A different take on Pawlenty at Cato

This piece from the Washington Post gives a bit of a different take on the meeting at the Cato Institute. The audience questions are not really referenced in great detail.

Pawlenty also had little to say about the Republican plan to overhaul Medicare, which some GOP leaders are blaming for the party’s loss of a special congressional election Tuesday in a heavily Republican district in Upstate New York. Asked what he thought of the Ryan plan in the wake of Tuesday’s results, Pawlenty credited Ryan for a “courageous” plan but said he would put out his own, different proposal soon.

Pawlenty's lack of plenty in answers

David Weigel's piece on some of the answers provided by presidential contender Tim Pawlenty is a recommended read. One part:

In the wake of NY-26, what did Pawlenty make of the Ryan plan? This elicited the safe, smart, tapioca answer that Pawlenty's been giving for weeks.
"In general," he said, "I think the direction of it is positive, but I'm going to have my own plan."
Issue, dodged. Pawlenty pointed into the crowd again.
"We'll take the guy in the purple tie," he said. "That's a Vikings color!"
Unfortunately, the wearer of Vikings colors worked for the Marijuana Policy Project, who asked Pawlenty how he could be taken seriously on health care since he had opposed "my group" on medical pot.
"What was it?" asked Pawlenty? "Marijuana? Yeah. Well... I stood with law enforcement issue on this issue... we just have a respectful difference on this issue."
End of audience questions.

He should have kept answering questions, rather than create the impression that drugs are a key issue or that he will avoid tough questions on the Ryan plan ...

Television's forgotten candidates

Gee, it's always nice to read about presidential candidates being compared to missing children on milk cartons...That is however unfortunately a true comparison that is made in this Miami Herald article. Some of the recommended article:

The lefty media critics at Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting issued a Barr Nader study Tuesday that says the three broadcast-network news divisions -- ABC, NBC and CBS -- have mentioned Barr and Nader a total of 31 times all year along. (In poor Nader's case, two of the mentions came when he was the punchline in jokes by late-night comedians that were included in newscasts.)

The study, which also mentions two lesser third-party candidacies (the Green Party's Cynthia McKinney and the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin, notes that the traditional network explanation for excluding everybody but Republicans and Democrats -- that they won't attract enough votes to make a difference -- "makes this outcome more or less a self-fulfilling prophecy." That's a fair point, though I'm not sure it's entirely correct: Until the bottom dropped out of the economy a few weeks ago, the election looked close and it's entirely conceivable that Nader or Barr could deprived one of the candidates of victory, as Nader arguably did to Al Gore in 2000.

Problem is no one is going to do anything about it, we've allowed the two party system to take total control and the media is just as responsible for that as the two parties are. They could cover these candidates if they were actually interested in real historic firsts or new ideas.

Interview with Bob Barr

Recommended interview in the AJC that I found while searching tonight. A few parts of what was reported:

His purpose now is to make the difference between Obama and McCain in as many states as possible in the final days, Barr said. Power, and respect, comes with the ability to change the outcome of a given situation.

“We’ve deliberately left the last several days very flexible, depending on what the poll numbers and the spread between Obama and McCain show in several state,” Barr said. Which Ohio, North Carolina — and at least two days here. He’s got a 2 p.m. Monday appearance at the University of Georgia in Athens.

“From what I’m hearing, and looking at the numbers, the dramatic increase in registration, the dramatic numbers of early voters, there is an awful lot of support building for Obama. And I think Republicans have a lot to be worried about in Georgia,” he said.

Nader polling above Barr

It would be interesting to figure out why Nader is polling above Barr. I know several democrats who have stated that they would vote for Nader as a protest vote, yet I wonder if some of the traditional libertarians are leaning towards McCain because they believe the election is going to be close...

The election has been crazy...

For those who have noted my absence, my other local blog has been really time consuming. I'll be glad when this election is over. That said, an interesting article that suggests that Both Parties Should Lose this Election that makes some very valid points.

A few of those:

The anchor of this election season has been a fairly fixed sentiment among the electorate that they have had enough of George Bush and Republican rule.

That, in and of itself, doesn't determine the outcome. Candidate races come down to: Compared with whom? John McCain, for example, has consistently outperformed the Republican brand in the presidential race.

Left largely unexamined, however, is the flip side of the sentiment to give the Republicans the boot. What would it mean if voters gave Democrats largely unchecked power at the national level, the presidency and large enough majorities in Congress to run over the Republican minority? Would the result be something the American people want?

In reciting this litany, however, it becomes clear how little grounds the Republicans have to criticize it, except for taxes.

Big government spending programs? Bush proposed the largest expansion of the federal role in education since Jimmy Carter with No Child Left Behind and the largest expansion of the entitlement state since Lyndon Johnson with his Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Most congressional Republicans supported them.

Racking up deficits? Bush is the champ.

Interfering in the private economy? The Bush administration just partially nationalized the banks, forcing healthy banks to accept public capital they didn't want.

John McCain once could have legitimately claimed to serve as a check on Democratic excesses, particularly on spending. And Americans seem to like divided government.

However, McCain supported the $700 billion bailout and proposes that the federal government spend an additional $300 billion buying up mortgages at face value. Vetoing earmarks isn't going to make up for that.

So, there you have it: An election Republicans deserve to lose but Democrats don't deserve to win.

The Libertarian Case for McCain

From Reason Magazine, I recommend the full piece, but one that I have felt before has some validity:

2) Divided government!

As George Will put it in his Washington Post column today, "Divided government compels compromises that curb each party's excesses, especially both parties' proclivities for excessive spending when unconstrained by an institution controlled by the other party. William Niskanen, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, notes that in the past 50 years, 'government spending has increased an average of only 1.73 percent annually during periods of divided government. This number more than triples, to 5.26 percent, for periods of unified government.'"

Bob Barr and privacy...

Interesting article for those concerned about privacy:

The Democratic and Republican candidates for U.S. president aren't giving enough emphasis to privacy and civil rights issues, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for president, said Friday.

Privacy issues received no mention at the Democratic and Republican national conventions during the past two weeks, said Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, speaking at an EPIC press conference. Debates about privacy and civil rights issues, including government surveillance of U.S. residents and routine searches of laptops at U.S. borders, were "nowhere to be seen" at the conventions, Barr said.

Barr spoke during the launch of a new EPIC campaign called Privacy '08. The goal is to make privacy issues a larger part of the campaign debate and to educate voters about privacy issues, said Marc Rotenberg, EPIC's executive director. "We need to have this debate," he said.

Barr called on the next president to rein in government surveillance of U.S. residents and called on Congress to update privacy laws by limiting what private businesses can do with personal data. Libertarians generally oppose new laws and new regulations, but Barr said limitations on the use of personal information are needed.

As we know, both Obama and McCain support the federal government's ability to spy on it's citizens.

Wayne Allyn Root interviewed by local radio show...

One of our great local talk show radio programs is done by Troy Neff, and for those of you who are fans of Bob Barr, you might be interested in the interview that his running mate did today.

Not many of the other presidential candidates take the time to talk to local radio...and Wayne Allyn Root makes some good points that I think are worth listening to.

Bob Barr on Beck...

No, I haven't become a fan of Glenn Beck, he still makes me cringe, but it was interesting to watch this video clip of Bob Barr being on the show:

Barr makes the ballot in another state...media doesn't notice

Organizers for the Bob Barr campaign for president plan to turn in petitions to the West Virginia Secretary of State this past Friday. The signatures are expected to surpass the 15,000 needed to gain ballot access in West Virginia.

Organizers have been collecting signatures for the past couple weeks to get the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate on the ballot.

Yet, giving this campaign about as much attention as they would give indoor lighting the media did not cover it...

Bob Barr Says: Maintain Economic Growth, Find New Energy Sources, Confront Global Warming

WASHINGTON, July 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Bob Barr, former member of Congress from Georgia and Libertarian Party Candidate for President, today issued the following statement on energy and global warming:

As America confronts a variety of domestic and foreign challenges in the future, it is essential that we preserve our prosperous, productive, and innovative economy. Without a strong economic foundation, it will be impossible for our nation to deal with the many serious financial, social, and environmental problems facing the U.S.

One of the most complicated and controversial issues facing America is global warming. Although temperatures have increased in recent decades, the scientific community has been unable to make definitive judgments as to the past cause or future course of climate change. Indeed, the models which predict problems in the future did not predict the lack of any temperature increase over the last decade. Unfortunately, many climate processes are not yet clearly understood.

Thus, we need to conduct more and better scientific research about climate change to assess likely problems in the future and develop appropriate solutions. More dialogue is key to understanding global warming and developing the best means of dealing with the important questions surrounding the phenomenon. This dialogue must include scientists from all sides of the issue, including those who are skeptical of the assertion that humans are primarily responsible for global temperature changes and that those changes pose a substantial danger to humanity.

Moreover, we must develop cost-effective policies which will not undermine the U.S. economy. So-called cap and trade legislation, recently rejected by the U.S. Senate, would do grievous damage to the American economy, threatening to create a permanent recession by reversing industrial growth and destroying millions of jobs. Attempting to adjust global temperatures by artificially cutting energy consumption would undermine the very prosperous and innovative market system upon which we must rely for answers to everything from health care to international poverty to environmental protection.

Our energy future must be built on a commitment to both find more conventional energy sources and expand use of alternative fuels. The U.S. has large deposits of petroleum, oil shale, and natural gas. Barriers to their development in the Outer Continental Shelf, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and other federal lands should be lowered or eliminated, which would provide Americans with a more secure source of energy over the short term and help bring down today's high prices, which are causing such economic hardship to so many Americans. Such steps would also allow us to begin seriously considering and developing alternative sources of energy that will be essential in the long term.

The development of alternatives to fossil fuels would provide the country with many benefits, ranging from lower CO2 emissions to greater diversity of energy supplies. Given the failure of past government subsidy programs, this transformation can only be led by the private sector.

The government must remove regulatory barriers, which limit the development of alternative as well as conventional energy sources. Moreover, public officials should cease their demagogic attacks on the energy industry, which has made money only by finding, refining, and transporting gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil for the American people. Vote-minded legislators risk creating an environment in which companies are punished for doing good, which will only make them more reluctant to invest in all technologies and fuels, alternative as well as conventional.

Indeed, the challenge of promoting continuing energy innovation should cause us to reconsider other policies which discourage business investment and capital formation more generally. Americans for Tax Reform recently reported that the tax and regulatory burden rose at both the state and national level over the last year. America's corporate income tax is one of the highest in the world, creating a self-inflicted economic wound. Congress now routinely votes for new spending programs for which we have no way to pay, putting our entire economic future at risk.

The challenges that we face are serious, but I am convinced we can find solutions. We are more likely to develop policies that simultaneously promote economic growth, expand energy supplies, and lessen any adverse effects of climate change, if we promote a genuine dialogue among contending factions. Although I do not agree with the tax and regulatory policies advanced by former Vice President Al Gore, I do believe his call for greater reliance on alternative energy could be given positive effect by American industry. Only the market economy can balance his passion with the reality of preserving the growing economy upon which our future -- and that of our children and grandchildren -- depends.

We must address the issue of climate change, but do so realistically, recognizing the importance of simultaneously expanding energy supplies and maintaining economic growth. Our greatest strength in confronting the problems of the future is our free market economy. Only by reducing government barriers to private research and development are we going to achieve the innovative, even transformational, changes necessary in the years and decades ahead.

Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, where he served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. Prior to his congressional career, Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and also served as an official with the CIA.

Since leaving Congress, Barr has been practicing law and has teamed up with groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union to actively advocate every American citizen's right to privacy and other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Along with this, Bob is committed to helping elect leaders who will strive for smaller government, lower taxes and abundant individual freedom.

Paid for by the Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Committee

BobBarr2008.com

Barr says Obama should stand up for Constitution

Release sent from the Bob Barr for President campaign:

ATLANTA, July 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "Sen. Barack Obama should lead the fight against legislation giving the president authority to bypass the Constitution in spying on Americans," says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. "Without his leadership, the bill is certain to pass with Democratic as well as Republican support." Unfortunately, notes Barr, "these days no one is surprised when Republican legislators refuse to support the Fourth Amendment, but many Democrats are no better, including the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee."

"Defending the Constitution is always important. That duty is even more vital today, when the president and top administration officials argue that the executive branch may break the law whenever the president deems it to be necessary in a time which he declares to be wartime," explains Barr. "If Congress will not defend the law, why does it believe the administration will obey new rules after ignoring the already relaxed warrant standards of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act?" To surrender to the administration is irresponsible, "a violation of the oath to defend the Constitution taken by every member of the House and Senate."

Sen. Obama claims to represent change. "I challenge Sen. Obama to represent real change by standing for the people's liberties and against the administration's unlawful surveillance program," says Barr. "I call on Sen. Obama to oppose any measure that protects phone companies from liability for aiding illegal government spying. Those who violate the Constitution and the law, whether politicians or businessmen, should be held accountable for their actions."

No wonder the American people believe the country is going in the wrong direction and are cynical about what to expect from Washington. "When it comes to protecting the people's fundamental liberties, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum," observes Barr. "If Sen. Obama will not confront the Bush administration over years of lawless conduct, why is he running for president?"

Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, where he served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. Prior to his congressional career, Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and also served as an official with the CIA.

Since leaving Congress, Barr has been practicing law and has teamed up with groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union to actively advocate every American citizens' right to privacy and other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Along with this, Bob is committed to helping elect leaders who will strive for smaller government, lower taxes and abundant individual freedom.

Barr says Libertarian Party only one to offer real alternative

ATLANTA, July 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "Americans are deeply dissatisfied with the direction their country is going and desperately want real change," says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. "But real change will not come from the two major parties, with their well-established commitment to the status quo. It will only come from outside the current system -- and through the Barr presidential campaign and the Libertarian Party."

The American people have made their feelings known in the latest Zogby poll, which found that six percent of them favor Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr. "And that is without benefiting from all of the media attention paid to the primaries and the big advertising campaigns already initiated by the other parties," notes Barr.

At six percent "we have more than three times the support of any other alternative party," Barr explains. Seven percent of conservatives, 11 percent of independents, and 43 percent of libertarians said they backed the Barr campaign. Pollster John Zogby observed that "Bob Barr has some juice among conservatives..."

With this level of support, "which will only grow as the Barr campaign's message of limited government and individual liberty reaches more people, it is only fair for the American people to include the Libertarian Party nominee along with the candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties in all public forums, from candidate town halls to national debates," says Barr.

"The November election should be about issues, not personalities," notes Barr. "The American people have suffered for too long from the big-spending policies and partisan antics of Republicans and Democrats alike in Washington." The country desperately needs an alternative. "The latest poll demonstrates that the one real alternative is the Bob Barr campaign and the Libertarian Party," Barr adds.

Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, where he served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. Prior to his congressional career, Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and also served as an official with the CIA.

Since leaving Congress, Barr has been practicing law and has teamed up with groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union to actively advocate every American citizens' right to privacy and other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Along with this, Bob is committed to helping elect leaders who will strive for smaller government, lower taxes and abundant individual freedom.

Paid for by the Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Committee BobBarr2008.com

Too much focus on the package rather than the contents...

I often wonder what would have happened if some of our previous presidents who were not exactly "attractive" were running today with the way the media is and the public focus so much on looks rather than the actual content of the character or the qualifications of a candidate. Back then candidates focused more on words rather than if they needed botox or acne treatments to look good for that next 30 second tv sound bite...

Huckabee makes a tastless joke but...

When you watch the video of former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, it's clear the joke was a stupid one and one that he's apologized for. It's clear that his off the cuff joke made when a chair fell is coming from a point of view that Obama would be afraid.

Most people would be afraid when a gun was aimed at them. I don't think the offensive nature of the joke can be defended. What is interesting though is the crowd laughed, not a huge amount of laughter but some did. It does not sound as if the crowd reacted negitively to Huckabee's statement.

The belief out there that if Obama was president someone would try to assassinate him has been broached by Obama supporters. One fashion designer created shirts asking Who Killed Obama. Doris Lessing stated:

"He would probably not last long, a black man in the position of president. They would kill him,"

Some have stated this fear is a reason to not vote for Obama.

Even Obama's wife has addressed this as a concern.

Which means, while the joke was offensive, those that are expressing outrage that anyone would even think of this (beyond the outrage over how stupid the joke was) seem to be forgetting that despite the stupidity of the joke, the initial expression of an attempt to kill Obama has been talked about again and again.

I'm fairly certain that out there somewhere a black comic has made jokes about Obama or some other black presidential candidate being killed, there was a whole Chris Rock movie where that was mentioned. There have also been quite a few jokes out there that while don't involve death, could be considered offensive:

"In New York, Catholic groups have forced an art gallery to shut down an exhibition of a six-foot image of Jesus in chocolate. Or, as Democrats call it, Barack Obama." --Bill Maher

"Barack Obama was in New Hampshire Sunday. When informed of this, President Bush excitedly asked, 'Did we catch 'em?' --Seth Meyers

Bottom line, over and over again people are selective in what outrages them...

Libertarian candidate Wayne Root does local interview

On a local Toledo area talk radio show, Troy Neff, Libertarian Presidential candidate Wayne Root does an interview that is a recommended listen.

For even more information on Wayne Root, his campaign website is Root For America. Creative use of his last name.

:-)

Gravel decides to go Libertarian

The reality is I don't think Mike Gravel will do any better as a Libertarian candidate given his numbers as a Democrat but it was interesting to learn that:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – One-time Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Gravel announced Wednesday he is abandoning his political party and will run for the White House as a Libertarian.

Gravel, a former senator whose presidential campaign was never taken seriously by most political observers, made the proclamation in a message posted on his Web site.

“The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR,” Gravel said. “It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism — all of which I find anathema to my views.”

Personally I think Ron Paul would be the candidate that could get a larger following if he would have been the one to make the jump but he's stated on the record that he is not going to make a third party run.

Ron Paul drops out of Presidential campaign...

First Huckabee this week and now Ron Paul has dropped out of the presidential campaign. In typical Ron Paul style, he did so using the internet:

Rep. Ron Paul has ended his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, breaking the news in a seven-minute video posted on the campaign Web site Thursday. The Texan, who ran on a libertarian platform and saw an outpouring of financial support via the Internet, tried to soothe anxious supporters by letting them know his "campaign for freedom will continue in this new phase." While his campaign will not formally organize events, he encouraged supporters to continue to work on behalf of a broader movement.

"I don't mind playing a key role in this revolution, but it has to be more than a Ron Paul revolution," he said. "Our job now is to plan for the next phase."

Armed forces loves Ron Paul...

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to opensecrets.org, the top three contributors to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign are from the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force respectively.

“No matter how you measure it, Dr. Paul has the support of our nation’s brave servicemen and women,” said Kent Snyder, Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman. “His message of a strong national defense, and only going to war with a declaration of war – as mandated by the Constitution – resonates with those who risk their lives to defend that Constitution.”

No branch of the military appears among the “top contributors” to GOP frontrunner John McCain’s campaign.

Additionally, Ron Paul’s military contributions are greater than those of all other current candidates – John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama –combined.