When Your Candidate Fails To Deliver

I’m a partisan Libertarian, as you know. Although I frequently state my ‘glass half empty’ case, fact is, whenever a major change takes place affecting an executive or legislative branches of government, there are things I can be hopeful of, depending on the offices affected, and the party of those taking power.

When Obama was sworn in, there were many things I was hopeful for, especially because he was campaigning about them. These included:

• Withdrawl from Iraq
• End to borrow-and-spend
• Closing of Gitmo
• End to policy of ‘indefinite detention’

There were others, but these were the big ones. On all counts, I have been disappointed with the President.

This has been the way of modern politics for me, regardless of the party in charge. There are things I can be hopeful for, especially in light of the rhetoric that got people elected, but promises aren’t kept, or impressions aren’t matched with actions.

Prior to the election of Obama, I spent several years blogging about the failure of the Republicans to deliver on the things I was hopeful for on the domestic front. Smaller government is the rhetoric of the Republican Party, but when Bush was President and his party controlled Congress, borrow-and-spend became a way of life. Bush didn’t veto a single bill coming from the Republican Congress. Departments were added, not cut.

So, what to do? Well, I am a partisan Libertarian. I’m not going to go voting for Republicans, hoping for smaller government. I have a recent track record that tells me I’m not going to get what I want. I’m not going to vote for Democrats, hoping for expanded civil liberties or an end to war. I have a recent track record there too that tells me I’m not going to get what I want. I’m going to vote Libertarian.

Sure, Libertarians haven’t been winning elections. So what? What kind of fool gives his vote to someone he can reliably determine won’t deliver? Not this one. Voting is about selecting candidates that best represent your views, not about picking winners. After all, winning is pretty hollow if you don't get the policy you wanted.

So, what about those who aren’t partisan Libertarians? What about those who are disaffected Democrats or Republicans- people who love their party, or hate the other party, and aren’t willing to go 3^rd party? I think the best thing they can do is make a statement at the Primary Elections. Vote for the candidate who best represents your views, regardless of their ‘electability’. If you continue to vote for a candidate that doesn’t deliver what you want, you have told them they never will have to. After all, they have what they want- your vote!

What if nobody challenges Obama in the Primary? Well, Democrats who want an end to wars and restoration of civil liberties are going to be out of luck, in the same way Republican fiscal conservatives were when nobody challenged Bush. They better start bending Dennis Kucinich’s ear now, and start funding him.

Failing that, vote for the Libertarian or Green Party candidate, or some other that represents your views. The only truly wasted vote is for the candidate who has given you good evidence that he won’t deliver what you want on the issues that matter most to you.

Bayh Quits

The first thing that came to mind for me upon the news of Evan Bayh's sudden announcement that he is retiring from the US Senate is regards the rules for elections. Tomorrow is the deadline for Democrats and Republicans to file their signatures to be on their parties' respective primary election ballots. A Huffington Post article sums up the rules well.

It does not appear that there will be time for Indiana Democrats to choose a top-flight candidate to back, and get signatures for. There was one intrepid Democrat, Tamara D'Ippolito, who was prepared to give Bayh a Primary challenge- if she herself could collect the necessary signatures on time, which has not been done. This suits the Democratic Party elite, apparently. From Fire Dog Lake:

I just spoke with Tamyra D’Ippolito, the candidate who was already running in the US Senate primary as a Democrat in Indiana before Evan Bayh ended his re-election bid today. D’Ippolito’s potential presence on the primary ballot complicates the ability for Indiana Democrats to handpick a nominee. If nobody qualifies for the primary, Indiana Dems can choose the candidate. But if D’Ippolito qualifies, then she would be the only candidate on that primary ballot, and Brad Ellsworth or Baron Hill or whoever would have to run a write-in campaign to defeat her in that primary in May.

So how’s D’Ippolito doing? She’s collected 3,500 of the 4,500 signatures, 500 in each Congressional district in Indiana, which are needed by noon tomorrow in order to qualify. D’Ippolito said that she’s particularly short in IN-08, in the Terre Haute/Evansville area of the district. Her campaign manager has contacted all of the heads of the county Democratic parties asking them if they would help her get on the ballot.

But she’s not getting the sense that they want to be helpful in that effort. “Politics in Indiana is the old boy’s school. They’re getting ready to put one of their own in,” D’Ippolito, a cafe owner in Bloomington who gained experience in politics running a primary campaign for Gretchen Clearwater in 2006. “My gut feeling tells me they’re meeting in a room, I don’t know if they’re smoking cigars,” D’Ippolito said, basically working under the assumption that Bayh’s announcement was timed so the state party could pick the nominee by themselves. “The timing of this is amazing.”

D’Ippolito told me she is the first woman to ever run for the US Senate in Indiana. Her impression from working on prior campaigns and from this one is that Indiana political culture is a “tight old boys school, it borders on sexism.” In a state where the population is 52% women, D’Ippolito says “in the future, we women of Indiana are not going to tolerate” the chummy, insider culture.

Now, I suspect it may be as much as that she's a complete unknown, and one that hasn't raised any significant money, and hasn't yet mustered the needed signatures. Her website is child's play. Really, when I looked it over this afternoon, the first thing I thought was, "A complete amateur like this could perhaps win the US Senate, thanks to party label. I can think of a thousand better Libertarians".

But her comments are interesting. The Democrats? Good ol' boys? Borderline sexists? I love it. May they eat each other alive.

Pro-War Senate Democrats Pass Defense Budget

Let's see... The Dems have roughly a 60-40 majority in the Senate. Republicans hold the reputation for being hawks. Can't wage two wars without big money. $628 Billion in the bill. Will the Dems oppose their Administration? From Politico:

Coming in at dawn Saturday in the middle of a snowstorm, the Senate finally caught up with its budget calendar, approving a $626 billion bill to fund the Defense Department for the fiscal year that began nearly three months ago.

The lopsided 88—10 vote followed a 63-35 roll call in which most Republicans stood back and again forced Democrats to come up with the super-majority needed to waive budget rules before passage. The measure now goes to the White House where President Barack Obama is expected to quickly sign the bill into law to end the impasse.

So, only 10 Democrats voted against? I guess it's fair to call bullshit whenever a Democrat claims the desire to hem in 'the military-industrial complex'.

Nice, how the media buried this story. Almost like it didn't happen. Must be nice to have a complicit media so as not to upset the Democratic base that would largely like to see us out of Iraq (esp) & Afghanistan, and to curb the military budget. They can't count on the people they elected to do their will. But, if there's one thing we can count on with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, it's gigantic spending at every turn.

Never Wonder Why Some Libertarians Dislike Democrats

I couldn't believe what I was reading this morning, in an article on Andy Horning's leaving Indiana later this month. From the Indy Star report:

A confident public speaker and skilled debater, Horning has been the face of the Indiana Libertarian Party for a decade and has run for offices ranging from county recorder to governor.

"I don't think he made any good points, but he made his points in a way that you didn't dislike the man," said Dan Parker, the Democratic state chairman.

This makes Andy rather unlike Dan Parker.

It seems that Indiana Democrats know only one speed: attack. If there's one time when one can say nice, flattering things about a member of an opposing party while they are still alive, it's when they are leaving your area. Alas, Parker.

When I was running for Secretary of State a few years ago, Ame & I hosted some fundraisers in our home, and she was always taken aback, as a Democrat herself, by the contempt some Indiana Libertarians hold for Democrats. This is pretty typical fare, so there shouldn't be any surprise at it.

Yesterday Was Tax Freedom Day!

I was surprised to learn that April 13 was 2009's Tax Freedom Day.

What is that? It's the day the average American is now working for himself. Up to this point, from January 1 through April 13, every cent you earned was committed to paying taxes.

The good news is, this Tax Freedom Day comes 8 days earlier than last year's Day. The bad news?

(1) the recession has reduced tax collections even faster than it has reduced income, and
(2) the stimulus package includes large temporary tax cuts for 2009 and 2010. Nevertheless, Americans will pay more in taxes than they will spend on food, clothing and housing combined.

Does anybody think it just that we spend more on taxes than food, clothing and housing combined? Please chime in if you do.

Again, this surprised me. The conventional wisdom is that when Democrats take office, taxes go up, right?

Oh, right. Smoke & mirrors. A shell game. Deficit spending. That which made Ronald Reagan a criminal. That which the glorious Clinton Administration didn't engage in. That which Democrats so recently campaigned against. Any cognitive dissonance, Democrats? Or, is all justified when the a guy wearing blue does it?

Free Speech Under Attack

The wolf comes wearing sheep's clothing. American newspapers are faltering for their refusal to evolve (covered in this previous post), and here comes a US Senator, offering to 'help'. From Reuters report:

With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.

"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.

Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements. (Emphasis supplied.)

From time to time, I feel the need to remind readers that I am a former Democrat. This becomes necessary because I so frequently write about things economic, and because I defend the free market as generally the best solution to issues surrounding exchange, I get pegged as a Republican of some sort.

No, I was a Democrat. My biggest issue was the 1st Amendment. So, the first big doubts I ever had with the Democratic Party came in the late 1980s, when Al Gore's wife, Tipper Gore, began railing against music with salty lyrics. It hit me like a total betrayal. I was always told by my fellow Dems that it was the Republicans who had fascistic tendencies. So, how to explain Tipper Gore?

So, this just looks like part of a continuum to me. Just as Republicans love to enjoy the reputation of being free marketeers and friends of smaller government, but aren't, Democrats love to enjoy the undeserved reputation of being steadfast defenders of free speech.

In either case, D or R, the commitment is to government control. This bill is an attempt to worm control into the newspapers, as government worms into anything- slowly, and in the guise of 'help'.

I'm glad there are no co-sponsors to date.

Note to my Democratic friends: Your party is becoming just as drunk with power as the Republicans were after the 2002 elections. Be on guard! You need to smack your party down, lest they go the way the Republicans went, crossing their base over and over again, especially on the things the base is correct about, to the extent that you eventually lose the entire middle.

Here's the text of the First Amendment, for those who need the refresher, including Senator Cardin:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Emphasis supplied.)

Pretty simple.

Reactions To Blagojevich

First, the most predictable and unfortunate response, from the man himself, via his attorney, and via Politico.

The attorney for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich said the governor will be vindicated and has no plans to resign.

"He didn't do anything wrong," attorney Sheldon Sorosky told reporters after Blagojevich appeared in court on Tuesday. "A lot of this is just politics."

Blagojevich should be in the office on Wednesday, Sorosky added.

So, reporters asked, he doesn’t intend to resign?

"Not that I know of, no," said Sorosky, who added that the governor was "surprised" by the day's events, but his spirits are “good.”

It seems that Democrats never resign when caught seemingly red-handed. I can't remember the last who did. It's always, "I'll be vindicated" and a legal fight, clinging to that delicious power for dear life.

On the upside for the Democratic Party, Senate majority leader Harry Reid has said that he won't seat a Blagojevich appointee. That's a good first step in distancing the Party from the man.

I think it's time Obama calls for the man to resign. That would signal to skeptics like me that he is serious about a change in politics. It's safe enough for Obama to do. It's not like he has any other office to chase. It's one thing for him to have come out, as anyone would, to say that he has no ties to Blagojevich's alleged actions. It's another entirely to say that it isn't condoned, it isn't to be swept under the rug. It is to be called out and confronted, opposed and smashed. Anything short of a call for resignation by Obama is weak. You've almost certainly heard his initial statement, here via ABC News:

"Obviously like the rest of the people of Illinois I am saddened and sobered by the news that came out of the US attorney's office today," said President-elect Obama this afternoon in Chicago, speaking of the criminal complaint against Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich for corruption. "But as this is a ongoing investigation involving the governor I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the issue at this time."

Asked what contact he'd had with the governor's office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

Distance yourself, make no statement on the content. That's pretty typical, and not much in the realm of change. I think a definitive statement of condemnation is not only appropriate, it's necessary.

A Corrupt Illinois Democrat

I know- Big surprise. It's just incredible though how brazen Illinois' soon-to-be-former Governor appears. From the AP:

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested Tuesday on charges he brazenly conspired to sell or trade President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder

and

Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in an attempt to strong-arm the newspaper into firing editorial writers who had criticized him.

The 51-year-old Democrat was also accused of engaging in pay-to-play politics - that is, doling out jobs, contracts and appointments in return for campaign contributions.

Well, this is what virtually all elected officials do. Not condoning. Oh no! In fact, it should be just the beginning of the witch hunt. Let's indict all elected officials who steer contracts in return for campagin contributions.

I love this one:

Prosecutors said Blagojevich also talked about getting his wife placed on corporate boards where she might get $150,000 a year in director's fees.

In court papers, the FBI said Blagojevich expressed frustration at being "stuck" as governor. "I want to make money," the governor, whose salary is $177,412, was quoted as saying in one conversation.

Bwaahahaha! "Stuck" being governor! Sick of making a mere $177k! Oh, my side hurts! Bwaaaahahaha!

Ok, my ardent Democratic friends. It is time for you to condemn Blagojevich and his naked greed roundly. Demand his resignation. Today, he has made himself the face of the Democratic Party. If you fail to demand his immediate resignation, you condone his corruption.

Now For The Bad News

Ok, idealism aside, my practical take is that if Bob Barr can't win, my best hope for minimizing the growth of government at the federal level is for McCain to win.

I feel ill typing that. Going back over a year, John McCain was one of two (Hillary Clinton the other) candidates I felt I could be pursuaded to vote against. But, divided government can be more deliberative, even though they weren't with the bailouts. It can be more restrained, even though they weren't with the bailouts. Sigh.

I fully expect an Obama landslide. That means unfettered Democratic rule. From this, I expect Obama to be a rubber stamp for his party's Congressional leadership, just as George W. Bush was for his. I expect government to expand dramatically, which is the bad news.

The only upside is historical precedent. Any time either the Democrats or Republicans take a majority, they piss off the American people in short order. We saw what Republicans did with their recent majorities. When Bill Clinton was elected in November 1992, he came into a Democratic Congress. The result? They pissed off the American people to the extent that the Republicans stormed back in 1994. Government was restrained at that point as best as has been in my lifetime.

So, there is some potential good news. It would be better if the American people took notice that they are alienated every time one party rule grows government, and went for REAL CHANGE and voted to restrain it, not by switching back and forth between the two parties proven to grow government, but to the one committed to scaling back the growth, the Libertarian Party.

But, since I'm being realistic here and not idealistic, my hope is for a structural repeat of the Clinton era: Dems take over, Dems screw up, divided government rules the day once again.

It's kind of like praying to have your breast bone brokem, because it's better than having your skull caved in.

Now, back to holding my little newborn guy!

Deficit No Longer An Issue?

It was just a few weeks ago that a key part of the Democratic attack was that The Bush Administration has been guilty of fiscal irresponsibility, in its' borrow and spend ways. Quoth Barney Frank:

"I think at this point, there needs to be an immediate increase in spending, and
I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat."

So, in the interest of consistency, can some Democrats please attack Barney Frank?




This is foreshadowing. The Democrats feel they have won the election already, so they are letting everyone see what their governance will be- a different kind of fiscal irresponsibility. Borrow & spend & tax.

Voting McCain will only give you borrow & spend. Bob Barr will give you spending cuts, and end to borrowing, and an eventual lowering of taxes.

Choose accordingly.

Wither Gridlock?

Gridlock is my best hope for our federal elections- President of one party, Congress of another, they fight like cats and dogs and actually ponder some of the legislation before it sails through, jacking up our deficit. I don't think it's going to work out that way. I think that while both Obama and McCain are weak candidates, the Republican brand is so damaged by self-inflicted wounds that a can of Alpo could defeat McCain.

So, we're going to have one-party rule. As we saw recently with the Republicans, one-party rule is expensive and damaging. President Bush vetoed nothing his party in Congress presented him. Spending and deficits soared. Is there any reason to think that things will be different under a President Obama? Would he veto anything his party in Congress brings him?

What should give anyone pause is the evidence we can see with regards to one-party, Democratic Party rule. We have it in many major American cities. Washington DC, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland- these are all examples of cities with Democratic Mayors and Democratic Councils. They have all had such majorities for at least 15 years (Cleveland) or much longer even. Democrats are supposed to be strong on their domestic agenda, addressing poverty and unemployment with their social programs.

So, why do these cities still have crushing poverty and high unemployment? Shouldn't these long-entrenched Democratic policies have reversed these problems by now? If 15 years isn't enough, what length of time is required?

The Republican brand is about to be soundly rejected upon the strong evidence provided- as it should be. But, with such large cities offering compelling evidence simultaneously, why should the Democratic brand not also be rejected? Is it merely the least offensive in the moment?

(h/t Melyssa Donaghey, for her comments at Indiana Barrister)

Now, Back To Obama

I returned from Chicago today and checked the mail. You guessed it- an irritating direct mail piece "from Obama", addressed to me.

I put "from Obama" in quotes, because the letter says, "Barack Obama" on the envelope's return space, and on the letterhead, but the back of the envelope has a return for the Democratic National Committee.

This mailing confirms another thing that irritates me. The conventions of the Ds & Rs are not what they were. They're press conferences. Coronations. Yawn.

The letter reads:

"As Democrats, you and I are united by the great traditions of our party, and bound by its longstanding commitment to social and economic justice for all of our citizens."

This is just as presumptuous and offensive as the McCain letter. I am a well-advertised Libertarian partisan. I just cannot think well of someone so sloppy that they would put their name on a letter as ill-informed as this. If you cannot be trusted to be in charge of an organization that acts on your behalf to get a basic fact or two correct, what can you be trusted with?

Beyond that, my break with the Democratic Party in 1995 occurred in large part because of my profound disagreement on the terms social justice, and economic justice. At the core of it, I do not believe it just to take the earnings of one person and give them to someone who has not earned them. It is a basic injustice, and a perversion of the meaning of the word justice. I simply cannot have anything to do with such bullshit merchants.

I could be a Democrat, if indeed the party was true to its' traditions- its' Jeffersonian traditions. Honor this quote, if you honor Democratic traditions:

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

-Thomas Jefferson

Alas. Beyond this mailing, I then noticed Obama's tax plan, via Harvard economist Greg Mankiw's blog. In a nutshell, almost everyone will be paying more in taxes under Obama.

That's not a change I can believe in. So, I'm down on Obama right now, at least until I notice McCain again.

Oh, So Indiana Matters?

(Fishers, IN)- Some are getting all excited about the Democratic primary, because with it being a close contest, Indiana now matters enough to have Obama and Clinton campaign here.

Call me cynical, but I'm not impressed that the horse race situation makes our state at long last worthy of visitation, begging, and bombardment with campaign ads. Great that you're here now, but who could doubt that you wouldn't be here if it were wrapped up.

My personal taste came on Saturday, when a telemarketer called. Her question: Who will I vote for in the Democratic primary?

Well, now that's one hell of a leading question. I took on a woe-is-me voice and said, "My good lady, I wouldn't vote for either of them if my other option was a sharp stick in the eye".

She took that fairly well, and then asked if I would be voting in the primaries. I said that I would. That was the end of the call, and I'm sure she assumed I would vote Republican. No, I go to the voting place, sign the book, and then walk out. Until they have a place for None Of The Above, or make primaries something other than a public function on behalf of the private organizations the Republican and Democratic Parties are, then that's my only real 'choice' when voting in primaries.

On another note, I thought political push-poll calls were illegal. Moreover, I'm on the No-Call List. I thought it was illegal for pollsters to call those on the list. Do the rules not apply now?