel or move to any state without a visa.

Update: The Constitution Party of Montana will not put Baldwin's name on the ballot there, instead choosing ... Ron Paul. So what happens if Paul endorses Baldwin? Very odd indeed.

Things I Never Thought I'd Hear Republicans Cheer at their Convention

2008-09-04T21:52:00.003-04:00

10:28 - John McCain saying he "fought tobacco companies ... and drug companies"
10:31 - A sob story - with no apparent point or relevance - about a family with a special-needs child.
10:38 - Increased government spending for the unemployed.
10:42 - More government spending on energy projects, including environmentally-friendly energy.
10:44 - "Restoring the health of our planet."
11:01 - John McCain

David Weigel is Wrong on Democrats and Guns

2008-08-31T11:47:00.005-04:00

David Weigel had an article in Reason.com the other day lamenting the demise of the libertarian Democrat. As his evidence, Weigel points out that Brian Schweitzer, the Democratic governor of Montana, gave a speech at the Democratic convention Tuesday that didn't mention Schweitzer's strong pro-gun positions. But why should he? Everyone knows that Schweitzer is pro-gun. He's also pro choice, anti war, against the Real ID Act and the Patriot Act and he's trying to lower taxes in Montana.

I saw Schweitzer's silence on guns not as a muzzling but an acknowledgment that the Democratic Party is softening its stance on the issue. Take a look at the convention schedule. In addition to Schweitzer, strongly pro-gun Democrats Bob Casey and Bill Richardson also got prime time speaking spots. Kathleen Sebelius, who's pretty good on guns, spoke just a few hours before Schweitzer on Tuesday.

It's too bad that Barack Obama didn't pick any of these pro-gun Democrats as his running mate. I think any of them could have helped him immensely in the Mountain West. But I think the Democratic Party is beginning to turn the corner on guns. Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry all made stricter gun control a prominent part of their campaigns. Not so for Obama. He rarely speaks about guns, and when he does, it's usually to reassure gun owners that he doesn't support gun bans.

Of course, die hard gun banners do still find a place in the Democratic Party. But Democrats are also finding room for people like Travis Childers, the pro-gun Democratic Congressman form Mississippi. Even Obama, who supports local restrictions on guns, spoke out earlier this year about how the Second Amendment is an individual right. This is a huge change for a Democrat. Libertarians like Weigel might be disappointed that Obama and the Democrats aren't as pro-gun as they are, but they should acknowledge how far the American left has moved on this issue in such a short time.

"Republicans Lie": Another Libertarian's Take on Obama

2008-08-26T20:19:00.004-04:00

Today I ran across this post that a blogger named lesowijs made back in February. Since it sums up many of my thoughts on Barack Obama and this election so much more eloquently than I could, I hope lesowijs doesn't mind that I'm going to repost it in its entirety.

"The hostility I see from the more right-leaning libertarians towards Obama is bewildering. I can understand that you disagree with virtually all of his positions - so do I - but there are two things to consider here:

"1. Republicans lie. They don’t care about small government. It’s time to face the facts and realize that Reagan was both an anomaly and not as libertarian as the paleo-libs who eulogize him today claim. Despite the rhetoric, we’ve been let down by every single Republican presidential nominee since Goldwater. John McCain stands for the continuation of virtually every un-libertarian policy Bush has pushed forward in the last eight years. The fact that anyone who claims to be a libertarian could even consider voting for him is astonishing.

"2. Libertarians need to examine this country and determine what the biggest threats to liberty in America are right now. The biggest threat to liberty is clearly the War on Terrorism. The second biggest threat is the War on Drugs. McCain and the Republicans stand for an even further increase in efforts toward both.

"Obama isn’t perfect, but he’ll do better on those two massive issues than any Republican besides Ron Paul would. Libertarians need to stop pretending that if we lower taxes enough everything else will turn out okay. It’s becoming increasingly clear that economic freedom will not lead to social freedom, in the country and in the Republican party - the most economically free states are frequently the most socially oppressive. On the other hand, it seems much more likely to me that modern liberals could be swayed towards the free market, once the realities of economics become apparent to them.

"Thus I suggest that the Democratic Party is a more natural ally for libertarians right now than the Republican Party, barring some sort of massive sea change within its ranks. Let the paleo-libertarians do what they want; they are more concerned with fantasizing about some ideal conservative libertarian society than actually promoting freedom the best they can. It seems clear to me that an America under Barack Obama or perhaps even Hillary Clinton will be far more free than an America under John McCain."

Wayne Allyn Root's Foreign Policy

2008-08-25T22:47:00.003-04:00

The web site Jewish Exponent has an article about Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate - and never-ending embarrassment to the party - Wayne Allyn Root. This is amusing because the site talks about Root's Jewish roots and Jewish upbringing, but never mentions that Root has since converted to evangelical Christianity, and now calls himself a "completed Jew" (I'm sure Jewish people love the implication that their faith is incomplete). But the Jewish Exponent article is still worth reading, since it sheds some light on Root's foreign policy beliefs.

On Iraq, Root says he supported the troop surge. On other occasions, he has said that he doesn't want the Iraq war to end.

On Afghanistan, he wants to "do the same thing," with a troop surge there, too.

On Israel, Root calls himself "as pro-Israel as any human being in the world can possibly be," and says that the U.S. should strengthen its alliance with Israel. "You don't abandon your friends."

On Mexico, Root wants to deploy the U.S. military to the border so that it can shoot at people who want to come and work in menial jobs in this country.

Bonus Root foreign policy position: On France, Root told an interviewer two months ago that "I usually hate France." Why, because the French didn't support this disastrous war?

Tell me again, why did this guy leave the Republican Party?

Does Joe Biden Still Plan on Breaking up Iraq?

2008-08-25T22:17:00.004-04:00

Before he became Barack Obama's running mate, Joe Biden stuck out in my mind for only two things:
- His great quote about every sentence Rudy Giuliani spoke consisting of "a noun, a verb and 9-11."
- His monumentally stupid plan to partition Iraq into three autonomous regions.

Now, I'm sure that the Obama-Biden ticket's foreign policy will be Barack Obama's foreign policy: Diplomacy, peace and trade. But what if something happens to Obama (like the assassination plot uncovered today)? Would a president Biden still try to "solve" the mess we've created in Iraq by - against the wishes of most Iraqis - carving up the country? I think a lot of war opponents will be able to forgive Biden for his vote for the war, since he has come to renounce it. But when will he renounce his three Iraqs plan, and get on board with Obama's promise to end the war in 16 months?

Does John McCain Want a Draft?

2008-08-21T22:51:00.004-04:00

At the end of this woman's very long question/comment, she tells John McCain that the U.S. should reinstate the draft. His response: "Ma'am, let me say that I don't disagree with anything you said."

Now, if McCain just mis-heard or mis-spoke or wasn't paying attention, fine. I'll give him a pass. But if he doesn't really want to impose a draft, then he'd better set the record straight right quick. Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic says that in context, McCain wasn't advocating a draft at all, but agreeing with other parts of the woman's question. He's probably right, but I can't find any sort of McCain retraction or clarification online. And with McCain's bellicose words toward Russia this week - saying the country deserves "harsh treatment" - I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. If McCain is serious about getting into a military confrontation with Russia, then a draft probably wouldn't be out of the question.

Ron Paul Supporters Like Obama

2008-08-20T21:24:00.004-04:00

Forget about the haters - the libertarians who call Barack Obama a Marxist, or start websites telling Ron Paul supporters that they'd better line up behind John McCain. Plenty of libertarians, it turns out, support Obama. More evidence from today: an Associated Press story about how supporters of Paul and Mick Huckabee plan on voting in November.

Some stats from the story:
- In June, 18 percent of people who had visited Paul's web site before John McCain clinched the nomination read at least one major conservative blog while 22 percent read at least one major liberal blog. Could it be because liberal bloggers tend to agree with Paul on the issue most important to him, reining in the American empire?
- Six percent of these people went to McCain's web site and 8 percent to Obama's. Could it be because Obama agrees with Paul on both the war and Paul's second favorite issue, sound money?
- These small numbers aren't just noise. The same data show Huckabee's supporters going strongly for McCain.

Ron Paul has asked his supporters not to vote for him. I would bet that at least a few of them will be pulling the lever for Obama in November.

Chuck Baldwin on Immigration

2008-08-18T22:46:00.004-04:00

Check out this voter guide from anti-immigration - and anti-immigrant - group Numbers USA. It's really an excellent resource for those of us who want to know exactly what Numbers USA thinks ... so we can vote the exact opposite way. While I had thought that Bob Barr was terrible on immigration issues, Numbers USA demonstrates just how much worse Chuck Baldwin is. This is a man who wants to surround the country with a giant wall, turn local law enforcement officers into federal agents for raids and mass round-ups and force employers to become federal immigration agents as well - or face prosecution. Just take a look at how federal immigration enforcement has ruined the town of Postville, Iowa. Why do some candidates spend so much time talking about reducing the power of the federal government, and then work so hard to make draconian immigration laws?

Yet More Unintentional McCain Comedy: Black Men for McCain

2008-08-13T23:45:00.005-04:00

I haven't figured out yet whether BlackMenForMcCain.com is a parody site or not. Here are the opening lines of the first post:

"Brothers, we are on the verge of a great American tragedy. Empty suit Barack Obama has brainwashed the good liberals in this country! He MUST BE STOPPED!"

Sounds like pretty standard anti-Barack Obama talk. But then the blogger goes on to make four posts in a row - the only other posts on the blog, thus far - discussing the merits of John McCain's campaign's "African Americans for McCain" T-shirts.

"If this doesn’t illustrate what makes America great, I don’t know what does. In response to my request, the McCain campaign is now offering an “African-Americans For McCain” t-shirt. This is within four hours of my post."

Several comments point out that McCain had been selling these T-shirts all along, the blogger apparently just couldn't find them. As with many blogs, the best material can be found in the comments threads. Let's just say that the site hasn't yet become a forum for black men to discuss their mutual love of McCain.

I link to this site mostly because it is hilarious, but also partly to show that a blog called "Libertarians for Obama" is certainly not the strangest thing the 2008 campaign has produced.

Obama Wants Sound Money

2008-08-11T22:53:00.002-04:00

From a Wall Street Journal editorial today:

"The underreported economic news of the week is that Barack Obama favors a stronger dollar. Even better, he thinks a stronger greenback would help to reduce oil prices.
"That at least is what the Democratic Presidential candidate told a town hall forum in Parma, Ohio, on Tuesday. 'If we had a strengthening of the dollar, that would help' reduce fuel costs, he said, according to a Reuters dispatch ignored by most of the media. ... We don't know who is whispering in Mr. Obama's ear about the dollar, but he's on to a rich political vein."

Via the Huffington Post.

Who's whispering in Obama's ear? Austin Goolsby, his libertarian economic adviser, of course.

Slowdown

2008-07-22T20:18:00.000-04:00

I'm not going to be posting much for the next few weeks because I'm in the process of moving from D.C. to northern Virginia. My move, of course, has nothing to do with the election. But it is a nice bonus that I'll be able to vote in a swing state, instead of a place where Obama will no doubt win by a landslide.

Obama's Health Plan vs. McCain's Wars

2008-07-22T19:24:00.002-04:00

Some libertarians like to criticize Barack Obama's health care plan because of its cost. Now, I certainly would prefer a more market-based approach. But Obama's plan isn't quite the government bogyman that it might at first appear to be. For one thing, it's not mandatory, so anyone can opt out. Obama's plan also relies on private insurance companies, not the government, to provide coverage. But what about the cost? Obama says his plan will cost between $50 billion and $65 billion. Respected M.I.T. health care economist Jonathan Gruber is more pessimistic, estimating a cost of $102 billion per year. That's not chump change, but it's also less than two-thirds of the cost of George Bush's War on Terror.

That $102 billion is also far less of your tax money than John McCain plans on spending. The Iraq war so far has cost over $100 billion a year. And that's only the direct costs. Economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated in 2006 that for every $1 of direct costs, the United States is incurring roughly an additional $6 in indirect costs, including long-term medical benefits and pensions for soldiers, and the costs of rebuilding the military to pre-war strength. That's a total bill of over $2 trillion over the first three years, or about $700 billion per year. A congressional report released in November put the cost of the war at a more modest $1.6 trillion through 2009, or about $270 billion per year. Using either of these measures, McCain's plan to keep fighting this disastrous war beats Obama's health plan on the big government front. Obama might even be able to use some of the savings from ending the war to pay for the tax cuts he has promised.

But Obama's health plan is a permanent entitlement, you might argue, while the war is temporary. Well let's just assume for the sake of argument that combat miraculously ends next year and McCain's 100-year peaceful occupation begins (despite all the evidence that the fighting isn't nearly over). The cost of the war would go down then, right? The United States has about 132,000 troops in Iraq right now. Let's assume President McCain is able to reduce that to a South Korea-like 40,000. So even if we take the more modest congressional estimate, the occupation would be only slightly cheaper than Obama's universal health care. And that's assuming that McCain doesn't start any other wars.

So the next time you hear people accusing Obama of being a big spender, consider the alternative.

More Contrast on the War Issue

2008-07-15T22:24:00.002-04:00

Barack Obama doubles down on ending the Iraq war. John McCain wants to stay the course. Yet there are still libertarians, like Jacob Hornberger, claiming that there's no difference between these men on foreign policy. I just don't get it.

Your Tax Dollars at Work: The Prime Minister of Iraq Hands Out Cash on the Street

2008-07-12T17:24:00.003-04:00

That's right, he's literally handing out cash on the street to anyone who says he needs it. This is money from the Iraqi treasury, but the Iraqi treasury is in large part funded by the American treasury. I'm not saying that America doesn't have some obligation to spend money to fix some of the damage we've done in Iraq. But handing out cash on the street? Is this really what it's come to? Not rebuilding, not issuing grants, just walking around with a wad of cash passing it out.

The Associated Press story about the handouts (linked above) noted that: "Top U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus has repeatedly called money a crucial weapon to lure neighborhoods from extremists and stabilize Iraq. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, urged the government to pass out money even faster this week on a trip to devastated Mosul in the north."

Chalk this up as just one more cost of a war we never should have started.

Second LP Elector Refuses to Support Barr

2008-07-08T22:55:00.003-04:00

Last month, Arthur Torrey, a Libertarian Party elector from Massachusetts, announced that he would not vote for LP presidential candidate Bob Barr, and would not cast his electoral vote for Barr if he won Massachusetts. This week, Torrey got some company. In this long blog post at Last Free Voice, Wes Benedict, a Libertarian elector from Michigan, also announced that he can not support Barr.

What set Benedict off was this press release from the Barr campaign, in which Barr praises the late Sen. Jesse Helms, an unapologetic racist, as "one of the finest, most courageous and deeply principled men to ever serve in the United States Congress."

Now, I wouldn't come down too hard on Barr just for saying nice things about a man who just died. But this is hardly an isolated incident. Barr has shown time and again that he is more conservative than libertarian. And I'm not talking about his Defense of Marriage Act, war on drugs, war on Wicca days in Congress. No, I'm talking about the anti-immigration press release he sent out last month, his pro-public school prayer campaigning last year, his support last year for a 10-year jail sentence for a 17-year-old who got oral sex from a 15-year-old.

And for good measure, here's an article Barr wrote last year - again, after his self proclaimed conversion to libertarianism - in which he calls for an expansion of the drug war in Columbia.

This guy isn't a libertarian by a long shot, just because he says he wouldn't stop states from legalizing pot (just don't try to import it from Columbia if you don't want to get shot with American weapons).

So for you libertarians planning on voting for Barr: Tell me again what the point is of voting for someone who doesn't believe what you believe, and also has absolutely no chance of winning. Arthur Torrey and Wes Benedict have an answer for you.

Ron Paul Soda

2008-07-07T22:07:00.003-04:00

No commentary necessary. All the details here. Via Disinter.

Libertarians Prefer Obama

2008-07-05T17:35:00.002-04:00

That's according to polling firm Rasmussen Reports: "Libertarian voters make up 4% of the nation’s likely voters and they favor Barack Obama over John McCain by a 53% to 38% margin."

Full poll numbers here. HotAir's Allahpundit on the poll: "The silver lining: Maybe this means Bob Barr does more damage to Obama than to McCain."

I don't quite follow Allahpundit's reasoning. Because libertarians (loosely defined in this poll as people who are socially liberal and economically conservative) like Obama, they might be more likely to leave his camp and vote for someone else? That seems like a stretch. More likely, Barr will get 1 or 2 percent of the vote, almost all from libertarians (broadly defined), and Obama and McCain will split the rest 60/40 (not counting those who choose not to vote, of course). I don't think Chuck Baldwin, Ralph Nader, the Boston Tea Party or anyone else to get a significant number of libertarian votes.

The big question: how many libertarians are there? Rasmussen says 4%. The Cato Institute's David Boaz says 12%. The Libertarian Party trumpeted a survey in 1996 that claimed that 20% of Americans are generally libertarians. That seems a bit steep. But even if it's only 4%, Obama's libertarian vote total should be enough to put him over the top this year.

Is Barack Obama a Marxist?

2008-07-04T23:26:00.000-04:00

Marx·ism (märk-ˌsi-zəm) noun: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society.
- Merriam Webster

It has become fashionable for some conservatives and libertarians who don't like Barack Obama to call him a "communist" or a "Marxist." Alan Keyes got the ball rolling during his pathetic 2004 run for the U.S. Senate when he called Obama a "hard core academic Marxist." Last month, disgraced former congressman Tom DeLay declared that "unless he proves me wrong, he is a Marxist." There's even a web site, CommieObama.com (I'm not going to link), that sells Soviet-style fur hats with Obama's name and a hammer and sickle.

So what has Obama done to deserve the Marxist label? Keyes, DeLay and CommieObama don't go into any detail. Nor do the occasional comments on this blog that make the same accusation. The Canada Free Press newspaper actually does try to make the case for Obama being a communist in a lengthy article - titled "Is Barack Obama a Marxist Mole?" - that's a popular link for conservative and libertarian bloggers. So what did the Free Press come up with in the way of evidence? Obama is friends with some socialists, including U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. He has admitted attending "socialist conferences" in his youth. One of his good friends was a member of the Communist Party in the 1940s. A few communists have said nice things about Obama.

That's it? That's all you've got? Over 4,000 words and no evidence, just some innuendo and tenuous connections? This is pathetic.

Obama has proposed cutting taxes for the middle class. He's the favorite candidate of Wall Street, destroying John McCain in donations from this group. Capitalists from Warren Buffett to Paul Volcker are supporting him. This isn't exactly a candidacy that I can see Karl Marx getting behind.

Does Obama want more government involvement in health care and more regulation to protect the environment? He does (as do George W. Bush and John McCain, respectively). Obama is a center-left politician thoroughly within the American mainstream, who also has some libertarian tendencies. If this makes someone a communist, than the word has no meaning any more. Anyone who calls Obama a communist is either misinformed, dishonest or delusional. Or maybe they just have no respect for the English language.

"A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."
- George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

Barr Attacks Obama for Being More Libertarian on Immigration

2008-06-27T20:17:00.003-04:00

An excerpt from the Bob Barr mailer posted below: "During my time in Congress, I was a strong advocate of border security. For four years in a row, I voted to authorize the use of the military to assist in border control efforts." The entire thing is posted on Third Party Watch.

This guy claims to be a libertarian?

Contrast Barr's militarize-the-border approach to the Libertarian Party's stance on the issue: "We can spend billions more to beef up border patrols. We can erect hundreds of miles of ugly fence slicing through private property along the Rio Grande. We can raid more discount stores and chicken-processing plants from coast to coast. We can require all Americans to carry a national ID card and seek approval from a government computer before starting a new job.

"Or we can change our immigration law to more closely conform to how millions of normal people actually live.

"Crossing an international border to support your family and pursue dreams of a better life is not an inherently criminal act like rape or robbery. If it were, then most of us descend from criminals."

Barr's letter (I've trimmed it a bit for space):

John McCain and Barack Obama Plan To Bring Back “COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM”

From The Desk of Rep. Bob Barr

Dear Friend and Fellow American,

We’re facing a “new” crisis: BORDER SECURITY.

But really, this is the same crisis we faced last year at this time, when Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy tried to push their “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill on us—supported by Senator Barack Obama!

The American people were able to STOP the McCain-Kennedy bill—but will we be able to stop PRESIDENT McCain (or PRESIDENT Obama) from pushing it through again?

We need to send a strong message to both the Republicans AND the Democrats, to let them know that WE MEAN BUSINESS when it comes to securing the border!

A lack of border security allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. We must be aggressive in securing our borders while also fighting the big-government “nanny state” that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity.

...

We don’t need McCain’s OR Obama’s “comprehensive immigration reform” bills. What we DO need is to secure our borders NOW. The fact is, our government doesn’t HAVE an immigration policy right now—one day they want to build a fence, the next day they want to build a “virtual” fence. It changes daily, and it’s ineffective. What we need is simple: Let’s go back to how we USED to do it, when we had a REAL border. If people want to enter America, we require them to come through a checkpoint, check that their health is not dangerous to our citizens, and that they have a legitimate ID.

...

During my time in Congress, I was a strong advocate of border security. For four years in a row, I voted to authorize the use of the military to assist in border control efforts. Our overworked, understaffed Border Patrol Agents need all the help they can get, and I voted to send them that help in preventing the entry of terrorists and criminals into the United States.

Don’t the voters in America deserve the chance to vote for a candidate that will secure our border?

...

I believe that you share my concern about our dangerous lack of border security. I believe that you agree that this is a national security crisis. And I believe that, like me, you want to send a strong message to the politicians who have been pandering to the supporters of compromised security for too long now. The best way to do that today is by helping to get me on every state ballot, so that I can challenge the Washington “status quo” on illegal immigration and border security. CLICK HERE to donate now.

I’m not asking you to vote for me right now. I’m just asking you to help me send a strong message to BOTH the Republicans and Democrats, that the American people are sick and tired of politicians playing games with the national security of the United States.

Help me to turn things around in this presidential campaign, and put the focus back where it should be—on America.

Sincerely,

Bob Barr
Presidential Nominee
United States Libertarian Party

Resolution 580

2008-06-25T22:49:00.000-04:00

I give you my word right now: If Barack Obama supports Senate Resolution 580, I will shut down this web site and cease to support him in any way.

Resolution 580, for those of you who are not familiar, is a non-binding measure that has gotten little media attention. But it is a big deal. The resolution calls for sanctions and a U.S. naval blockade against Iran - tantamount to a declaration of war. It is being heavily pushed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Does anyone doubt that if George W. Bush decided that he wanted to start a war with Iran before he left office, this resolution would be all the justification he would need? AntiWar.com reports that the House of Representatives version of 580, Resolution 362, will likely come up for a vote next week.

From AntiWar.com: The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, “According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to ‘pass like a hot knife through butter’ before the end of June on what is called suspension – meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial.”

Preventing war with Iran is the issue in this election. Do you want gas prices to stop rising? Do you want taxes not to go up? Do you want the economy to recover? Do you want some of the civil liberties that Bush has taken away to come back? All of these things will be impossible if the U.S. goes to war with Iran (AntiWar.com has even more reasons that this war would be disastrous, if you need them).

According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies: "An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in Bushehr, Arak, and Natanz, could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. Such an event is more likely to embolden and expand Iran's nuclear aspirations and capabilities in the long term."

I haven't seen anything in the media about Obama's position on Resolution 580. The resolution has 19 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans, and thankfully Obama is not one of them (neither is John McCain, surprisingly). But after his sorry performance before AIPAC earlier this month, I am a bit wary. I called and emailed Obama's Senate office today inquiring about his position on the resolution, but I haven't gotten a response yet. I'll let you all know if I hear back. Don't let me down, Barack.

More Wayne Allyn Root Nuttiness

2008-06-20T19:58:00.002-04:00

Here's an interview of everyone's favorite vice presidential candidate opining on Ron Paul ("I think he's a little weak when it comes to the War on Terror") and France ("I usually hate France"). (via Lew Rockwell)

And please check out this great Las Vegas Sun profile, in which Root shares his opinions on kids who are bullied ("You get bullied day and night if you’re weak.” - I am not taking this out of context. Root really does appear to look down on kids who are bullied), takes a seemingly un-libertarian position on campaign contributions (calling them "bribes"), insinuates that Barack Obama did not graduate from college (there are records confirming that he did) and insults New Orleans hurricane victims for good measure (“Their mouths were open and their hands were out and they were praying for Mama Bird to throw something in there.”)

I'm not saying that Root isn't a libertarian. But I am saying that from everything I've seen, heard and read of him, he's a grade-A asshole.

The Cuban Embargo is Cracking

2008-06-20T19:24:00.000-04:00

The EU is lifting its sanctions on Cuba. Will the U.S. follow? If John McCain is president, no way. If Barack Obama is elected, good chance.

Ron Paul Does Not Want You to Cast a Write-In Vote for Him

2008-06-18T20:22:00.003-04:00

Just in case you were considering it. Whole story at Reason.

(via Third Party Watch)

Wayne Allyn Root's Book: Millionaire Republican

2008-06-17T21:20:00.003-04:00

I've never heard of Publishers Weekly giving a bad review to a book, so I guess Millionaire Republican, written by Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root, was a real stinker. The review:

"Root, author of The Zen of Gambling, has made millions as a television sports-betting handicapper. This chest-thumping political screed-cum motivational tract systematizes that accomplishment into 'The 18 Republican Secrets of Mega-Wealth and Unlimited Success'-a hodgepodge of self-help nostrums about positive thinking, clean living and the centrality of salesmanship to all human achievement, with a smattering of financial opportunism. (Secret #3 is 'Own Real Estate in International Tax Havens.')

"But Root also aspires to public office, so he devotes most of the book to partisan vitriol. Republicans, he asserts, are 'daring risk-takers' whose 'ambition, drive, vision, courage, confidence and commitment' prompts them to start businesses and enter the 'Investor Class.' Democrats, deluded by 'corrupt, soulless' liberals, prefer a '"safe" (but mediocre) paycheck' to the challenge of entrepreneurship and therefore lead 'lives of despair...working in jobs they hate for bosses they despise...dependent on Big Brother' and are reduced to 'complaining, whining, attending protests' and taxing Republicans.

"Throughout, the author seethes with class resentment against the even wealthier 'spoiled-brat trust-fund crowd,' who supposedly advocate high taxes on the rich to keep others from becoming rich. Root is rarely coherent or engaging; the book feels like an infomercial harangue interspersed with the sort of off-the-wall rant you would expect if you asked your bookie for his political philosophy. In it, one can make out the tenets of contemporary casino capitalism: the risk-taking investor is the hero of the economy, wage labor is a dead-end for suckers and the millionaire is the champion of the little guy against the elitists. Never mind liberal democrats; Republicans themselves may cringe at this ugly, fatuous rendering of their world-view."

Even putting aside Root's comically fanatical devotion to the Republican Party, how many Libertarians would really feel comfortable voting for someone so angry and so obnoxious?

Habeas Corpus

2008-06-14T18:55:00.000-04:00

First, a little history lesson.

In 12th century England, free men began demanding a check on the rights of the authorities to arbitrarily arrest whoever they wanted. No one back then questioned the power to arrest people arbitrarily, but it was considered too much for someone to be arrested without explanation. In 1305 the term habeas corpus - Latin for "we command that you have the body" - appeared when King Edward I formally recognized this right. But it wasn't for another three centuries that the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 formally codified it. In 1772 this act was used by a man named Somersett who held in slavery to successfully sue for his freedom. "The air of England has long been too pure for a slave, and every man is free who breathes it," wrote the court. America's Founding Fathers carried this old English right over into their new nation, writing in the Sixth Amendment that a defendant "be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."

While both England and the United States have occasionally suspended or ignored habeas corpus, it has more or less endured for eight centuries because the idea that the government can jail a person without even telling them what crime they are accused of is offensive to basic human sensibilities - the basic desire of all people to be free.

This week habeas corpus suffered both a setback and a victory. In the U.K., the birth place of habeas corpus, Parliament voted to allow the government to hold people for 42 days without charge. The movie In the Name of the Father tells the story of the Guildford Four: U.K. citizens who were imprisoned without charge for 28 days - the previous limit - during which time they were tortured into confessing to IRA bombings that they did not commit.

In this country, the news was more positive. The Supreme Court ruled that the government can not indefinitely imprison terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay without charging them with a crime and giving them the opportunity to try to prove their innocence. John McCain blasted the ruling, calling it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." (Yahoo news has a list of other Supreme Court decisions that might make McCain think twice about calling this one "one of the worst") And, of course, conservatives in Congress are already trying to get around it.

Barack Obama, who voted against both the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act that the court partially overruled in this case, has taken the politically inexpedient but principled path of defending the basic rights of everyone, even accused terrorists, to know the charges against them.

"We are going to live up to our ideals when it comes to rule of law," said Obama, who, as a constitutional law professor, knows a thing or two about the fundamental rights and freedoms that we enjoy in this country. "John McCain thinks the Supreme Court was wrong," Obama said. "I think the Supreme Court was right."

John McCain Does Not Use a Computer

2008-06-14T17:37:00.004-04:00

You read that right. The man who bristles any time someone implies he's too old to be president hasn't made the technological leap into the 1980s. See the video at Mother Jones. Add to this George W. Bush's admission that he doesn't use email and Sen. Ted Stevens' description of the internet as a "series of tubes" and you wonder if the Republicans have a fundamental problem with technology. Maybe that has something to do with why - as Adam Thierer points out - the Republican revolution of 1994 had big promises for freeing up the internet, but failed in spectacular fashion to deliver.

Among the Republicans' accomplishments:
- Increased internet and media censorship
- Forced access provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
- Creation of the e-rate program
- Prohibitions on internet gambling
- High-definition television spectrum giveaway
- Growth of the Federal Communications Commission

Update: Here's McCain aide Mark Soohoo trying to defend his boss's tech rep at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York. (via The Politico)

"You don’t actually have to use a computer to understand how it shapes the country," Soohoo says.

"You actually do," former Edwards blogger Tracy Russo responds, suggesting he try to explain Twitter to his grandmother and then ask her how that applies to governing.

"John McCain is aware of the Internet," says Soohoo. "This is a man who has a very long history of understanding on a range of issues."

Deja Vu: Ron Paul Suspends His Campaign

2008-06-12T22:26:00.004-04:00

Maybe I'm not seeing the subtle distinctions, but what, exactly, is the difference between Ron Paul's announcement in March that he can't win the Republican nomination and will stop campaigning, and Ron Paul's announcement today that he's suspending his campaign? Notice that Paul still hasn't officially dropped out of the race, though he hasn't held any campaign events in months. Not that this has stopped him from taking more than 10% of the vote in Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Oregon and Idaho even after John McCain wrapped up the nomination.

Paul plans to transfer the energy his campaign generated to his new Campaign for Liberty, an organization for activism and education. That's probably for the best. Ron Paul is a lot better at raising important issues and building a movement than at winning votes in a national campaign. No word yet on whether he'll endorse Bob Barr - or anyone else. Reason confirms that he won't be endorsing John McCain - a big duh on that one, despite the work of some delusional McCain supporters.

I am Disappointed

2008-06-04T22:12:00.005-04:00

First things first - congratulations Barack Obama. I look forward to voting for you in November, and I look forward even more to the work you will do come January to end the war, restore our civil liberties and bring honesty, transparency and new thinking to the federal government.

My joy over Obama's victory was tempered today, however, after I read about his remarks before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Obama had a chance today to tell the AIPAC crowd some truths that they don't want to hear - that the U.S. shouldn't support the building of West Bank settlements, for example - the same way he told Cuban-Americans last month that he would ease the embargo.

Instead, Obama used his speech to promise that the U.S. will join in any war that threatens Israel, needlessly antagonized the Palestinians by saying that Israel shouldn't divide Jerusalem and took a bellicose posture against Iran that would make George Bush proud. I'd like to hope that this is all just political posturing (not that that's alright), but I'm just not sure.

The only solace I take from Obama's speech today is that it wasn't nearly as bad as John McCain's AIPAC speech. Sigh.

Drudge for Obama?

2008-06-02T23:47:00.002-04:00

There's an interesting story in The Politico today about self-proclaimed libertarian Matt Drudge skewing his coverage against John McCain and in favor of Barack Obama. Is this enough evidence to add Drudge to my list of links to libertarian blogs that have had good things to say about Obama? Sure.

McCain Hires Michael "Near Dictatorial" Goldfarb

2008-06-02T23:37:00.002-04:00

From Reason:
John McCain just hired the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb to be his number-two communications guy. Glenn Greenwald points out that this isn't a particularly encouraging sign when it comes to reining in executive power. Goldfarb has written (falsely, by any reasonable reading of the Constitution, Federalist Papers, or diaries of the Constitutional Convention) that the founders believed the president should have "near dictatorial" powers when it comes to war and foreign policy.

Five Reasons This Libertarian Prefers Barack Obama Over Bob Barr

2008-06-01T19:50:00.003-04:00

1. Obama is consistent. I believe Barr when he says that he's against the war, but Barr voted for the war in 2002, and continued to support it for several years, even when it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the Iraqis didn't consider the war a "liberation." As far as I can tell, Barr didn't start denouncing the war until earlier this year (if there's an earlier citation of him speaking out against the war, please let me know). He's also switched positions on the Patriot Act, war on drugs, gay marriage and several other issues. This change of heart would be easier to accept if it hadn't come less than two years before Barr launched his presidential campaign. Obama has always been against the war and the Patriot Act.

2. Federalism isn't always enough. In a perfect libertarian world, Bob Barr's discomfort with gay marriage and illegal drugs wouldn't matter because he wants these issues delegated to the states. But today's political reality, issues like these manifest themselves in small ways at the federal level. Would a president Barr allow a man married to another man to get on his husband's federal employee health care plan? Would he work to repeal the law that denies federal student loans to people with drug convictions? What about the current ban on performing abortions on overseas military bases - would Barr work to repeal it? Better to have a president who actually believes in liberty on these social issues than one who wants to try to pass them off to the states.

3. It's not just your positions on the issues, it's the issues you highlight. Barr has made taxes and spending his signature issues. Don't get me wrong, these are important issues. But I believe that for anyone concerned about the size and scope of the federal government, the most important things a president can do is end this disastrous war and reverse the damage George Bush has done to our civil liberties. These are issues Obama talks about at every opportunity. I know that Barr says he's against the war, but if it's important to him, why do I never hear him mention the subject? The contrast between Barr and Ron Paul on the war issue is glaring.

4. Obama is a genuinely decent person. He gave up his chance at a big payday to work as a community organizer. He came clean about his youthful drug use even though it could have cost him his political career. He only recently paid off his student loans. Contrast this to the way Barr has lived his life: Thrice-married, his second wife accused him of cheating on her with the woman who later became his third wife. He also encouraged his second wife to have an abortion, while publicly working to restrict the rights of other women to get abortions. According to second wife Gail Barr: "In September of 1985, I was helping out as a secretary in Bob' s law office. He had me call to make luncheon arrangements with the woman he later married." Classy.

5. Obama can win. I know that voting for someone because they are electable is heresy among many libertarians. "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil," this crowd will say. But Obama isn't evil. If he's elected, I predict that he'll move in a non-libertarian direction on some issues, and a libertarian direction on others. And I believe that the net effect will be more liberty. That's something I can be proud to vote for.

Bonus reason: Barr is hardly the perfect libertarian. He's against all immigration (legal and illegal), against a woman's right to choose and in favor of a national sales tax.

Election Prediction

2008-05-31T17:48:00.004-04:00

Now that the Democratic nomination is - for all intents and purposes - wrapped up, let's look ahead to the general election. This year's presidential ballots will have unprecedented depth: seven serious candidates running national campaigns (with their names on most state ballots). Bob Barr may, indeed, redirect some votes away from John McCain, but Barack Obama will have to deal with threats from minor party candidates as well. Here's my prediction for the order of finish (with Obama beating McCain in the Electoral College - here's a great Electoral College predictor map - and no other candidate winning electoral votes).

1. Barack Obama
2. John McCain
3. Bob Barr (Libertarian Party)
4. Cynthia McKinney (Green Party)
5. Ralph Nader (Independent)
6. Alan Keyes (Independent)
7. Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party)

I'm not quite ready to predict vote percentage or states won, but I wouldn't be surprised if all seven of these candidates pass the 1% mark.

More Unintentional McCain Comedy: The Youth Speech

2008-05-28T22:50:00.004-04:00

From the Drudge Report:

MCCAIN 'YOUTH' SPEECH PLANNED FOR TUESDAY: 'For much of our history, the world considered the United States a young country. Today, we are the world's oldest constitutional democracy, yet we remain a young nation. We still possess the attributes of youth -- spirit, energy, vitality, and creativity. America will always be young as long as we are looking forward, and leading, to a better world'

Thanks for the string of lame cliches, John. That's what the kids are looking for to inspire them. Put aside all of the policy reasons for opposing McCain - do we really want four years of boring speeches from a cranky old man? Maybe he should have taken some speech writing tips from the rapper known as john.he.is:

My Favorite Bob Barr Quotes

2008-05-25T23:35:00.004-04:00

On the occasion of the Libertarian Party nominating Bob Barr as its presidential candidate, it seems fitting to recall some of Barr's classic sound bites from years past.

"Clearly, the court today has ignored the constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics, and the right of Congress to exert legislative control over the District of Columbia as the nation's capital."
- Barr in 2002, after he stopped D.C. from enforcing its voters' wishes to legalize medical marijuana

"There is no legitimate use whatsoever for marijuana. This is not medicine. This is bogus witchcraft. It has no place in medicine, no place in pain relief."
- Another Barr quote about from the same time

Military chaplains at Fort Hood, and other bases "are sanctioning, if not supporting the practice of witchcraft as a 'religion' by soldiers on military bases."
- In 1999, Barr explains why he tried to ban the practice of the Wiccan religion in the military

"The homosexual agenda calls for taking these so-called marriage licenses to the mainland and the other 50 states, the other 49 states, and trying to force these other states, the citizens of these other states, to accept their bizarre view of marriage."
- Barr on his Defense of Marriage Act, in 1996

"Information was gathered at that interview under false pretenses."
- Barr is none too pleased to learn that he was tricked into making a fool of himself in the Borat movie (clip below)

The Libertarian Party After Barr

2008-05-24T16:08:00.003-04:00

A satirical press release being circulated at the LP convention in Denver (via Reason):

LNC Votes to Change Party Name to "New Republican Party."

DENVER - In a surprise move, the Libertarian National Committee voted today to change their party's name to "New Republican Party." When asked why, newly-elected National Chair Aaron Starr explained that the change was made to "gain credibility" and "get more people elected to office. It's all about getting elected."

The party's presidential candidate, Bob Barr, offered additional insights. "After eliminating all the controversial, scary language from our platform, we decided we might as well change the party's name as well. I plan to campaign on a strong platform fighting Islamo-Fas... uh, narco-terrorists, enforcing oppressive laws at the state, rather than the Federal level, closing our borders and working for a national sales tax. These are traditional Republican issues, and I just know that John McCain isn't a true conservative, so I believe we can pick up a lot of Republican votes by making this change. I've already spoken with several of my former Republican colleagues, and I expect several of them to announce their switch to the New Republican Party in the next few days.

Barr's running mate, Las Vegas oddsmaker Wayne Root, chimed in by saying "I'm so glad our party recognizes the need to appeal to traditional Republican voters who are fed up with the GOP, at least for now. I now feel completely at home in this party."

Obama Speaks Truth to Power About Cuba

2008-05-23T23:02:00.005-04:00

In Florida, there's no group more organized and politically powerful than the anti-Castro Cuban-American lobby. So it shows some serious cajones for Barack Obama to go down to Miami today to tell Cuban-Americans that the U.S. should ease its Cuba embargo. As president Obama would allow Americans to travel to Cuba and send money to relatives there. He would also try to tone down the hostility.

And John McCain's Cuba policy? More bluster, of course. This from the man who supported greater engagement with Cuba when he was running for president the first time, eight years ago.

Viguerie and Barr Tag Team Denver Libertarians

2008-05-23T19:27:00.005-04:00

This weekend, the Libertarian Party might nominate Bob Barr to be its presidential candidate because they're willing to look past his non-libertarian positions and support the candidate most likely to do well in the general election (although "pragmatic" has never been a word that I'd use to describe the party).

The party also might nominate Barr for a different reason: Richard Viguerie.

One of the founders of the modern conservative movement, Viguerie is no libertarian. But he's backing Barr big time. Today he gave a speech at the LP convention - after elbowing his way into the lineup - titled "Conservatives are off the GOP Reservation: Will they find a home in the Libertarian Party?" Anyone who doesn't see a problem with this doesn't know much about libertarians. Read the full speech here. It's one long conflation of the words "libertarian" and "conservative." In this spirit, Viguerie occasionally calls himself a libertarian. But as International Society for Individual Liberty founder Jarret Wollstein put it "it seems like the newly-converted are trying to ascend directly to the pulpit."

But pushing his way into the Denver convention isn't the only thing that Viguerie has been up to lately. Earlier this week, he bought the Third Party Watch blog. The blog has been noticeably pro-Barr since then (although it was fairly pro-Barr before, as well).

Viguerie has also hired former LP Executive Director Shane Cory, who resigned earlier this month after putting out a press release bashing Mary Ruwart, one of Barr's rivals for the nomination.

There are rumors that Barr, Viguerie and Barr campaign manager Russ Verney (a veteran of the Reform and Natural Law parties) are bringing ringers to Denver to vote for Barr in the convention.

Barr supporter and former Ron Paul campaign coordinator (turned Ron Paul opponent) Eric Dondero is even threatening to create a "Libertarians for McCain" group if Barr doesn't win the LP nomination. That says it all right there.

The Huck is Back

2008-05-17T11:54:00.003-04:00

No, I'm not referring to his oh-so-funny joke about pointing a gun at Barack Obama. The really interesting Mike Huckabee news this week is this report by Newsmax (not always the most credible news source, but still interesting) that Huckabee is at the top of John McCain's vice president list. Huckabee, you will recall, wants to introduce a national sales tax and "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards." Be afraid, libertarians. Be very afraid.

(via Liberty Republican)

Barack Obama Should Think About Travis Childers

2008-05-15T16:41:00.003-04:00

The big political news this week isn't that Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama in one of the smallest, most isolated, least educated states in the union. No, the big news is that Democrat Travis Childers won a special congressional election in a conservative Mississippi district. And despite some media reports to the contrary, Childers is not a conservative (not in the George W. Bush mold, at least). He supports withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and cutting taxes for middle-income Americans before cutting them for higher-income people. Childers is, however, conservative on the issues of gays, guns and abortion - and it appears that these positions allowed him to avoid the "liberal" label his opponent tried to pin on him.

There's a lesson here for Obama. There is a lot of disagreement among conservatives on a wide spectrum of issues, including tax policy, the war and the environment. There is less disagreement among conservatives, however, about gays, guns and abortion. Obama could hardly change his strong positions on gay rights and abortion rights (nor would he, I'm sure). But he has never been a very fervent in his support of gun control.

Obama's web site says very little about guns, but it does have this passage (hardly gun-banning stuff): "Obama recognizes that we must forge a broad coalition if we are to address the great conservation challenges we face. America’s hunters and anglers are a key constituency that must take an active role and have a powerful voice in this coalition."

Once Obama has the Democratic nomination sewed up, he should tack to the center on guns. This has always been an issue that the pro-gun side cares about much more fervently than does the anti-gun side. He could emphasize that he won't try to stop states that want to allow concealed handguns. He could express his qualified support when the U.S. Supreme Court inevitably overturns D.C.'s gun ban (it's not like the president could do much to overturn this decision, anyway). And, of course, there are plenty of great pro-gun Democrats who would make excellent vice presidential candidates (including Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who I left off my original list).

Obama Will Be the Only Major Pro-Choice Candidate on the Ballot in November

2008-05-14T22:37:00.004-04:00

Unless you count Ralph Nader as a "major" candidate, that is. If you care about the right to choose, John McCain and Bob Barr aren't for you. To underscore the point, NARAL endorsed Barack Obama today.

Welcome, Bob Barr

2008-05-13T11:12:00.004-04:00

Bob Barr jumped into the presidential race yesterday. According to the Washington Times, a Barr candidacy could generate between 3% (Zogby) and 9% (Barr's own polling) of the vote. I will not vote for Barr, and God help us all if he wins, but I was pretty excited about yesterday's news - and not just for the reason you'd expect.

My top 10 reasons that yesterday's announcement is great news:

10. This year's Libertarian nomination contest will be a real contest. Barr is now the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination, but Wayne Allyn Root, Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby and even Mike Gravel are all strong candidates (check out this hilarious video Gravel posted on his web site for his birthday). Having a real choice will be great for the LP.
9. Barr's campaign will give Ron Paul's fanatical supporters something to do. Paul hasn't officially dropped out yet - and it sounds like he's going to make some trouble at the convention - but his campaign is a campaign in name only. It would be a real shame if all of the energy that Paul drummed up just faded away.
8. Americans will start to think beyond Republicans and Democrats. This year, I happen to believe that the best candidate is a Democrat, but I'd certainly be happy to have more than two choices in the future.
7. Barr will expose Republicans for the profligate spenders that they are.
6. Barr will expose John McCain's nasty temper with his insurgent campaign.
5. Barr will expose himself as a conservative, not a libertarian. This is a guy who wants government restrictions on abortion, immigration and gay rights. Hopefully this will energize the left wing of the Libertarian Party. But that might just be wishful thinking on my part.
4. Having one of Bill Clinton's impeachment managers on the ballot will energize Democrats - especially bitter Hillary Clinton supporters - and bring them to the polls for Barack Obama.
3. Barr will generate tons of media attention (it's already started), giving both the Libertarian Party and down-ticket Libertarian candidates a boost.
2. As a candidate, Barr can draw attention to issues that the other candidates aren't talking about. Maybe he can even get McCain and Obama to change some of their positions (moving Obama to the right on guns and McCain to the left on privacy, perhaps).

And the number one reason that I'm excited about Bob Barr's candidacy ...

He'll poach votes from McCain - especially in the Mountain West - and deliver the election to Obama.

Libertarians Matter

2008-05-11T22:44:00.004-04:00

Over the weekend, both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) had stories predicting the important swing states for 2008. Though the two lists differed somewhat (the Journal seriously thinks McCain has a shot in California? The Times doesn't think Missouri is in play?) they were pretty similar. And they both agreed that Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado are in play this year.

What do these three states have in common?
1. They are in the Rocky Mountain West.
2. They combine to produce enough electoral votes to swing the election to Barack Obama, if he can win all of the states that John Kerry won in 2004.
3. They are filled with libertarians.

That's right - libertarians could be this year's king makers. As David Boaz and David Kirby wrote for the Cato Institute just before the 2006 election, about one in eight Americans can, broadly speaking be defined as a libertarian, and these voters are drifting away from their historical affiliation with Republicans. Considering that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama is a libertarian, and only a few hundred thousand libertarians will end up voting for the Libertarian Party candidate, millions of these voters are up for grabs this year. And because they are concentrated in swing states in the West - where Obama tends to do well - he has a real shot at winning them in November.

But how?

With the right vice presidential pick, for starters. Obama needs to pick a running mate who is pro-gun. Yes, I know, Obama supports some gun restrictions himself. But it's hardly a signature issue for him. He's even acknowledged that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns, though he also believes that local governments should be able to restrict this right. And several of his potential vice presidential picks go further: Bill Richardson, Bob Casey, Chuck Hagel, Ken Salazar, Tedd Strickland, Brian Schweitzer, John Tester and Jim Webb are all pro-gun Democrats. And all of them show up on short lists of Obama's vice presidential candidates (including this one from Daily Kos).

Libertarians care about a lot more than guns. But if you combine a symbolic vice presidential pick Obama's opposition to the war and to Washington's lobbying culture with McCain's anti-liberty ways, you might just strike the right cord to reach these swing state libertarian voters.

Obama Puts it Away

2008-05-06T22:54:00.004-04:00

Forget all of Hillary Clinton's spin tonight - the Democratic presidential nomination is over. Barack Obama has won. I doubt many libertarians were considering supporting Clinton, but now that things are all but wrapped up, November's choice is coming into sharper focus: Obama, McCain, the Libertarian Party or stay home.

Let's wait to see what happens at the LP convention, but it's pretty safe to say that whoever gets the Libertarian nomination isn't going to be sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom in January. And if Bob Barr or Wayne Allyn Root gets the nod, then there isn't even going to be a true libertarian on the ballot.

If you're one of those people who call yourself a libertarian but love war and torture and an imperial presidency, by all means vote for John McCain.

If you don't think that this election is important - despite the war in Iraq, impending war with Iran, vanishing civil liberties and the emboldened theocratic religious right - go ahead and stay home. But I don't think Americans are going to stay home this year.

Judging by the results in North Carolina and Indiana tonight, Obama did well because young people and African-Americans - two groups that have historically voted in low numbers - turned out in large numbers. Could it be that these groups didn't stay home in the past because they were undecided or unmotivated or uninformed? Could it be that young people and African-Americans and all of the other groups that historically haven't voted (libertarians included) have been staying home for a good reason? Maybe they haven't voted because there hasn't been a reason for them to vote. Because there hasn't been an honest candidate out there who would be straight with voters and occasionally tell them what they don't want to hear. Someone who would run the federal government with integrity and transparency and respect for political opponents and their views. Someone who people can vote for even if they don't agree with all of his stances on issues. Let's hope so.

Pink Floyd's Answer to the Ron Paul Blimp: The Inflatable Obama Pig

2008-04-28T09:44:00.006-04:00

You can't see it in this picture, but according to the AP: "The underside of the pig simply read 'Obama' with a checked ballot box alongside."

For nostalgia's sake, here's a picture of the Ron Paul Blimp which, sadly, has been grounded.

Update: Apparently Pink Floyd front man Roger Waters had a brief affair with libertarian writer Ayn Rand back in the day. Small world.

Alan Keyes Leaves the Republican Party

2008-04-24T20:19:00.004-04:00

What great news. Not only will Barack Obama have the opportunity to beat this nut again, but an Alan Keyes presidential campaign on the Constitution Party ticket would force John McCain to show his true colors by competing for the wacky fringe of the conservative spectrum. Imagine McCain trying to woo religious conservatives away from Keyes by assuring them that he is the candidate most strongly against gays, feminists and the ACLU.

The only down side to this story is that it marks the death of the Constitution Party as a refuge of anti-war paleoconservatives. The party was originally formed as a vehicle for Pat Buchanan to make a third party run in 1992, though he ultimately decided not to. The Buchanan Brigades must be horrified to see a neocon hawk like Keyes moving in to take over their party.

For those of you unfamiliar with Keyes, he's the candidate who wants to declare a "War on Pornography" and give African-Americans reparations for slavery in the form of a giant tax holiday. Keyes is also the creator of the "Draft Alan Keyes" web site.

Update: Amazingly, the Constitution Party came to its senses this afternoon and decided not to nominate Keyes as its presidential candidate. That honor will go to political unknown Chuck Baldwin. While it's always nice to see Alan Keyes humiliated, it looks like it will be up to Bob Barr to take ultra conservative votes away from McCain.

Checking out the Competition: Libertarians for Hillary Clinton

2008-04-22T23:05:00.004-04:00

On the night of her Pennsylvania victory, I thought I should check to see whether Hillary Clinton has any libertarian supporters of her own. Who knows, maybe latter day Philadelphia patriots propelled the former first lady to victory. Or maybe not. The results of some quick Google searches:

"Libertarians for Hillary Clinton": One hit (and it's a joke)

"Libertarians for Clinton": Three hits (one of them is a blog post mentioning that there are no Google hits for the term)

"Libertarians for Hillary": Pay dirt - over 300 hits. There's even a www.libertariansforhillary.com. Unfortunately, it has no content. I'll leave it to someone else to make the obvious joke. www.libertariansforkerry.com also appears to be a place holder site.

By contrast, "Libertarians for Obama" gets nearly 20,000 Google hits. This isn't exactly a scientific poll, but I think it's pretty clear who libertarian Democrats are lining up behind.

If anyone has heard of any prominent libertarians coming out in support of Clinton, I'd love to hear about them.

Update: It looks like the Clinton campaign has bought the sponsored search term "Libertarians for Hillary" on Google. I wonder what they were thinking.

Libertarians for Conformity

2008-04-21T23:59:00.004-04:00

The web site Join or Die '08 is an effort to get Ron Paul supporters to abandon every piece of ideology their candidate has - non-interventionism, civil liberties, privacy, personal freedom, etc., etc. - and rally around John McCain for the good of ... what exactly? Paul has never been the most die hard Republican - remember 1988? - and the Republicans have been happy to return the favor (read the full history of Republican attempts to defeat Paul here). So why should libertarians care about Republican unity, especially when the party's standard bearer is John McCain?

The site was apparently started by a 14-year-old from Georgia who has raised a total of $320 for Paul's campaign. So I'll try not to bash its collectivist, conformist, rally-around-the-leader sentiments too much. But what are Join or Die's adult supporters thinking? And why is the site getting coverage in everything from Wired to Daily Kos? This is pretty embarrassing for Paul supporters.

Nice Work if You Can Get It

2008-04-20T22:47:00.004-04:00

Step one: Retire from the military.
Step two: Get a job as a "military analyst" for a TV news channel.
Step three: Participate in a special public relations program sponsored by the Pentagon, in which the military feeds you pro-war talking points.
Step four: Repeat those points on the air, while the networks pay you for providing "independent analysis."
Step five: Parlay your access and TV fame into a military contracting gig which, by the way, benefits from the war you're supposedly assessing as a dispassionate, neutral observer.

Read about this and much more in today's great New York Times story about these craven, incestuous creatures - the TV military analysts.

Camille Paglia: Why Feminists Should Vote for Obama Over Clinton

2008-04-20T16:34:00.005-04:00

"Radical '60s libertarian" and individualist feminist Camille Paglia explains in an article in the London Telegraph why feminists shouldn't support Hillary Clinton. Then she endorses Obama. Worth a read. Did you know, for example, that Clinton failed the D.C. bar exam? Or that, as Paglia writes, "Even Hillary's eye colour is fake: she wears blue contact lenses"?

An excerpt:

"The argument, therefore, that Hillary's candidacy marks the zenith of modern feminism is specious. Feminism is not well served by her surrogates' constant tactic of attributing all opposition to her as a function of entrenched sexism. Well into her second term as a US Senator, Hillary lacks a single example of major legislative achievement. Her career has consisted of fundraising, meet-and-greets and speeches around the world expressing support for women's rights."

Five New Reasons to End the Wars

2008-04-19T18:33:00.004-04:00

We all know that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are killing thousands or Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, and costing U.S. taxpayers trillions of dollars. But here are a few more, less obvious, costs of the wars that have come to light over the past month or so:

- The wars are corrupting the military contracting system. Check out the story of Efraim E. Diveroli, the 22-year-old arms dealer who got a $300 million contract from the U.S. government to supply the Afghan army with bullets. He sent over paper bags full of 40-year-old Chinese ammo.
- Congress is investigating disturbingly high incidences of rape by U.S. military personnel and contractors against their colleagues.
- They're destroying our military, as the number of new recruits drops, reenlistment falls and soldiers and sailors refuse to go to Iraq.
- The BBC reported this week that teenage Iraqi war refugees are resorting to prostitution because the war has destroyed every other means of earning money to feed themselves and their families.
- Chinese nationalists are using the Iraq war as an excuse to continue their repression in Tibet. "No one can criticize what we're doing in Tibet," the argument goes, "because what the U.S. is doing in Iraq is worse."

The wars - and especially the Iraq war - are the most important issues in this election. The housing crisis will pass. Healthcare coverage will advance and decline in fits and starts no matter who's in the White House. But what the U.S. is doing in Iraq is creating a hell on Earth for millions of people, and slowly destroying our own country from the inside. But try telling that to the liberventionists. If a presidential candidate like Barack Obama won't promise to lower their taxes, they'll find a warmonger like John McCain or Wayne Allyn Root to vote for.

Rappers for Obama

2008-04-15T23:11:00.003-04:00

The right-wing magazine Human Events thinks it has uncovered a new Barack Obama scandal: "Obama thus far has equivocated on rappers."

The expose continues: "It’s high time the media ask some tough questions. Why has Obama collaborated with rappers? ... Have any rappers contributed to his campaign? Will he return the money? Why has he not renounced support from rappers?"

They report, you decide: Can a man hold a position of authority if people who say naughty words support him?

For more unintentional comedy from Human Events, check out "Barack Obama: Exposed."

As the magazine describes it: "It's the only way you'll get all the ammunition you need to end Obama's White House dreams once and for all." (my italics)

(Via Talking Points Memo)

Campaign Finance

2008-04-12T20:02:00.001-04:00

"We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful."

-- Barack Obama, quoted by ABC News, possibly laying the groundwork to reject public financing in the general election campaign (via Political Wire).

It might seem like this is a year when campaign finance laws won't even be on the agenda. Obama supports them, and John McCain wrote them. I doubt the next president will do much to change these laws, but 2008 is shaping up to be the year when the intellectual justification for these laws began to crumble.

For one thing, 2008 has shown that there is little correlation between money and electoral success, at least at the presidential level. From the beginning of the campaign through the end of February, for example, John McCain had raised about the same amount of money as Rudy Giuliani, who dropped out in January after failing abysmally. Mitt Romney raised nearly twice as much as Giuliani. Ron Paul raised twice as much money as Mike Huckabee, and we all know how many states Paul won.

Secondly, the 2008 election has shown that many small contributions can add up to a greater war chest than a few wealthy donors giving the maximum contribution. Exhibits A and B: Ron Paul and Barack Obama. It's tough to argue that we need to get money out of politics when it's average voters who are giving the money.

This election also seems to be changing the attitudes of liberals - the constituency most likely to support campaign finance laws. Now that Democrats are beating Republicans in fund raising, calls from the left for more restrictions have visibly died down. Even DailyKos had a post debunking the argument that greedy campaign consultants are responsible for high elections spending.

"Campaigns costs have gone up less because of consultant fees and more because it costs more to communicate with voters, and the number of voters they must reach keeps growing," writes Kossack DHinMI.

I don't think this country is ever going to go back to an unregulated campaign system. But maybe Democrats - including Obama - have begun to realize that getting money completely out of politics is not the answer. Would Obama oppose a bid to raise the contribution limit from the current $2,300? Would he support easing some of the restrictions on campaign spending by independent groups? I don't know, but I do think that Democrats in general are beginning to come around on this issue.

Who is Austan Goolsbee?

2008-04-08T15:28:00.002-04:00

Obama's chief economic adviser - a friend from the University of Chicago, where they both taught - sounds an awful lot like a libertarian (though I don't know if he accepts the label). Check out Goolsbee's New York Times columns, in which he argues that taxes distort retirement planning, denounces banking regulation in China and cites evidence that the free market, not the government, can do the best job of assimilating immigrants. For any of you who have read Freakonomics, Discovery Your Inner Economist, David Friedman's Hidden Order, or anything else in the "use economic thinking to make life more efficient genre, then you'll recognize Goolsbee's style.

"He seems to be the sort of person -- amiable, empirical and reasonable -- you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be," writes George Will, in an interesting profile of Goolsbee.

Goolsbee, like Obama, isn't trying to radically slash the size of the government. Rather, these two share the philosophy that reforms can make government regulations less burdensome. Probably Goolsbee's most famous proposal, which Obama has embraced, is to eliminate the paperwork of income tax filing for the millions of Americans. Under Goolsbee's "Simple Return" plan, 40% of taxpayers who have only one source of income and take only the standard deduction could save 225 million hours and $2 billion in preparation fees by having their W2s sent directly to the IRS instead of sending them in themselves.

Goolsbee was recently in the news when the Canadian press reported that Goolsbee had met with Canadian officials to reassure them that Obama would not radically overhaul NAFTA as president (click here for more on Obama and free trade). Obama denied the story, and I have no idea whether or not it's true. But I'm sure that if it were up to Goolsbee, free trade would be pretty safe.

Here's Goolsbee on free trade in an interview with Marketplace:
"I don't think it helps when you open up trade agreements and see that they're 2,000 pages long, and they look just like the tax code -- that the first three pages are about opening markets, and then the next 1,997 pages are loopholes, giveaways, special protections for individual industries. I mean, that's getting us pretty far from the case for open markets."

John McCain Wants the Government to Dictate CEO Pay

2008-04-08T15:02:00.003-04:00

For those libertarians who say "Yeah, John McCain's a warmonger and a cultural conservative and an all-around shady character, but at least he gets it on economic issues" I offer you this Reuters story: McCain Wants to Shine Light on CEO Pay.

Wayne Allyn Root Doesn't Want the U.S. to Leave Iraq

2008-04-05T17:21:00.006-04:00

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root on Iraq: American needs to keep troops there until the Iraqi government is strong enough to maintain order. So given the way things are going in Iraq, it doesn't look like Root wants this war to end any time soon. But then again, a competent Iraqi government is probably more likely than a Root presidency.

Watch it here:

(Via Third Party Watch)

Bob Barr Will Run, but Not as a Libertarian

2008-04-04T07:45:00.004-04:00

The New Republic reported yesterday that Bob Barr will run for president as an independent. Curious news, given that Barr sits on the Libertarian National Committee. But so be it. Barr is no libertarian, as I've written in the past (here and here).

If he does go ahead with this foolishness, you would think he would at least want the Libertarian ballot line. Libertarians aren't very good at electing candidates, but they are excellent at getting on ballots. Maybe Barr doesn't think that LP members will support him at the convention next month. Maybe he's worried they won't look kindly on his opposition to abortion and immigration, or his PAC, which gives money only to the most pro-war, anti-privacy Republicans. As an independent, Barr might not even be able to take enough votes from John McCain to make his quixotic candidacy worthwhile.

So instead of the general election spoiler we might have hoped for, Barr will just be one more in what is shaping up to be a long list of novelty candidates this year: Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Alan Keyes and probably either Mary Ruwart or Steve Kubby for the Libertarians. Who knows, maybe Mike Gravel will even find a way to get onto a few ballots.

Who will this motley crew of also-rans take more votes from, McCain or Obama? I won't even begin to try to guess.

Update: Doug Craig claims on the Crazy for Liberty blog that Barr said in a radio interview that if he runs for president, he'll run as a Libertarian. I can't find any other accounts of this interview, but I'll take Craig's word for it. Still, this raises the question: If the LP members reject Barr as their candidate - as they very well might - would he consider an independent run?

Second Update: Barr has formed an exploratory committee to consider a Libertarian candidacy for president. So I guess the New Republic was wrong.

Obama the Dynamist

2008-04-01T14:54:00.000-04:00

It's almost a throwaway line in today's Wall Street Journal story about the presidential campaign in Pennsylvania, but it jumped out at me:

"In many ways, the state mirrors how the Democratic campaign is creating splits within the party beyond issues such as race or gender, to voters' education and income, rural or urban habitat, and traditional or future-oriented outlook on life." (my emphasis)

I think these last seven words do a good job of summing up why my libertarian views push me toward Barack Obama: he wants to govern for the future. "We are the change we've been waiting for" sums it up pretty well.

In her book The Future and its Enemies, former Reason editor Virginia Postrel divides the political world into "dynamists" who embrace change and have a future orientation and "stasists" who cling to the past. Postrel rightly classifies most - but certainly not all - libertarians as dynamists because they want to unleash the potential of the individual and the creativity of the market.

Most true conservatives are obviously stasists. But liberals - as the word is used in America - can fall into either camp - or both. Putting up laws against smoking in public or setting a mandatory retirement age are certainly stasist ideas. But giving federal support to stem cell research and advocating for gay marriage fall into the dynamism camp, even if they aren't strictly libertarian positions.

Not surprisingly, Postrel likes a lot of what she's hearing from Obama - especially his post-racial themes - though his distrust of corporations is holding her back from jumping onto the bandwagon.

A Libertarian's Version of the Obama Race Speech

2008-03-30T21:55:00.000-04:00

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of [Barack Obama] that have caused such controversy [among libertarians who are considering supporting him]. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of [the free market]? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered [anti-market]? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from [politicians you have voted for] with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a [candidate's] effort to speak out against perceived [economic] injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of [capitalism] - a view that sees [government as the solution to economic problems], and that elevates what is wrong with [capitalism] above all that we know is right with [capitalism]; a view that sees the [troubles on Wall Street] as rooted primarily in the actions of [corporations], instead of emanating from the perverse [policies of the federal reserve].

As such, [Obama's] comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; [populism-]charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Mark McKinnon Refuses to Attack Obama

2008-03-29T09:52:00.004-04:00

I Just Thought This Was Interesting.

From a National Journal interview with Republican media strategist Mark McKinnon, who says he plans to leave John McCain's campaign if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination (via PoliticalWire):

"Well, this goes back to a memo that I wrote to the campaign when I came aboard more than a year and a half ago, and I simply let them know that I had spent time with Obama and read his book and I like the guy. I think he has strong character and a fascinating life story, and I disagree with him fundamentally on issues like Iraq and trade and a number of others. But I just flashed forward to the improbable scenario, at that time seemingly improbable, that John McCain and Barack Obama might face off against one other. And I just told them at the time that I thought that I would be uncomfortable being on the front lines -- being as aggressive as you need to be in a presidential campaign -- and not only that I would be uncomfortable, but that it would be bad for the campaign, and that if that circumstance were to come to be, that I would just take a step to the sidelines and continue to support John McCain 100 percent and be No. 1 fan and cheerleader. But just kind of take myself out of the front lines."

The lesson here for me is: Even if you disagree with some of Obama's policies, you might consider voting for him based on his integrity and inspiring political style.

Update: The New York Sun reports on "Obamacans": Republicans so disgusted with their party's warmongering and profligate spending that they're crossing the party line to support Barack.

Barack Obama: Semi-Free Trader

2008-03-28T08:53:00.002-04:00

When talking to skeptical libertarians about Barack Obama, one of the first criticisms I usually hear is that Obama is a "protectionist" on trade issues. Obama isn't a total free trader, but I completely reject applying the P-word to him. Obama's actual trade policy - like almost all of his positions - defies such simple labels in favor of nuance. Trade issues may not win Obama any libertarian fans, but I don't believe that he's nearly bad enough on the issue to negate all of the other points in his favor.

Connsider that Obama voted for free trade with Peru and Oman, while rejecting the Central American Free Trade Agreement. So what was the difference? Obama has said that he will support free trade with Central American countries if environmental and labor protections are included in the treaties. That's not the position of someone who believes in an unfettered free market. But it also doesn't make Obama a "fair weather free trader," as the Weekly Standard called him.

But what of Obama's plan to withdraw from NAFTA? There is no such plan. Obama blasted NAFTA to factory workers in Ohio earlier this month for the jobs that it has destroyed (it would be nice if he talked more about the jobs it created, but consider the audience). But the harshest policy proposal he has made is a plan to amend the agreement to include more environmental and labor protections.

In fact, one of the central planks in Obama's trade policy is to press the World Trade Organization to press foreign countires honor their commitments and stop giving out unfair subsidies. He has also called for America to reduce its agriculture subsidies. John Edwards-style populism this is not.

As I understand it, Obama's various positions and statements on trade can be summarized thusly: Trade is good for America and good for the world. But some people are hurt by free trade, and the government should help them through retraining and income support. The United States should also tread carefully as it moves toward free trade, making sure that trade agreements contain environmental and labor protections, and that other countries abide by their free trade commitments. We can not and should not stop globalization, but there is a role for government in smoothing over its rough edges.

As The Economist - itself a stalwart champion of free trade - notes:

Mr Obama understands economics better than he lets on. In his book “The Audacity of Hope”, he recognises that a tariff on imported steel may provide temporary relief to American steelmakers, but it will also make every American manufacturer that uses steel, from carmakers to housebuilders, less competitive. When put on the spot and asked whether he would repeal NAFTA, he says that would cause more job losses than gains.

Two Unlikely Endorsements

2008-03-26T21:59:00.004-04:00

1. Freedom Communications CEO Scott Flanders. Freedom, which owns the Orange County Register and several small papers, is libertarian to the core. The Register was the only major American newspaper to editorialize against interning Japanese-Americans during World War II. From a Register columnist's account of the Flanders announcement:

Flanders said that in this election, for him, "the No. 1 issue is who will get us out of Iraq."

OK, I'm thinking, if you really mean that, there's only one major candidate you can support. But there's no way you are going to stand there and say you support him.

Editorial writer Steve Greenhut told Flanders he thought he was really making an argument for not voting. Not true, Flanders said, and then he did it. He said the words, "Barack Obama." As in, that's who any true freedom-lover should vote for.

...

But there was a hush as Flanders reasoned that Obama is the best candidate to work on four top libertarian reforms: 1) Iraq withdrawal, 2) restoring the separation of church and state; 3) easing off victimless crimes such as drug use; 4) curtailing the Patriot Act.

Obama will probably raise taxes, Flanders says, (although, then again, maybe he won't, ala J.F.K.) and in 2012, it will be time to put a Republican in the White House.

2. Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec. Kmiec, who was head of the office of legal council for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, is a conservative, not a libertarian. But I think libertarians might be interested in the reasoning that led him to come out for Obama. An excerpt from a blog post he wrote for Slate:

In various ways, Sen. Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals [the role of government, how to interpret the Constitution, cultural issues such as abortion], but I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.

Two More Points Against Barr

2008-03-25T15:29:00.001-04:00

I don't hate Bob Barr. I think it's admirable that, after leaving Congress, he's repudiated many of his far-right positions, including support for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. Barr and I agree on many issues. But I have trouble believing that the possible Libertarian Party presidential candidate is actually a libertarian, rather than a philosophical conservative who holds many libertarian positions.

As I wrote earlier, Barr opposes abortion and immigration (illegal and legal) and believes that it's fine for the State of Georgia to give a 10 year prison sentence to a teenager who received oral sex because "the people of Georgia had determined through their lawful, elected representatives" that this is an appropriate penalty.

Now, LP presidential contender George Phillies gives me two more reasons to suspect that Barr isn't fully committed to liberty:
- Last year, while campaigning for the Republican governor of Kentucky, Barr attacked the Democratic candidate because she doesn't support prayer in public schools. Phillies puts it well when he says: "No real Libertarian could endorse school prayer: forcing a Christian prayer down the throat of every schoolchild legally required to appear in school."
- Barr runs a PAC (political action committee) that gives money to conservative Republicans, such as Senators Saxby Chambliss and John Sununu - both supporters of such un-libertarian positions as greater government spying, confronting Iran and not easing immigration restrictions.

"But Obama holds un-libertarian stances on plenty of issues too," you might argue.

He does. But I think there's a difference. Obama supports some non-libertarian legislation, while also believing in libertarian values like tolerance, individual choice and separation of church and state. Barr holds libertarian positions on many issues, while demonstrating intolerant, authoritarian and theocratic tendencies.

Voting for Barr - who can't be elected - instead of Obama - who can - in the hope that you're making a statement for libertarian values is truly a wasted vote.

More than 4,000

2008-03-24T17:42:00.005-04:00

The media has been making a big deal this week about how the American military casualty count in Iraq has reached the grim milestone of 4,000 dead.

But that's not the only measurement of the horror of this war. Consider:

- The tens of thousands - or is it hundreds of thousands? - of dead Iraqis.
- Over 170 dead American contractors.
- Over 29,000 wounded American soldiers.
- Hundreds of dead soldiers and contractors from Britain and other coalition countries.
- Five million Iraqi refugees.
- $500 billion spent so far, with trillions more still to come.
- Torture. Eroded civil liberties. Increased anti-American sentiment abroad. Etc., etc., etc.

The 3,271 American soldiers killed so far in combat in Iraq are more than the number of combat deaths in the Mexican-American War, the War of 1812, all of the various Indian wars and the Spanish-American War.

Given all this, I can't for the life of me understand how people like Kevin Williamson can call themselves libertarians, and then say nutty things like this to explain why they are opposing Obama:

"Wars end. Entitlement programs do not."

And this:

"Unfortunately, libertarians are famously susceptible to this sort of temptation [to elevate the war issue], e.g. Murray Rothbard's counterproductive embrace of the anti-Vietnam war moonbats of his day, or Ron Paul's fevered courting of the hate-America Left."

Apart from the fact that dead people don't come back after "wars end," Williamson ignores the fact that, under a John McCain or Hillary Clinton presidency, wars aren't going to be ending at all.

An Opening on Drugs

2008-03-24T09:11:00.003-04:00

Last month, we learned that more than one of every 100 Americans is living in a jail or prison, mainly because of the insane War on Drugs. Will the next president end this madness and legalize drugs? Not a chance. Not even if the next president was Tommy Chong (a Drug War victim himself).

But maybe things could get better. Slowly. In baby steps.

One of those baby steps came today, when U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said that he intends to introduce legislation decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana. Will Frank's bill pass? Not a chance. But maybe Americans are finally ready to talk about drug laws and their effects. And maybe there are some positive changes that could come at the margins. Like letting states decide whether or not they want legal medical marijuana. Or ending the militarization of drug police.

Last year in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton called for an end to federal raids in states where medical use of marijuana is legal, while Sen. John McCain backtracked on an earlier promise to end the raids.

And Obama? He takes it a step further than Clinton: Full decriminalization.

Take heart, libertarians. There's finally movement on this issue.

Update: Likely Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr was a pretty hardcore drug warrior back when he was in Congress. Now he says that drug laws should be left to the states, though he clearly still supports these laws. From a recent interview with KFNX radio:

"I'm working through some of those individual liberties issues but also believe very strongly that, just as when I was in the Republican Party, I did not agree with everything the Republican Party stood for, everything in its platform, and certainly there's a lot of room in the Libertarian Party for people who have differing views on drugs." (my emphasis)

John McCain: Not-So-Reluctant Warrior

2008-03-23T21:49:00.003-04:00

There's an interesting story in the L.A. Times today about John McCain's history of supporting the Iraq war. The highlights:
- McCain predicted a quick and easy victory.
- He didn't read the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate before voting to go to war.
- He co-sponsored the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which called for "regime change" in Iraq (Bill Clinton signed the law).

Enter Bob Barr

2008-03-22T19:46:00.001-04:00

It's March: That time of year when the Libertarian Party traditionally rounds up its usual cast of characters to compete to be the party's sacrificial lamb in November.

This year's crop includes ex-Nevada LP chair Jim Burns, bus driver Dave Hollist, software company owner Mike "Jingo" Jingozian, marijuana legalization activist Steve Kubby, college professor George Phillies, sports handicapper and gambling TV show host Wayne Allyn Root and research scientist Mary Ruwart.

What do all of men and women have in common? Not one of them has ever held elective office, and most Americans have never heard of any of them. That almost guarantees that none of them would have any hope of getting their message out through the news media. And as we've seen in the past, Libertarians who get ignored don't have very impressive results.

On Friday, however, The Washington Times reported that Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman from Georgia, is interested in the LP presidential nomination. If Barr mounts a serious campaign, I have no doubt that he could be the Libertarian nominee. He might even have some success raising money and getting media attention.

Since leaving the Republican Party in 2004, Barr has been a vocal opponent of federal spying on Americans and other violations of civil liberties. But Barr is no libertarian.

- Barr opposes gay rights. He sponsored a law that barred the federal government from recognizing gay marriages.
- Until recently, when he reversed himself, Barr supported the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs. His new stance on easing drug laws seems less than wholehearted.
- He doesn't believe in sexual freedom. Last year he wrote an op-ed defending a 10-year sentence given to a 17-year-old boy who received oral sex from a 15-year-old girl. "Wilson committed acts that the people of Georgia had determined through their lawful, elected representatives across the state ... should be punished," he wrote.
- He has consistently opposed immigration, both legal and illegal. He has voted against H1-B visas for high-tech workers, supported deploying the military along the U.S.-Mexico border and sponsored a bill to outlaw birthright citizenship.
- He opposes abortion, even though he reportedly paid for his second wife (of three) to have an abortion in the 1980s.
- In 1999, Barr tried to ban the practice of the Wiccan religion in the U.S. miltary.

If you're a conservative who thinks that John McCain doesn't want to cut taxes enough, then vote for Barr. If you're a real libertarian, you can do better.

Another Obama Endorsement

2008-03-21T23:48:00.001-04:00

First Amendment champion Hugh Hefner supports the O-man. I note this mainly because it's just cool. But Hefner does consider himself a libertarian, of sorts.