To Bolt or Not to Bolt: the Cognoscenti Speak

I had written several friends about the question of whether to bolt the Republican Party because of the bailout and vote Libertarian instead. I had picked up Contrairimairi's response earlier today. They're all good answers. So far, only one of six responses has been anti-Republican. But the GOP has got to wake up. Carl Svensson, founder of the New York Republican Liberty Caucaus makes a number of good points about wedge issues, running candidates and appealing to minorities.

Candace de Russy:

8 years of O. would be dreadful...better to try to influence Mc

Lenny Rann:

I have never been so sickened in my life. You know this bailout is going to go down a giant rat hole. Can you imagine that foreign banks, UBS and Barkley's, will be part of the bailout? That is what I have read anyway. Do you know if that is a fact? Phil Gramm, on the board of UBS must have been up lobbying all night. It's like the more a politician is waving the flag, the more likely he is a foreign agent. Really, this collapse of the investment bank gambling casino must have been looked on as a tremendous opportunity to make money, now that the opportunity of credit swaps is played out. I am sickened and disheartened beyond belief. My useless prediction: Gold is gonna go to $1200 pronto. We are gonna be wheeling f...ing wheelbarrows to the store.

Pinni Bohm:

I think a factor that is being underestimated is Sarah Palin. As Governor of Alaska, she did cut spending by 80% and is described as a libertarian on the economy. (I am assuming there is no evidence to the contrary.) Since McCain's pick was meant to select his successor, if McCain wins this election, Palin will likely win the election in 2012 and we will have a libertarian-minded person in control of the white house.

Additionally, even if it can be argued that Palin cannot win in 2012, she will be in the white house with McCain over the next four years and she will be a strong influence. She has already proven she is not afraid to go against the establishment if she disagrees, as evidenced by her "taking on the good old boy network in Alaska" (who are now trying to erase her from Alaska politics with this troopergate scandal), so I have no reason to believe that she will be afraid of going up against McCain if necessary. However, as VP, she would also have the ears of the powerful liberal press, who will have an interest in hurting McCain in retaliation for him overthrowing their chosen one.

Therefore, my conclusion is that McCain is the better of the two candidates, if only for the above reasons. (Of course there are the foreign policy reasons and the argument that Obama was the most liberal person in the Senate before he officially announced his run for president.)

Carl Svensson:

" I am not sure that I can continue to support the Republican Party....they have become a socialist party".

They have not, albeit key elements of the Republican leadership seem to be taking us in that direction. The GOP, like the Democrats, continue to be coalitions of various factions, and it appears that that will be the case in the foreseeable future. I am still confident that the vast majority of the GOP leadership and rank-and-file continue to be pro-limited government and pro-free market, and that a majority, hopefully, support personal freedoms too.

".....the Republicans may be more socialist than the Democrats."

I don't think so. The leadership of the Democrats, on most levels, are much more left that the leadership of the Republicans, and you all know that to be true. That is also true of the Democratic rank-and-file viz a viz the Republican rank-and- file.

" election of McCain at this point may be too much of an affirmation of George Bush's socialism".

Whether this is true or not, it is a moot point. "We" do not have the power or influence to determine whether or not Obama or McCain get elected. Indeed, here in NYS, Obama will coast to victory no matter what we do. The election will be determined in a handful of states, and the only impact that "we" can have -----and a very nominal impact to say the least -- is by contributing financially to
one campaign or the other.

I believe that all of us share your very real concerns about precedents and the like; I know that I do.

So what can we do to have an impact this election cycle? Nothing tangible I'm afraid, and I would be loathe to marginalize myself, and have any of you marginalize yourselves, by publicly supporting Obama or a third party candidate which would have zinch impact anyway.

The question should be, can we, acting together with others, steer the GOP and the country in a more positive direction? Hopefully, that is the case provided that we take a realistic assessment of the political situation in NYS, and that we attempt to do something to accomplish this.

A few of the facts (as I see them):

1. To be successful, we must organize "ourselves" on a state-wide basis.
2. Libertarians can not win an election on their own; there are too few of us.
3. Republicans can not win elections, in most cases, on their own, we are outnumbered.
4. You can not win elections without candidates.
5. You can not establish and build 'local political organizations" without candidates.
6. We must pursue "wedge issues" to split off a portion of the Democrats from their base.
7. We must recruit black and brown candidates if we are too have long-term success.

The only 'universal' wedge issue that I am familiar with is "Term Limits". These have the support of more that 70% of all voters accross all parties. 'Our" candidates should be supporting these, and the possibility of establishing a "Term Limits Party" should also be investigated. School choice is a good wedge issue in some "minority districts" but it works against "us; in suburban districts.

Republicans make up about 40% of the electorate state-wide, and less than that in our cities. We must cultivate alliances with the Conservatives, Independence, and Libertarian Parties, and make inroad with Democrats too.

We need to run candidates. You all know that we are not contesting several dozen state offices, and hundreds of local offices even in those areas where the party has an enrollment advantage.

One of our goals, I believe, should be for us to contest every State Senate and Assembly race in 2010 to garner some attention from the media and are base, and begin to 'grow' local Republican organizations. This should be easy! It takes a maximum of 500 valid signatures to get an Assembly candidate on the ballot, and we can use piggyback petitions to get our Senate candidates on the ballot. I know that Robert is planning on running for City Council in 2009, and we should be able to recruit and get on the ballot a near full slate for these races if we begin now.

To Bolt or Not to Bolt: Contrairiamairi Says "Not"!

Dear Mitchell,
I deeply understand your outrage with government over the last few weeks' economic situation. On a personal note, I do not like or trust Paulson. I know what is happening runs much deeper, but I just wanted to let you know from the beginning that I am very unhappy about the state of affairs.
Over the short months I have come to know you, I have trusted much in your ideas and expertise in much of what was coming down in this campaign season. You are capable of much "long-term" thinking, and do not give in to the "shortsightedness" we see surrounding those in Washington, as well as those involved in this campaign process, including the electorate.
The name calling and finger pointing has become so vile, that I can barely stomach much of the rhetoric any longer. I do have many of my own ideas on all of the proceedings. However, while I have come to trust you as a beacon of more sensibility in all of this, you probably know that my background in my own life has filled me with thoughts and ideas that I believe to be part of my "heritage". My Dad was a VERY strong influence in my life, and short of having him here, I often find myself considering what he would have said or done in a particular situation. Sometimes when I try my hardest to find that place where I know he would be, an answer jumps at me, that makes me feel I can make a comfortable decision.
I would ask you to look back at Sean Hannity's interview with Sarah Palin. I re-watched it over the weekend, because sometimes, small things are missed the first time around. I was FURIOUS over the bailout of Wall St., and even MORE FURIOUS over the lies of BO and the Democrats about whose fault this actually was! Republicans began questioning the goings on on Wall St. under Clinton. The attempts to gain better control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continued throughout the Bush years. Every attempt to scrutinize the hornet's nest was shut down by Dems, FAR too many of whom were receiving major monetary contributions from the perpetrators. In just the exceedingly short time BO was in Washington, his gains eclipsed others who had made Washington their "life-long" project.
In the Sarah Palin interview, Sarah tells Sean that she disagrees with John McCain about drilling in ANWR. She tells Sean, that while they do not agree, John keeps an open mind and opens his door to those of opposite opinions, and that she will continue her work to encourage him to drill in ANWR.
THAT was just the message I was looking for! It has nothing to do with ANWR, it has EVERYTHING to do with John McCain being open to listening to opposing views! I would urge you to consider BO. He is so closed and narrow minded, he sees NOTHING but himself, and his ideology that he is some sort of god, to be worshipped and obeyed! When he speaks on something, unless his demented "inner-circle" of questionable advisers "change his mind for him", it is like the Pope speaking "ExCathedra". Consider, knowing his friends, his advisers, and his very capability of rising to the top of the "pay-out" scheme so quickly after he set foot in Washington, how open you think he will be to opposing ideas. My loathing of this man runs MUCH deeper, but some opinions I prefer to keep to myself. I feel that if you are truly trying to find the lesser evil, PLEASE take the side of someone who will HOPEFULLY turn their ear to the American people and act accordingly. I believe John McCain has America at heart, while I also believe that BO is so enamored of being the "World-Citizen" President, that Americans may be the next ones thrown under his bus if he is elected.
I know, given your own background, how difficult this campaign season has been, and trust me, you are NOT alone. Americans will HOPEFULLY gain something from all of this, although, I am not holding my breath. I believe it is time for the "silent majority", who hold the Constitution so dear to their hearts, to rear up and take back our Country, our conservative beliefs, and no matter how politically "incorrect" our involvement may appear, to re-instill the foundations upon which this Country was founded.
Mairi

Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party

Given the Republican Party's failure of ideas under George W. Bush and the recent strides toward socialization of America's financial institutions, I now consider the Libertarian Party platform more seriously. I have supported John McCain until now, but I am less certain following the recent Bush socialization plan. They are causing me to re-think my heretofore solid support for John McCain.

According to the Libertarian Party's website, Bob Barr is at 8 to 11 percent in polls in late August in several states. These include Ohio, New Hampshire and Nevada. This is enough to make Barr a factor in the race. Voting for him is not throwing one's vote away as it would be if he were running at two or three percent across the board.

On September 17, the Libertarians passed a resolution supporting withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. I do not agree with that. In fact, it seems frivolous because they do not discuss how it will impact our defense against further 9/11-style attacks. It is nice to say that you are for isolationism, but Thomas Jefferson sent the navy to secure the Mediterranean from the Barbary pirates, who were enslaving our sailors. The Barbary pirates were similar to the crew we're fighting in Afghanistan. This is a strategic question that the Libertarians treat as a moral question.

On September 11, Bob Barr stated that a "surge" for fiscal responsibility is needed. He says:

“On my first day as president I will freeze federal spending...On day two, I will establish the Commission On Wasteful Government to develop a list of programs with no constitutional basis, which belong at the state or local level, or which don’t work. And I will go to Congress with a long list of programs to eliminate.”

This is a good position. I think across-the-board 35% cuts are a better idea, with a list of programs coming second, but a list is fine.

Also:

"Only Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are saying no more bailouts. Only Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are talking about controlling entitlements spending. Only Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are pushing the surge in fiscal responsibility that the country needs.”

Barr made a 9/11 statement about terrorism on 9/10:

"The U.S. government can best mark the anniversary by continuing to target groups which threaten Americans, but also by respecting the liberties upon which our nation is based.

“The Bush administration deserves credit for having done much to disable al Qaeda as an effective terrorist organization...However, early on, the administration took its eye off of the ball when it shifted troops from searching for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to use in the unnecessary war in Iraq. Now, the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating badly.”

On the one hand the LP says that we should withdraw from Afghanistan, on the other Bob Barr says that we should focus on Afghanistan. This is amateurish at best.

As for Iraq, Barr writes,

"I will quickly withdraw U.S. troops, leaving Iraqis in control of their own dstinies.”

With respect to experience, Barr has more experience than Obama, with eight years in Congress. However, he has less than McCain and lacks executive experience, as do Biden, Obama and McCain. Only Sarah Palin has executive experience.

Barr, like Obama and McCain, strikes me as an imperfect candidate. Overall, I would rate them as follows. My rating depends heavily on how heavily I weight the Republicans' socialist strategy is:



I consider two different weighting schemes that reflect my personal preferences. In the first, I weight the economy 50%, defense and counter-terrorism 20% each and social issues 10%. In the second, I weight the economy 30%, defense and counter terrorism 30% each, and social issues 10%. If I weight the economy at 50% of my concern, then Bob Barr is preferable to me over John McCain. However, if I weight the economy at 30% of my concern, then John McCain is preferable. Barack Obama is not in the running.

However, there are several strategic and dynamic concerns. For instance, a McCain victory now would continue to give credence to the socialist/big business/ Progressive wing of the Republican Party, which has become dominant and has been successful at influencing conservatives. Four more years of drooling boobs on Fox touting claims of non-existent "emergencies" to facilitate socialism will be difficult for me to take.

Second, a strong showing for Bob Barr will give the Republicans pause about the socialist path that they have chosen. This will enable free market liberals and intelligent conservatives to regroup.

Third, laissez-faire conservatives can blame further steps toward socialism on Obama. This will create Republican antipathy against rather than support for socialism. This would be a good thing and would harm the Republican Progressives, who have become ever more dominant. (They were always dominant, but the Bush administration is a Progressive fantasy come to life).

The question of whether to support McCain or Barr hinges first on the importance of reduction in economic freedom due to the Republicans' socialist strategy versus the threat of terrorism and military attack. Second, it depends on electoral strategic factors, which militate in favor of Barr. A strong Libertarian showing will push the Republicans toward more laissez-faire policies. At the same time, a Republican loss will stall Republican Progressives. On the other hand, there are serious defense, counter-terrorism and social drawbacks to an Obama administration relative to McCain. However, it is possible that, given this week's events, an Obama administration will reflect an improvement over the Republicans with respect to laissez-faire and efficient government.

It has become a difficult call. I have previously contributed heavily to McCain (for someone on a professor's salary). I am not sure that I can continue to morally support him given the Republicans' choices at the national level. I have reached out to some friends for advice on this, and am interested in your thoughts.

Dr. Hai Van Ha's Letter to the Associated Press

I just received the following letter to the Associated Press from Dr. Hai Van Ha:

September 21st, 2008

Mr. Jon Petrovich
Vice President
AP Broadcast News Center
1100 13th Street, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Petrovich,

On behalf of Southeast Asia Democracy Coalition, I am writing to express our appreciation to Associated Press for your excellent service in bringing news from Vietnam to the world.

We are deeply concerned about the fact that Ben Stocking, an Associated Press journalist working in Vietnam, was assaulted on September 19th, 2008 by the Vietnamese communist police, while he was covering a Catholic protest at Toa Kham Su, Hanoi.

We strenuously condemn the barbaric actions of the Vietnamese communist police, who brutally injured Mr. Stocking when he was being detained. It is a criminal offense to assault a journalist while he is in police custody.

Press members should be free to report facts, even facts about civil and social unrests. Hostile and violent treatments of journalists on duties are neither acceptable nor accusable, and are actions condoned only by governments either wanting to obstruct freedom of the press, or to cover up their questionable activities, or both.

Unfortunately, this is the sad state of affairs in Vietnam today!

For this reason, Southeast Asia Democracy Coalition is grateful of the fact that journalist Stocking has written many articles about the facts of life in Vietnam. His articles have helped the world to understand what's really happening in a country ruled by one of the most corrupted totalitarian governments.

Once again, we would like to congratulate the Associated Press for having a dedicated and courageous staff such as journalist Stocking, and wish him a expeditious recovery.

Lastly, as the crisis in Thai Ha is escalating quickly, with many parishioners being threatened and beaten, we hope that the Associated Press will continue to provide much needed coverage, so that the free world will know what is actually going on in Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Dr. Hai Van Ha
President
Southeast Asia Democracy Coalition