Posted by Richard on February 19, 2008
Former President George "Read My Lips" H.W. Bush endorsed Sen. John McCain and said McCain can carry "our conservative values" to the White House. Yeah, that's the same George H.W. Bush who scoffed at "that vision thing," abandoned his "no new taxes" pledge, and squandered the Reagan legacy he inherited.
<snark>I'm sure all the economic conservative / libertarian Republicans will rally around McCain now that he has George H.W. Bush's blessing.</snark>
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bush, gop, mccain, politics, presidential candidates, republicans | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on January 19, 2008
Erick Erickson is on the Fred Thompson bus in South Carolina:
The Fred Thompson in South Carolina this week is the one America saw knock into Mike Huckabee as a pro-life liberal with “blame America first” beliefs whose economic policies would destroy the economy. And the crowds love it.
…
The crowds are enthusiastic and relieved. Finally, the Fred Thompson they hoped for is on the campaign trail. “Saying the Reagan Coalition is dead is like saying the Constitution is dead,” Thompson began one speech, taking on Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee. “The Reagan Coalition was never about the man. It was and is about the principles and values we apply to issues.” He continued, “The issues may change, but the principles do not.” The crowd roared its enthusiasm.
I hope Thompson does well in South Carolina. I like most of what I've read by and about him. One of Erickson's commenters said "Fred is like Ron Paul, but with testicles." Yeah, and without the disturbing past, unsavory friends, and hints of looney conspiracy theories.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: fred thompson, gop, politics, presidential candidates, republicans | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on January 17, 2008
I subscribe to both The New Individualist and Reason. Each magazine features a cover story on Ron Paul in their latest issue. The former has a scathing critique (by blogger Stephen Green), while the latter's article is almost hagiographic. I thought about comparing and contrasting the two, but didn't get around to it. Had I done so, I'd have sided mostly with Green, although I thought he overstated the case against Paul a bit.
It no longer matters. Green's criticisms have pretty much taken a back seat to last week's New Republic story about the racist and hate-filled writings in a Ron Paul newsletter from 1989 through the early 90s. Really ugly stuff. Paul denied writing any of it, which is apparently true, and claimed he knew nothing about it, which is pretty hard to believe.
I guess I was just about the only libertarian who didn't know about Paul's long association with Llewellyn Rockwell, editor of that newsletter and probable author of much of the vile material (see this Reason article). Lew Rockwell is scum, IMHO, and crazy to boot — the libertarian movement's combination of David Duke and Lyndon LaRouche. Even though his Ludwig von Mises Institute hosts some useful resources, especially in the field of economics, I long ago stopped visiting either it or Rockwell's blog (I'm not going to link to them).
For everything you need to know about the whole sordid tale, read the Reason article linked in the preceding paragraph and Bob Bidinotto's fine post about the controversy (which also gives you a chance to see the provocative TNI cover illustration of Paul).
Also, read Bidinotto's earlier post about the TNI article, to which he's appended a very interesting short essay that explains why he holds candidates promoting a philosophy/ideology (like Paul or Kucinich) to a different standard than "pragmatic careerists."
I'm not entirely persuaded. Bidinotto argues that "Philosophical ideas are much more basic, powerful, and important" than the pragmatic policy proposals of most politicians, and thus can do much more good or harm. But isn't the rejection of principles/ideology and the embrace of pragmatism itself a powerful idea that does much harm?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: gop, libertarian, politics, presidential candidates, republicans | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on January 4, 2008
The Iowa caucus results are a double dose of bad news for the GOP. First, their party's caucus-goers have anointed as front-runner a candidate who is a combination of Pat Buchanan and John Edwards. With some serious ethical questions to boot. So much for the Reagan legacy.
Second, the Democrats have pushed to the fore a fresh-faced, charismatic candidate who many white Americans will almost reflexively want to vote for in order to prove (to themselves and the world) that they aren't racists.
If I were a Republican muckety-muck, I'd hire Karl Rove to secretly help the Clinton campaign.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: democrats, gop, politics, presidential candidates, republicans | 3 Comments »
Posted by Richard on December 24, 2007
A commenter at NewsBusters who calls him/herself PopularTech has put together the definitive multi-count indictment of Gov. Mike Huckabee, charging that the Governor's claim to being the "true conservative" in the race is completely fraudulent:
Mike Huckabee is a Pro-life Liberal
… This guy is worse than Bill Clinton on fiscal policy, has a liberal naive foreign policy, feels "compasionate" for illegals and is NOT a true conservative. We do not need another Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. The Huckster is playing up to the evangelical suckers who do not do research and think we need a minister in the White House with a degree in Religion? God help us all.
That introduction is followed by more than fifty (!) links to video clips, news articles, and commentary to back up the indictment, organized into nine categories (eight specific issues and one general). Bravo, PopularTech — a fine job! I hope my social conservative friends and readers (both of you <g>) will check out the case against Huckabee before buying into his "good ole conservative Southern Baptist" shtick.
Ann Coulter dubbed Huckabee "the Republican Jimmy Carter," and I think it fits (except that there are more ethics questions about Huckabee). Is there any sane, sensible person who thinks we need another Jimmy Carter?
For more anti-Huckabee stuff, check out Born Again Redneck. Go here to try distinguishing the Huckabee quotes from the Edwards quotes. Or just go to the main page and keep scrolling — lots and lots of Huckabee posts. Plus some interesting pro-Thompson stuff, including this post proving that Thompson doesn't pander to Iowa farmers (and sounds pretty damn good to me on the farm issue):
From the Waverley (Iowa) Democrat:
Q: What will you do for the farmers of Bremer County?
FT: (laughs)
Q: You knew this was coming, right?
FT: I would continue to enjoy the fruits of their labor. I’ve been looking all over Iowa for a bad steak and I can’t find it. Been trying my best. It’s not a matter of what I would do for the farmers. Farmers are not looking for a president to hand them something. Farmers want fair treatment and a chance to prosper in a free economy and that’s what I would help ensure. …
Read the whole thing.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: gop, politics, presidential candidates, republicans | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on November 15, 2007
A new Gallup opinion poll found that Americans are feeling "distinctly negative" toward congressional Democrats — as negative as they were about the Republican Congress just before the 2006 elections. In six of seven major issues (the economy, government reform, health care, Iraq, immigration, and the budget deficit), a clear majority (53-68%) said they were disappointed or angry. Only on Democrats' handling of terrorism did a majority (52%) say they were pleased or neutral.
It's actually worse for Democrats than those numbers suggest. Although Gallup lumps the responses into two categories — Pleased and Neutral on one side, Disappointed and Angry on the other — that's quite misleading, because Disappointed doesn't counterbalance Neutral, it counterbalances Pleased.
Gallup's rating scale has two negative responses and only one positive response. Neutral is neither. A more fair scale would consist of Enthusiastic, Pleased, Neutral, Disappointed, and Angry. Maybe they tried that, but the number of Enthusiastic responses was statistically insignificant. 🙂
On all seven issues, the clearly negative responses (Disappointed and Angry) far outweigh the clearly positive (Pleased). The margin ranges from about 3:1 (47% – 17%) to almost 10:1 (68% – 7%).
Mark Tapscott warned Republicans not to gloat about the Democrats' "abysmal failure." He thinks these numbers reflect a wider and deeper problem, one for which the Republicans, too, bear responsibility (emphasis added):
We have created a federal Leviathan that promises to deliver something for everybody, with its regulations and taxation directing virtually every corner of daily life. There is no way any government can do that, so failures are inevitable. But over a period of time, as the failures in particular arenas multiply, there comes a point when the many specific failures merge into one general mood of dissatisfaction.
Within the next decade, as the seriousness of the entitlement crisis becomes more evident, it is likely that the general dissatisfaction with government that promises everything and delivers nothing but higher taxes, more waste and policy paralysis is going to grow more intense and deeper rooted.
This widespread dissatisfaction with the inability of Big Government to deliver on its promises presents conservatives with an historic opportunity to refocus public debate to redefine what is expected of government, to slim it down to more manageable proportions so that it can deliver on the most important things.
In short, the coming decade could be the greatest opportunity this generation is likely to see to make the case for a rejuvenated federalism of limited government. We simply have to find new ways to speak the timeless message of Ronald Reagan's first inaugural:
"It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
"Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work — work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
There is one more lesson of importance here for conservatives and it is one that ought to give us heart. When your political power depends, as it does for our liberal friends, on promising more and more, but doing so assures that you will be able to actually deliver less and less, you sow the seeds of your own downfall.
I think Tapscott might be right about the rising dissatisfaction and liberals' downfall, but not necessarily. After all, liberal politicians have been promising to solve a multitude of problems with government programs for many decades now. On how many of those promises have they delivered? Yet their supporters have generally ignored all those failures because their intentions were good.
The outcome Tapscott envisions will only come about if those who ostensibly desire that outcome do a much better job of "redefin[ing] what is expected of government" and "mak[ing] the case for … limited government" than they've done in the past — better even than Reagan did (or maybe just sustained more consistently over a longer period of time).
To do that, they'll have to make the moral case as well as the practical, they'll have to stop being defensive, apologetic, and half-hearted about the principles they claim to embrace, and they'll have to stop tolerating hypocrisy, cynical pragmatism, and corruption on their side.
The behavior of the Republican leadership over the past few years suggests they're far from up to the task.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: congress, conservatism, democrats, gop, government, politics, republicans | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on September 20, 2007
Another perfect one-liner from Glenn Reynolds:
GOOD NEWS FOR FRED THOMPSON: James Dobson doesn't like him. That's gotta be worth, what, five percent?
It's certainly a point in Thompson's favor from my perspective.
On a related note, have you noticed the growing buzz about a Giuliani-Thompson or Thompson-Giuliani ticket? I think it's a pretty appealing combination — they're very complementary and yin-yang, but see eye-to-eye on key issues.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: fred thompson, gop, presidential candidates, republicans | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on July 7, 2007
I haven't paid a lot of attention to the 2008 presidential race yet. Maybe I'm just being an old fuddy-duddy, but I think the 2008 election campaign belongs in 2008. So I've studiously avoided watching any of the already numerous "debates" the two major parties have held, and what I know of the various campaigns is pretty much limited to what I hear on a newscast or see when skimming the headline news stories.
But yesterday, Doug Mataconis at The Liberty Papers pointed out a bit of political news that caught my attention: The Ron Paul campaign has more money in the bank than John McCain. In terms of campaign cash, Paul is in third place (albeit a distant third) behind Giuliani and Romney.
It wasn't that long ago that many "experts" considered McCain practically a shoe-in for the nomination. Now, his campaign seems to be in free-fall. Good. I've never liked McCain, who's always struck me as an authoritarian at heart with a bullying and vindictive streak. And the Incumbency Protection Act, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold, is just one his many sins that I can't forgive.
I have mixed feelings about Ron Paul's relative success. I'd sure like to see him promote a return to small-government Republicanism and spark a revival of the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. But I'm afraid he's spending most of his time and money talking about Iraq, because that's what gets him news coverage and attracts eager volunteers.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: elections, gop, libertarian, mccain, presidential candidates, republicans, ron paul | 5 Comments »
Posted by Richard on April 27, 2007
The Washington Post reported the other day that an aide to Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) called U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton's office just six weeks before Alberto Gonzales terminated Charlton. The aide was seeking information about a federal investigation into a land deal involving the congressman's former business partner, and in accordance with Justice Dept. rules, Charlton notified his superiors of the potentially improper contact from Renzi's office. Captain Ed took a dim view of yet another Gonzales misstep (emphasis added):
First, we should point out that Charlton's removal did not end the investigation. The FBI raided Renzi's home last week, and Renzi stepped down from his committee assignments as a result. If he corrupted his office and sold out his constituents, it does not appear that Charlton's termination has kept that from coming to light.
That being said, this makes the entire process of terminations look even more suspect. At the least, it shows political stupidity on a scale so grand as to be almost unbelievable. Who in their right mind would fire a federal prosecutor who just had improper contact from the Congressman he's investigating — especially in the days after a Democratic takeover of Congress? That call should have alerted anyone with any sort of political antennae that firing Charlton would set off all sorts of red flags if that call came to light.
The Stupid Party has certainly been living up to that disparaging appellation lately, and Alberto Gonzales has worked harder than almost anyone to ensure that it does so. If I were inclined toward conspiracy theories, I'd be very suspicious of people like Gonzales. Could the GOP have been infiltrated with sleeper agents who, like the Manchurian Candidate, can be activated at opportune times to do great harm to the party with their apparent cluelessness, corruption, or ineptitude?
Of course not, I remind myself. Remember Occam's Razor. The facts can be adequately explained by stupidity alone. But, hey, it might make a pretty good novel and movie!
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: congress, conspiracy theories, corruption, gonzales, gop, justice, republicans, scandal, stupidity | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 15, 2007
At least on one issue, one Republican leader is showing a bit of spine and spunk. Sen. Mitch McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, forcefully rejected the Reid Resolution (which calls for troop withdrawals to begin in 4 months, with all combat troops out of Iraq within a year). McConnell reminded the Democrats that they once rejected as foolish the course they now want to impose (emphasis added):
"This is the memo our enemies have been waiting for.
"Osama Bin Laden and his followers have repeatedly said that the U.S. does not have the stomach for a long fight with the terrorists. Passage of the Reid Joint Resolution will be the first concrete sign since Sept. 11, 2001, that he was right on target.
"Timetables are bad. But don't just take my word for it.
"Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, my good friend the Majority Leader himself said this: ‘As for setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that's not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that.'
"Six months after that, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, said this: ‘A deadline for pulling out … will only encourage our enemies to wait us out' … it would be ‘a Lebanon in 1985. And God knows where it goes from there.' That was our friend, Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"And three months later, Senator Clinton made the same point when she said, ‘I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal,' said Senator Clinton. ‘I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you.' "That's the Majority Leader, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and a prominent Democrat presidential candidate.
"Surely Senators Reid, Biden, and Clinton have not changed their minds about who would benefit the most if we set a date certain for withdrawal. They know just as well as I do that this is what the terrorists have been waiting for – and just what our allies in Iraq, and the entire region of the world have feared.
"Setting a date certain for withdrawal will send a chill up the spine of every Iraqi who has dared to stand with America. Millions of good men and women have helped us in this fight. Since we arrived in Iraq, nearly 120,000 Iraqis have volunteered to serve in their army. More than 8,000 Iraqis have died in uniform to defend the fledgling Democracy over there. And recently, in Anbar province, we're told that roughly 1,000 Sunnis volunteered for the police force over a period of a couple weeks.
"These brave men and women, Mr. President, are watching what we do here: They know, as we do, that chaos will engulf Iraq and the rest of the region on that day. They know they and their families will likely face a firing squad soon after we leave. And the message we send them with this resolution is this: good luck.
Thank you, Sen. McConnell, for reminding your colleagues that there are many, many lives at stake.
If the Democrats have their way on Iraq, not only will U.S. interests and the long-term prospects for world peace be severely damaged, but — just in case it matters to the self-styled humanitarians on the left — there will likely be a bloodbath in Iraq to rival what happened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
Of course, the left pretty much tried to ignore that one, too.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: democrats, gop, hillary, iraq, military, national security, politics, republicans, senate, war | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 15, 2007
Today, Rush Limbaugh echoed practically everything I said in Clinton chutzpah, including the suggestion that Sen. Clinton pledge not to fire any U.S. Attorneys if elected President. He quoted extensively from today's excellent Wall Street Journal editorial, which argued that any inquiry into "the politicization of our prosecutorial system" should call Hillary and her good friend Web Hubbell as the star witnesses:
As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno–or Mr. Hubbell–gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.
At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.
The Journal noted the troubling connection to the Rostenkowski investigation that I mentioned, but they remembered another potential motive that I'd forgotten:
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.
And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.
It's not just amateurism and ineptness. I saw Attorney General Gonzales being grilled by George Stephanopoulos, and I heard clips of him being hammered by Matt Lauer. Inept certainly describes his performance in both interviews, but there's a deeper problem, and it's endemic throughout the Republican leadership. When they're attacked by Democrats or especially the media, no matter how unfair or nasty or easily refuted the attack is, the Republicans' first impulse seems to be to cower and grovel. "Please don't hate me! I'm not a bad person, really I'm not!"
Today's Democrats are perpetually outraged. Today's Republicans are perpetually apologetic.
The Journal went on to describe some of the background to the firings. It sounds like McKay of Washington state and Iglesias of New Mexico should have been sacked long ago. The less clear-cut cases — policy differences over the death penalty, disputed managerial skills, and the like — rate a shrug, followed by "It's the President's call."
When Democrats and the media started trying to make a fuss about these firings, Republicans should have been falling all over each other to call press conferences and get in front of microphones. They should have expressed outrage that Democrats would try to interfere with the President's prerogatives regarding these appointments. They should have been contemptuous of these absurd calls for investigations. They should have cried, "How dare you, Sen. Clinton!"
The current GOP leadership consists primarily of spineless wusses with a Rodney King approach to politics: "Can't we all just get along?" No, we can't. And nobody's going to stand by you if you won't stand up for yourselves.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: democrats, gop, justice, politics, republicans | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 13, 2007
A couple of months ago, Representative Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican from Texas, set up an exploratory committee for a Presidential run. Apparently, the explorations unearthed quite a bit of money and support — enough to persuade him to go ahead:
HOUSTON – Ron Paul, a nine-term Texas congressman who describes himself as a lifelong libertarian, announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination Monday.
Appearing on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal," Paul said he was at first reluctant to run, but that "a lot of people want to hear my message and I'm willing to deliver it."
Paul, who formed an exploratory committee in January, said he has raised more than $500,000 in the past month "with very little effort."
If Paul's campaign message is "Let's return the GOP to its limited-government roots," I'm on board. If I hear a lot of emphasis on "ending Yankee imperialism" and "opposing the BushHitler police state," so that he's virtually indistinguishable from the MoveOn nutroots crowd — then count me out.
Meanwhile, former Senator Fred Thompson is merely thinking about exploring, but that's got a lot of conservative Republicans excited. Check out the enthusiastic comments on Doug Mataconis' post about a Thompson candidacy.
If talk of Thompson entering the race suggests that McCain is fading, I think it's good news. The fact that Howard Baker and Bill Frist are promoting Thompson isn't exactly a plus in my book, but they're fellow Tennesseans with long-standing personal and professional relationships. It doesn't necessarily mean much policy-wise. My recollection of Thompson as a Senator is pretty vague, but fairly positive — likewise, his work as a prosecutor and role in Watergate.
I suspect that a lot of the grass-roots enthusiasm for a Thompson candidacy stems from one simple fact: Republicans remember how well they did the last time they nominated an actor.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: fred thompson, gop, libertarian, politics, presidential candidates, republicans, ron paul | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on January 17, 2007
Earlier this month, I noted that some Republican senators seemed practically giddy about being "liberated" from the burden of being in the majority. The same is apparently true in the House, where many, if not most, Republicans seem to favor rolling over and letting the Democrats do as they please. According to the Washington Times, only a few "pit bull" Republicans want to actively oppose the Democrats’ agenda (emphasis added):
The younger pit bulls want to go after the Democrats quickly and without remorse. Some of the older Republican stalwarts prefer sitting back and allowing new Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her party members to have their moment in the sun and govern accordingly.
…Several Republicans confirmed privately that more than two-thirds of House Republicans are favoring a slow approach, while a minority of members think the attacks on Democrats should come rapid-fire.
Already, some say the opposition has been too quiet in allowing Democrats to pass key elements of their initial agenda.
There have been four major votes on Democratic bills since Congress convened under the new majority earlier this month. Of those, 24 Republicans crossed the line to support changes to Medicare, 37 voted with Democrats to expand funding for embryonic stem-cell research, 68 voted to implement more recommendations of the September 11 commission, and 82 Republicans voted for increasing the minimum wage.
Some Republicans privately fumed at these votes and noted that Democrats in the last Congress were far more united against the Republican majority’s bills.
"It’s the beginning of a long process," said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. "This is their majority, and they have the right, even though I think a lot of their policies have more political utility than practicability."
"We’ve shown we can work together with Democrats on some issues, but our differences will become progressively clearer," he said.
Rep. Cole, for years, the Democrats have called you and your colleagues heartless monsters, racists, and planet destroyers, and they’ve fought tooth and nail against every Republican bill, resolution, and nomination. If the differences still aren’t clear to you, that reflects rather poorly on you and the rest of the GOP leadership.
The chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee is defending the Democrats’ right to prevail. The chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee is defending his fellow Republicans’ voting with the Dems in droves. What’s wrong with this picture?
In the entire twelve years that the GOP controlled the House, do you think even one Democrat ever said, "It’s their majority, and they have the right"?
It’s a shame that the Democrats have no effective opposition. A two-party system works so much better if both parties stand for something and possess a modicum of skill, tenacity, and dedication to their professed principles.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: congress, gop, politics, republicans | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on January 5, 2007
Just as there are some women who find it "liberating" to be subservient and confined to a burqa, there are some Republicans who are much more comfortable with the Democrats in charge and their own party in the minority. For the past umpteen years, many Republicans have acted as if they were still the minority, preferring to let the Democrats set the agenda and define the terms of debate. Now, they’re acting as if they’re relieved that the Democrats are back in charge:
“The place is like a bubbling bottle of Champagne, overflowing with joy and hope and civility,” said Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia. And to think, this guy is in the minority now.
…“People want us to stop acting like kindergarten kids,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.
The Warners, Alexanders, and Snowes of the Republican Party have been "liberated" from the burdens of governing, effectively promoting "core beliefs" they only pretend to have, and opposing ideas they don’t really oppose. Now they can go back to being the "loyal opposition," politely but ineffectually mouthing platitudes about limited government, fiscal responsibility, and all that other nonsense that they never really believed and didn’t want to implement. And they can go back to doing what they like best — schmoozing and compromising and back-scratching.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: congress, gop, moderates, republicans, senate | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on December 20, 2006
Last week, former Republican Congressman Bob Barr switched to the Libertarian Party. He not only joined the LP, he immediately became a Life Member and a leader, joining the Libertarian National Committee as Region 4 (Southeast) representative. Barr told Reason that he left the GOP for the LP in order to save the Constitution and preserve liberty:
…I chose to join the Libertarian Party because at this time in our nation’s history, it’s fundamentally essential to join a party, work with a party, that’s 100 percent committed to protecting liberty. As great as the Republican Party is — and I have been fortunate to work with that party for many years and still have the highest regard for it — the Constitution is under such assault in this day and age. In order to have any chance of saving the Constitution and our civil liberties, we need a party dedicated to that cause.
Bruce Bartlett thinks Barr made a terrible mistake. According to Bartlett, joining the LP actually hurts the cause of liberty instead of helping it. His opinion of the party and the effect it has on the political debate isn’t kind:
Over the years, I have known a great many people who have flirted with the Libertarian Party, but were ultimately turned off by its political impotence and immaturity. C-SPAN runs Libertarian conventions, and viewers can see for themselves how unserious and childish they are. They show that the Libertarian Party is essentially a high-school-level debating club where only one question is ever debated — who is the purest libertarian, and what is the purest libertarian position?
At times, serious people have tried to get control of the Libertarian Party and make it a viable organization. But in the end, the crazies who like the party just as it is have always run them off. In the process, however, they have also run off millions of voters who have supported libertarian candidates at one time or another. After realizing what a waste of time the Libertarian Party is, many became disengaged from politics and don’t vote at all.
The result has been that libertarian-leaning activists have been drawn away from the Republican Party and the Democratic Party by the Libertarian Party, leaving the major parties with fewer libertarians. In other words, both major parties have fewer libertarians than they would without the Libertarian Party, meaning that the net result of the party has been to make our government less libertarian than it would otherwise be.
Bartlett wants the LP to disappear completely and be replaced by an advocacy group like the NRA, complete with lobbyists, advertising, and focused campaign contributions. I’m not entirely persuaded, but I must admit that in the last few years, I’ve focused my attention — and money — on organizations like Cato, the Institute for Justice, and the Club for Growth, not the LP.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: gop, libertarian party, libertarianism, politics | Leave a Comment »
