Legislative Attempt to Weaken "Minor Party" and Independent Campaigns
UPDATE:I've been contacted by several members of the media on this issue and here is the first finished product I've seen. And before you all jump on me, I had already done what Creech and Gene suggested in the comment section and said that it is wrong for someone to have to financially support a candidate they dislike. That part simply wasn't covered in the article.
Like "Patriot Act," the title "Fair Elections Now Act" sounds great. Like the Patriot Act, the devil is in the details. Here's Senator Durbin's description of the act:
U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Congressman John Tierney (D-MA) today unveiled two bipartisan bills - one dealing with Senate races; the other focused on House contests - to restore public confidence in the Congressional elections process. Both bills would allow qualified candidates to receive campaign financing from a public fund instead of from lobbyists and other special interests.
In general, the bills create "voluntary" public financing of House and Senate races. It is voluntary (until they make it mandatory, at least) for the campaigns to engage in the program, but there is no provision to make it voluntary for the taxpayers. In other words, expect your hard earned money to be used to support candidates you dislike.
There's more. Let's take a peak at a portion of the House bill (H.R. 1614)(emphasis added):
'(a) Major Party Candidates and Certain Independent Candidates- The requirement of this section is met if, during the clean money qualifying period, a major party candidate (or an independent candidate who meets the minimum vote percentage required for a major party candidate under section 501(9)) receives 1,500 qualifying contributions.
'(b) Other Candidates- The requirement of this section is met if, during the clean money qualifying period, a candidate who is not described in subsection (a) receives a number of qualifying contributions that is at least 150 percent of the number of qualifying contributions that a candidate described in subsection (a) in the same election is required to receive under subsection (a).
You read that right. Libertarian Party candidates would have to have one-and-a-half times the amound of qualifying contributions. Just to rule out the possibility of a typo, let's look at the Senate version (S.936):
'(2) MINOR PARTY AND INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES-
'(A) REDUCED AMOUNT FOR CERTAIN CANDIDATES-
'(i) IN GENERAL- In the case of a minor party candidate or independent candidate described clause (ii), the base amount is an amount equal to the product of--
'(I) a fraction the numerator of which is the highest percentage of the vote received by the candidate or a candidate of the same political party as such candidate in the election described in clause (ii) and the denominator of which is 25 percent; and
'(II) the amount that would (but for this paragraph) be the base amount for the candidate under paragraph (1).
'(ii) CANDIDATE DESCRIBED- A candidate is described in this clause if, in the most recent general election involving the office of Senator, President, or Governor in the State in which the candidate is seeking office--
'(I) such candidate, or any candidate of the same political party as such candidate, received 5 percent or more of the total number of votes cast for any such office; and
'(II) such candidate and all candidates of the same political party as such candidate received less than 25 percent of the total number of votes cast for each such office.
'(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any candidate if such candidate receives a number of qualifying contributions which is greater than 150 percent of the number of qualifying contributions such candidate is required to receive in order to meet the requirements of section 505(a).
The bills are filled with other really bad ideas, too. For example, they intend to force media outlets to provide political advertising at a loss.
The system would also provide for a media market adjustment to address variations among states. Participants would receive vouchers for purchasing broadcast airtime and would receive a 20% discount beneath the lowest unit cost on all advertising purchased near the end of the primary and general campaigns.
Regardless of the intentions, these bills are pure electoral evil. To begin, they force people to financially support political campaigns they dislike.
If you think McCain/Feingold is bad policy with disastrous results, just wait until you see the results of "Fair Elections Now." Because incumbents use constituent services, local offices and franking privileges, it will make them even harder to beat.
If enacted, the right of free political speech will only apply to the two major parties.
Both bills clearly target "minor party" campaigns, with the apparent goal of stifling political opposition.
A quick Google search found all sorts of progressive sites favoring the bill, with no sites opposing the bills. Republican sites seem conspicously silent on the issue.
Roll over McCain/Feingold, the meaner bills is movin' in.
If anyone ever wanted to understand a key difference between libertarians and liberals, this Washington Blade article about the court reversal of the DC gun ban clearly illustrates it:
Libertarian common sense:
But to Tom Palmer, a gay libertarian activist and scholar, the decision would eliminate a law he considers unconstitutional and which he says prevents law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves in their own homes.
"Violent criminals are already armed," Palmer said. "The mayor seemed to be surprised that the criminals don't obey this law. It's the law-abiding people who are disarmed by the law, not the lawless."
The view from the left:
Local gay activists were quick to say the court ruling, if upheld, would have the same impact on gays and straights.
"I support the mayor's position that this decision is harmful to the city as a whole," said gay Democratic activist Peter Rosenstein, who worked as issues director on Fenty's election campaign last year.
"But this should not be viewed as a GLBT issue because it's not," Rosenstein said.
But Palmer clearly shows the GBLT connection:
Palmer said the lofty principles of individual liberties did not enter his mind 25 years ago when he and a male companion were threatened by a group of 19 or 20 young men on a deserted street in San Jose, Calif.
"They shouted anti-gay epithets and they made death threats," Palmer said. "We ran and they chased us."
Seconds later, Palmer pulled out a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol he owned legally and pointed it at the youths, whom he was certain had planned to harm or kill him and his companion in a gay bashing incident.
"It stopped them in their tracks," he said. "The leader of the group stared at the gun and said, 'Do you have a permit for that?' I said if they came any closer I would shoot. They backed off."
No one was hurt in the incident, according to Palmer.
How anyone can oppose the right of individual self protection is beyond me.
Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Bill: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Debate over the "emergency" supplemental bill to fund the Iraq War has certainly had a lot of interesting turns over the last few days. I'll quickly try to break it all down.
Background: The House passed a $124.3 billion appropriations bill last week. The bill required $21 billion in pork to grease it's way through Congress. It also established a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The Senate amendment passed 50-48, following the "defection" of Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel. Bush vows to veto the bill.
Here's a bit of news which seems to have escaped the media:
House Republicans yesterday surprised Democrats with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity -- the first step by lawmakers to protect "John Doe" airline travelers already targeted in such a lawsuit.
[snip]
"No American should ever be sued because they tried to stop a terrorist act," Mr. Shuster said after the vote. "No American should be forced to second-guess a decision to alert authorities that could save the lives of others."
He's right, no American should have to worry about being sued for reasonably calling the cops about a robbery next door or for alerting authorities about a probable terrorist activity. However, legislation curtailing one's right to seek redress in civil court is indeed a very slippery slope. It's indeed a shame that our executive, legislative and judicial branches have slipped to such a sorry point that consideration of such legislation even becomes necessary. It's past time that we went back to the core principles upon which our country was founded.
GOOD:
For the first time in years, Republicans have finally shown some opposition to pork. Probably not for principled reasons, however.
Democrats finally wish to end an unpopular war. Libertarians and some conservatives have opposed this war both on constitutional and moral grounds. While grassroots liberals have long opposed the war, elected liberals who once voted for the war now have a newfound motivation to oppose it, namely electoral advantage.
BAD:
Bush could have requested the supplemental appropriation a long time ago. He's turned this into a political issue. Democrats could have kept to their campaign promises. Pelosi's "the most ethical Congress ever" could end up outporking the Republicans.
UGLY:
The war in Iraq is costing us a lot of red and green: American blood and American dollars. Both sides are politicizing the issue while most of America wants their family members back in time to celebrate Christmas. It's clear that neither Republicans nor Democrats are committed to doing either the moral or the constitutional thing.
While I certainly don't agree with him on every issue, Gary Aldrich smacked one out of the ballpark in today's Washington Times:
Patrick Henry stood up for liberty when there was no constitution and at a time when he could have been hanged for speaking his mind. Surely we can stand up for our liberty today when the only risk to us is an angry stare from a big-government bureaucrat.
Five years ago today, President Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Today, American politics is so clean you could eat off it -- except for the mud-slinging, back-scratching, favor-trading, influence-peddling, bald-faced lying, indictments, and convictions.
The anti-First Amendment league bragged that McCain-Feingold "significantly reduced the corrupting influence of campaign contributions and enhanced the participation of small donors in the process."
Sager questioned these claims:
By what metric does one measure "corruption"? Mr. McCain and his crew couldn't define it before they passed McCain-Feingold; they can't define it now; and, thus, there's no way to measure it. Anyone paying attention to politics in the last couple years, however, would be surprised to find out corruption has been "significantly reduced." The names of three former Republican congressmen -- Tom DeLay (departed from Congress under indictment), Duke Cunningham (in jail for accepting bribes), and Bob Ney (pleaded guilty to corruption charges) -- jump to mind.
As for the enhanced participation of small donors in the political process, here's a question: If Messrs. McCain and Feingold took credit for water running downhill, would that mean they could slap it on their resumes? Small donors are participating more in politics because politicians are learning how to harness the Internet. So, unless Mr. McCain invented the Internet -- and not Al Gore as we all learned in our civics textbooks -- no one ought to be attributing this development to BCRA.
If anyone wonders why I call it the Incumbent Protection Act or has any doubts as to the impact on third/minor/alternate parties, here's why:
The former senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson, who championed McCain-Feingold, promised that it would "help challengers reach a threshold of credibility when they want to challenge us in these races." Putting aside the ludicrous notion that 535 incumbent politicians sat down and tried to write a piece of legislation that would make it harder to get reelected, five years later there's no evidence electoral competition has increased. Sure, control of Congress turned over. But anyone who attributes the 2006 election to McCain-Feingold, as opposed to Bush-Cheney-Hastert-Frist, is delusional.
Some McCain-Feingold supporters promised that the bill would reduce the amount of money being raised and spent in elections. "This bill forces all of us," Senator Cantwell of Washington said during the debate, "to play by the same rules and raise and spend money in lower amounts." As the Sun's Josh Gerstein reports today, that certainly hasn't been the result. Candidates for both parties' nominations will surely be shattering first-quarter fundraising records next month.
Where does Sager see the future of campaign finance reform moving:
"...look for Congress to start taking an interest in "unregulated" Internet speech any day now. Money has never been the issue. Cleansing our speech of impure thoughts about politicians is the real agenda."
A Senate panel wants to know if the Patriot Act needs to be revised to keep the FBI from illegally or improperly gathering telephone, e-mail and financial records of Americans and foreigners while pursuing terrorists.
[snip]
The committee plans to hear April 17 from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is struggling to keep his job amid criticism of the NSL abuses and the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
"Last year the administration sought new powers in the Patriot Act to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation and to more freely use National Security Letters," Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in remarks prepared for Tuesday's hearing. "The administration got these powers, and they have badly bungled both."
In a review of headquarters files and a sampling of four of the FBI's 56 field offices, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found 48 violations of law or presidential directives during 2003-2005. He estimates there may be as many as 3,000 violations throughout the FBI that have not been identified or reported.
[snip]
In 2000, the FBI issued an estimated 8,500 requests. That number peaked in 2004 with 56,000. Overall, the FBI reported issuing 143,074 requests in national security letters between 2003 and 2005. In 2005, 53 percent were for records of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
It will be interesting to see how this one turns out, considering that Leahy was one of ten Senators who voted against the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, but describes himself as "a co-author of the original PATRIOT Act."
The American people gave them a chance, and now the Democratic Congress is really starting to blow it. As evidenced by $21 billion of pork slipped into the defense supplemental bill, earmarks aren't going away. Now they want to take your guns, too.
During the 2006 campaigns, Democrats promised to take gun control off the table. Now that it's 2007, they've introduced HR 1022, which would reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban for another 10 years. This isn't the isoloated act of one Democrat, either. The bill has currently has 33 cosponsors.
If the bill passes in both houses, don't expect a presidential veto, either. Remember back to Bush's 2000 campaign promise:
Bush said in the 2000 campaign that he would sign an extension of the 10-year ban on the semiautomatic weapons. However, he did not press Congress to send him such a bill, and its Republican leaders never did.
The Republicans had their chance and squandered it. The Democrats are now squandering their chance. Perhaps it's about time to elect some Libertarians to Congress in order to give the will of the people a chance.
Weekend Open Thread: Pork for Peace and Gun Rights for Voting Rights
There has been a fair amount of debate this week in the comment section over what direction the Libertarian Party should take on several issues. I'd like to add two current issues to the debate to see how you all might resolve them.
The first relates to recent developments in the DC voting (for House races) issue. For those not aware, there has been a legislative attempt to give Utah an additional congressional seat until 2010 in exchange for voting represention in our nation's capitol. To add fuel to the fire, the bill died after Republicans injected Second Amendment arguments into the debate. The timing on the Second Amendment arguments is more relevant than normal, as it immediately follows a federal court reversal of the DC gun ban.
Here's how the teams seem to be lining up:
- Some Republicans don't wish for DC to have permanent voting rights, as DC is more likely to vote Democratic.
- DC's "Taxation without Representation" argument seems reasonable to many.
- Some argue the DC statehood bill is extra-constitutional, as the Constitution clearly states how representation is to be apportioned, and this legislation falls short of DC statehood.
- Others use a states' rights (or local rights) argument that DC should be able to establish local gun policy and they feel the feds have no business interfering in the matter.
- Some argue that DC is better off without a new layer of government.
Another issue is the current congressional debate over defunding the war in Iraq. As part of a strategy to ensure the bill passes, Democrats have added $21 billion of pork to Bush's initial $103 billion request. While the pork isn't going to pig farmers, it is aimed at spinich, peanut, salmon and citrus growers. The bill also establishes a timeline for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq. Currently, Democrats still need a couple more congressional votes to pass the bill. Bush is likely to veto the bill.
Here's how the sides line up:
- A majority of Americans want the U.S. military out of Iraq.
- Some people (both hawk and dove) don't think Congress should micromanage defense issues.
- Most people dislike pork (unless they are the beneficiaries, in some cases).
- Some people find it acceptable to sacrifice one principle (opposition to earmark spending) in order to save US and Iraqi lives.
- Some people are using the pork issue for soundbytes, when their real position is for a continued presence in Iraq.
Libertarians are often great at idealistic theory, but have been critized by some as being unable to find real solutions to the current issues of the day. Here's a challenge for the weekend. Let's try to find some workable libertarian solutions to these complicated problems as they have presented themselves in the congressional arena.
If in Congress, how would you vote for these bills? If crafting legislation, how would you write the bills? If putting out soundbytes or press releases on these issues, how would you write them?
Ballot access in Alabama is in the news again. Here's the report from Ballot Access News:
On March 20, the 11th circuit heard oral argument in Swanson v Alabama Secretary of State, no. 06-13643. The issue is Alabama's 3% (of the last gubernatorial vote) petition for minor parties and non-presidential independent candidates, and the early June petition deadline.
The judges were very interested in the case, and had obviously read the briefs. Judge Stanley Marcus virtually said that the lower court decision (which upheld the Alabama law) seemed to have failed to consider the impact of the high number of signatures, in combination with the relatively early deadline. He suggested the possibility that the 11th circuit might remand the case back to the lower court, with instructions for the lower court to specifically address the interaction of the deadline with the number of signatures. The Alabama 3% petition has been in effect since 1997. In ten years, it has only been used statewide once, by the Libertarian Party, in 2000. But in 2000, the deadline was in mid-July. Libertarians in 2000 got the bulk of their 40,000 needed signatures on primary day in June. Afterwards the legislature moved the petition deadline so that technique is no longer available.
Judge Judith Barzilay, a visiting judge from New York, seemed to feel that Alabama can't possibly have a valid state interest in requiring approximately 40,000 signatures for non-presidential independents, given that Alabama requires 5,000 signatures for independent presidential candidates. Since there is no election-administration related problem with the 5,000 requirement, she seemed to doubt the need for the 40,000 requirement.
Approximately 20 individuals attended the hearing, just to hear that particular case. It is very unusual for any ballot access hearing to attract that many people in the audience, and it helps.
Members of Independent Alabama and the Libertarian Party of Alabama appeared in the Atlanta courtroom. Depending upon the court decision, perhaps Alabama Libertarians will be able to run statewide candidates once again.
Here's a question any Libertarian could answer without hesitation: How does one balance the federal budget without raising taxes?
The obvious answer is to reduce spending.
Writing to a generally Republican audience over at Townhall.com, it took Republican Minority Leader John Boehner 732 words to describe this incredibly simple concept.
The LP has another relatively simple concept, one which you'll see on the header of this webpage: Smaller Government... Lower Taxes... More Freedom...
Our tagline sounds remarkably similar to this quote from Boehner's article:
"...keep taxes low, restrain government and encourage greater freedom."
Shane Cory and I had the honor of attending a press conference announcing the American Freedom Agenda. Here is the AFA mission statement:
The American Freedom Agenda's (AFA) mission is twofold: the enactment of a cluster of statutes that would restore the Constitution's checks and balances as enshrined by the Founding Fathers; and, making the subject a staple of political campaigns and of foremost concern to Members of Congress and to voters and educators. Especially since 9/11, the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative or judicial power, and has repeatedly claimed that the President is the law. The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling, reminiscent of the kingly abuses that provoked the Declaration of Independence.
In conjunction with this agenda is a Freedom Pledge for presidential candidates. We've already notified our presidential candidates of this and are working together with them on it.
The American Freedom Agenda conference was hosted by Bruce Fein, Bob Barr, David Keene and Richard Viguerie. Here is the C-SPAN link, and here are some of the highlights:
Bruce Fein: "None of us here are anti-President Bush. I voted for President Bush twice."
This was the major downside of the event. Quite a few of us in attendance are very opposed to President Bush. In addition to Shane and me, I heard both Bob Barr and Richard Viguerie speak against Bush at a public event over the weekend.
David Keene: "In the days immediately following September 11, then Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld suggested in a public speech that if Americans change the way in which they live, the terrorists would have won."
Richard Viguerie:"I want to call to my fellow conservatives' attention a constitutional crisis that has developed to alarming proportion under President George W. Bush.
"One of the most important principles of conservatism is that our constitutional system of government is one of limited powers divided among three separate but co-equal branches.
"Just as a three-legged stool that has one leg longer than the other is unstable and could cause serious harm, our system of government will be unbalanced and potentially dangerous if all three branches of government are not co-equal."
Bob Barr:"I had the opportunity just this past weekend to attend the national committee meeting for the Libertarian Party. These very issues were discussed at great length by adherents to and members of the Libertarian Party."
Bruce Fein: "But I would add 'yes, of course' we would like to see these issues placed on the planks of the Democrat and Republican parties, indeed the Libertarian Party, any party that fields a presidential candidate for 2008."
Bob Barr: "The way that the system is stacked, which makes it almost impossible for a third party, for example, to interject itself in a meaningful way in the election cycles, is also very problematic."
It's refreshing to see at least a few members of the conservative movement adopting more libertarian stances on current and vital public policy issues.
Linked is the first print article about the State Chairs Conference held last weekend in Orlando. Here are a few highlights:
Libertarian Party leaders gave a standing ovation to former Rep. Bob Barr after the ex-Republican called for "a multidecade effort" to build a movement to make the party nationally competitive.
"The future of America is the future of the Libertarian Party," Mr. Barr told a weekend conference of state party chairmen. "And the future is bright."
[snip]
"Whenever conservatives are unhappy, bad things happen for the Republican Party," said Mr. Viguerie, author of "Conservatives Betrayed: How the Republican Party Hijacked the Conservative Cause."
Mr. Viguerie, whose pioneering direct-mail operations helped revolutionize political fundraising, emphasized the value of issue-oriented appeals in building a successful movement.
[snip]
During Saturday's luncheon, Libertarian Party National Chairman Bill Redpath discussed ways that the party could overcome such problems as ballot access and fundraising.
"The problem is that we are a minority party in a winner-take-all voting system," said Mr. Redpath, urging party activists to support "electoral reform" aimed at creating a system of proportional representation.
[snip]
"We have to put our best faces forward in winnable races," said Shane Cory, who became executive director of the Libertarian Party last year. He emphasized the need to "build from the bottom up" by winning office at the state and local level, and agreed with Mr. Viguerie's stress on issue-oriented activism.
"We need to diversify and be able to address a broad range of issues," Mr. Cory said.
A Saturday-evening banquet featured a debate among five candidates for the 2008 Libertarian presidential nomination: Las Vegas oddsmaker Wayne Allyn Root, Florida businessman Daniel Imperato, Internet entrepreneur Mike Jingozian of Oregon, physics professor George Phillies of Massachusetts, and retired businessman [Alden] Link of New York.
It was a great event, and I'm trying to write an article for LP News to let you all know more of what went down last weekend in Orlando.
Inconsistencies Part II: Self Defense is a Right; Repeal that Fundament Right Anyway
Last week's blog entry about a possible partial reversal of the DC gun ban met with some reasonable criticism. I accused liberals of being inconsistent because they support many civil liberties, but not the right to keep and bear arms -- and recieved this response:
Those darned liberals and progressives. [Your] post is really going to convince them to realize their wicked ways and join the LP. They won't mind at all that you are insulting them without addressing any of their concerns about guns.
Now it seems that Benjamin Wittes has jumped into this debate over at the New Republic. As site registration is required, I'll link to the significant excerpt, as reported at Reason's blog:
It's true that repealing the Second Amendment is politically impossible right now; that doesn't bother me. It should be hard to take away a fundamental right.
It seems to me that at least some people do think that the right to keep and bear arms is clearly fundamental, but they wish to repeal this basic liberty anyway.
After a very busy weekend with the LSLA Conference and LNC meeting in Orlando, topped off by flight delays, we are finally able to start catching up around the office. It seems other Libertarians around the country have been as busy as we were.
New York Libertarians want to boycott a bank for eminent domain abuse:
New York Libertarian Party leaders Richard Cooper and Gary Popkin call for a nationwide boycott of Barclays Bank due to its participation in the eminent domain abuse scheme of Brooklyn's Atlantic Yards. Barclays, a British bank with branches in America, agreed to pay the developer Forest City Ratner over $300 million for naming rights to the Nets basketball team's arena over a thirty-year period. Libertarian State Chair Cooper notes that millions of Americans were outraged by last year's Kelo decision by the Supreme Court upholding eminent domain transfers to private developers. The Libertarians offer an opportunity to demonstrate opposition in a material way.
A common theme on this blog, Lady Liberty called for Libertarians to work together a bit better:
Meanwhile, perhaps the worst party at getting people to unify behind a candidate or even a cause is the Libertarian Party. I've heard it said more than once that getting Libertarians together is like herding cats. Now, I don't know how familiar you are with cats, but I'll tell you from past experience that herding them is pretty much out of the question! In no small measure, the problem with unity within the party is caused by people with principles so truly precious to them (which I frankly appreciate and admire) that they're disinclined to work gradually toward a goal they believe ought to be the status quo already. That's too bad because the Libertarian Party is really the closest thing I've got to my party of choice primarily because it is, in my opinion, the party closest to liberty.
As most of the office is heading down to Orlando for the LNC meeting and State Chairs Conference, we'll be pretty slow on blog entries for the next few days. We'll leave the blog open for your comments on any subject you desire.
Here are a few possible topics to get the ball rolling:
How can the LP more effectively target the left?
Should we concentrate more on local, state or national races?
What do we need to do to win more elections?
How can the LP, and LP candidates, raise more money?
American deaths in Iraq now exceed 3200.
What can we do to stop advances in socialized healthcare?
According to recent arguments, liberals and progressives must think the freedom of speech portion of the First Amendment only applies to organizations, but not individuals. Likewise, the Third Amendment only protects cities from troops being quartered in homes; the individual homeowners are not protected. Miranda rights are no longer to be read to the individual arrested, but to entire racial or socio-economic classes. Basically, if liberal arguments are to be consistent, the first eight amendments to the Constitution deal with collective rights, not individual ones.
Paul Helmke of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence makes my case in the AJC:
Judges who avoid decades-old precedent, dismiss express constitutional language as being irrelevant and ignore "outright, general public sentiment and the long-standing values of the community" have been criticized by and called "black-robed usurpers" by Bob Barr over the years.
But Barr likes the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Parker v. District of Columbia, which for the first time in American history declared a gun law unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment, even though that ruling does the following:
- Ignores binding Supreme Court precedent. In the 1939 case of Miller v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that there was no Second Amendment right independent of "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." The Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" in such a way as to support the "obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces," the court held.
The judges writing for the majority in the Parker ruling don't even mention the Miller case until halfway into their decision, and then ignore its holding. As the dissenting judge in Parker made clear, Miller "succinctly - but unambiguously - set down its understanding of the Second Amendment" and this court did not follow. If this Appellate Court can treat precedent of nearly 70 years so cavalierly, what other changes might we see in the coming years?
- Discounts the express language of the Second Amendment. While the Second Amendment has only 27 words (and three commas), many try to ignore its opening clauses: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." To the District of Columbia circuit judges, this "prefatory" language defines a "salutary civic purpose" only, but does not mean anything in the way of limiting "an individual right to keep and bear arms."
"The Second Amendment clearly outlines the right for individuals to keep and bear arms. This ruling by Judge Silberman is certainly a breath of fresh air for all Americans concerned about their constitutional rights."
I'm not surprised that this line of reasoning came from the Brady Center; they are obviously opposed to the right of self defense.
This really highlights a significant difference between Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians. Republicans tend to like certain elements of the Bill of Rights, but ignore or are openly hostile to others. Democrats have their favorite amendments, but are hostile to others. Libertarians support each and every individual liberty protected by the Bill of Rights.
Captain America may be dead for "defying a superhero registration law," but the Libertarian Party now has a suitable replacement.
For the last few days, the buzz around the national office has been about the responses to the 2006 Libertarian National Committee Annual Report, 2006 Adventures in Liberty. Most of our members have now received the report. As the mail has been a bit inconsistent lately, some of you might be receiving your copy sometime over the next few days.
Which is more important to the typical voter--the candidate's position on the budget and economy or how voters feel about the candidate's honest or integrity?
If you guessed the latter, you understand how the majority of Americans determine which candidate they'll vote for--at least according to the survey identified in this AP report.
For all the policy blueprints churned out by presidential campaigns, there is this indisputable fact: People care less about issues than they do about a candidate's character.
A new Associated Press-Ipsos poll says 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.
Just one-third look first to candidates' stances on issues; even fewer focus foremost on leadership traits, experience or intelligence.
I think it is important to add one proviso to the article by Ron Fournier and Trevor Tompson: Voters are strongly influenced by their perception of the candidate. In reality, the real character of the candidate may differ significantly from public perception of the candidate--campaigns spend a lot of money to soften or alter the image of their candidates.
One possible explanation of why voters choose character over issues is that they see little meaningful difference in the positions of the candidates from the two major parties.
Most Libertarians run issue-oriented campaigns; public image is often overlooked. The question is whether LP campaigns should continue to run issue-oriented campaigns or allocate a greater level of resources aimed at ensuring that voter's are aware of the positive character attributes of our candidates.
This one should come as no surpise to anyone. From the AP:
A blistering Justice Department report accuses the FBI of underreporting its use of the Patriot Act to force businesses to turn over customer information in terrorism cases, according to officials familiar with its findings.
The report, to be released Friday, also says the FBI failed to send follow-up subpoenas to telecommunications firms that were told to expect them, according to several government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report by the Justice Department's inspector general had not yet been released.
Overall, the FBI underreported the number of national security letters it issued by about 20 percent between 2003 and 2005, the officials said. In 2005 alone, the FBI delivered a total of 9,254 letters relating to 3,501 U.S. citizens and legal residents.
The Patriot Act, pushed through Congress by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, allows the FBI to issue national security letters without a judge's approval in terrorism and espionage cases. The letters require telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, credit bureaus and other businesses to produce highly personal records about their customers or subscribers.
I'm curious about other excesses pertaining to the Patriot Act which haven't been reported, as well.
The new US commander in
Iraq warned Thursday there is no military solution to the conflict and urged political talks.
General David Petraeus also said that Iraqi leaders would eventually have to sit down and talk with some of the violent factions tearing the country apart.
Braving the sectarian terror, thousands of Shiite pilgrims were streaming to Karbala to join about 2.5 million devotees already in the holy city for the sombre religious ceremony of Arbaeen on Friday.
At his first news conference since taking charge of US-led forces in Iraq, Petraeus said he felt "shame, horror and sorrow" when he heard of a suicide attack on Tuesday that killed at least 117 Shiite pilgrims .
He said "thugs with no souls" were carrying out atrocities to derail Operation Fardh al-Qanoon (Imposing Law), launched with 90,000 Iraqi and US troops last month in a bid to quell sectarian violence in Baghdad.
So why are our sons, daughters, friends and neighbors still in Iraq?
WND had a really nice piece about Harry Browne today. Several members of the national office staff had the honor of attending Harry's memorial service last year. There are three things I remember most distinclty about the service.
The first is that each man at the memorial service recieved a necktie which Harry had previously worn. The one I selected still hangs in the front of my tie rack, but I've never been able to bring myself to wear it. For some reason, I don't worthy to wear one of Harry Browne's ties. For those who didn't know Harry, perhaps this quote from the article will shed some light:
Harry was the ultimate role model when it came to the power of the understatement. Unlike so many screaming twit-heads who pop up on our television screens each day, he never raised his voice, never exaggerated and never engaged in personal attacks. He was living proof that there is no replacement for knowledge and wisdom when it comes to changing the hearts and minds of people.
Harry's calm, civil way of expressing his libertarian beliefs earned him the respect of many big-name interviewers on national television. I recall him appearing on talk shows a couple of times with other presidential candidates. In such situations, he was so far above his counterparts intellectually that I was almost embarrassed for them.
Another vibrant memory came from something that happened long before Harry's unfortunate demise. It was a letter he had penned to his daughter when she was nine years old. It was also a Christmas present for her, one which was later published as a syndicated column. It was a great gift.
The other key memory, which will be forever be etched in my mind, was the reading of his eulogy.
I didn't do everything I wanted to do,
I didn't become everything I wanted to be,
But because I aimed for the stars,
I reached the top of the world.
In the spirit of Harry Browne, I'd like to challenge each of us to aim for the stars; I certainly will try. If I finally reach the top of the world, maybe then I'll feel worthy enough to wear Harry's tie.
No seatbelt? No citation. No tail light? No ticket. In to much of a hurry? Not to worry.
Sgt. P.J. Beaty watches people in this upscale development breaking traffic laws, and sees plenty of them. But he can't pull them over. A man swerved head-on into Beaty's lane, and then back out again and Beaty couldn't lay a glove on him.
For years, he and the department's 10 other sworn officers could have pulled him over.
But the Sunriver Service District, which governs police and fire departments, voted in February to tell officers to make Sunriver's roads, which are private but open to the public, exempt from minor vehicle infractions.
So residents and the public alike can run a stop sign at will in the 5-square-mile area that makes up Sunriver.
Police there can only stop drivers for what the state calls traffic crimes, such as drunken or reckless driving.
WARNING: Don't watch this video if you are easily offended. Profane and socially intolerent footage contained inside.
I guess Libertarians weren't the only cute guys at CPAC. Ann Coulter seems to think The Nation's Max Blumenthal is a good looking fella, too. While she may have a crush on Blumenthal, she doesn't seem to like gay guys all that much, considering this YouTube contains her already famous classless insult of them. We weren't going to show the Coulter video, but this clip does have some Bob Barr coverage, too. Here's Barr's transcript:
It goes far deeper than simply this administration. The conservative movement really has lost its way, in many respects because of its too close association with the Republican Party.
Back to the less serious side of things, it seems that Jeff Gannon was a bit upset about Joe's commentary about him. Here's the pertinent snippet:
We stood around chatting up just how disorganized the event staffers were when Jeff Gannon, yes, that Jeff Gannon happened to cruise by our space. The photographer and I looked at each other and did our best not to crack up over being in his presence. Frankly, I can't believe that this guy is still welcome to GOP related events, but then there are a lot of things about the GOP that shock me.
On the day following Joe's entry, Gannon walked over to the LP booth (as opposed to Blogger's Row) and asked who wrote the blog entry about him. He said that Libertarians aren't supposed to make fun of people.
To make the record clear, we weren't really making fun of his ease in obtaining White House press credentials. We were just lobbing Mr. Guckert a softball.
It looks like Illinois will be the next stop on the Socialized Healthcare Line. Here's the Chicago Tribune report:
"We are all God's children," the Democratic governor said. "He intended for all of us to have an equal opportunity to live good, quality lives and to have equal opportunity to have access to things like fundamental quality health care."
Blagojevich did not detail how the state would pay for the program, estimated to cost $2.1 billion annually, but sources have said it will be paid for, in part, with funds from a new $6 billion tax on corporate business gross revenues he plans to propose later this week.
Don't expect too much Republican support in defeating any government-controlled healthcare measure. Mitt Romney is a leading GOP presidential candidate and here's a snipppet of his actions on healthcare reform (emphasis added):
Residents of Massachusetts must have health insurance coverage under Chapter 58. [snip] If a resident does not have coverage and does not have a waiver, the Department of Revenue will enforce the insurance requirement. In 2007, the penalty will be the loss of the personal exemption. In future tax years the individual must pay for half the cost of the lowest available yearly premium which will be enforced as an assessed addition to the individual's income tax.
In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has designs (emphasis added) on terminating free market healthcare choices, too.
* Require all employers with 10 or more employees to provide insurance or pay 4% of their payroll into a government program designed to provide coverage to the uninsured.
* Tax Doctors 2% of their Gross Revenues. Tax Hospitals 4% of the Gross Revenues. Note this is not 2% or 4% of their profit, but of the gross.
* Cover all children whose families make less than 3 times the poverty level through the states Healthy Family program. For a family of 4 in California that is approximately $60,000. The median income for a family of 4 in California is $67,000. That means approximately 50% of the families in California would be covered by this provision.
* Ban insurance companies from refusing to offer coverage based on preexisting conditions.
* Require insurance companies to spend at least 85% of their premium revenues on patient care. This is essentially another tax as it effectively limits profit to 15% of income minus whatever the overhead costs are. There is no possibility of growth.
* Mandate insurance coverage for all Californians. This effectively negates the first provision of the plan since no employer in his right mind is going to offer insurance when the state is already doing it.
The line between Democrats and Republicans continues to blur. Republican Governor Riley tried to raise taxes in the name of Jesus; Democratic Governor Blagojevich is invoking God to socialize healthcare.
As we roll into Election Cycle '08, expect the mainstream media to expound on the differences between Democratic healthcare plans one can't refuse and Republican healthcare plans one can't refuse. To be sure, the soundbytes and coverage won't include many words like "must", "enforce", "penalty", or "require" "tax".
The Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves. In a 21st century Declaration of Independence, I'm sure Jefferson would have included an unalienable right of freedom from socialized healthcare in his historical list of self-evident truths. Washington might have modified his famous Farewell Address to include an admonition against entangling alliances with healthcare corporations.
In the mean time, there is only one political party which will continue to fight for true free market solutions in the healthcare marketplace.
CPAC Overview: "...a large libertarian influence at CPAC"
As Joe Magyer mentioned earlier, he missed Bob Barr's panel, so I'll try to fill you in a bit on that. Additionally, I took some photographs and will try to provide some additional insight into the sometimes terrible, sometimes wonderful mayhem they call CPAC.
Passersby stop to learn more about the Libertarian Party
To begin, I used a camera I've never used before and I may have lost some of the most important photographs. It seems that every picture taken of the LP booth didn't show the one thing I was trying to clearly show: Despite our less-than-perfect location, the LP booth was quite popular. While the book signing booths had the longest lines when a popular recent author was there, we had a great showing. The easiest mechanism of comparison was to contrast the number of people at the LP booth to other booths on our row. Almost everytime I looked to make the comparison, we were the most popular booth at the moment. For example, I don't think I ever saw people stopping at the booth next door to us.
Hopefully I'll be able to recover the lost photographs. And next time, I'll be sure to find a camera which isn't smarter than I am.
Jason Talley of Bureaucrash interviews yours truly
I was interviewed several times and managed to point out some important differences between Libertarians and Republicans. So much happened at CPAC that the interviews are all still a blur in my mind. I think it was the Bureaucrash interview where I went after Brownback for signing the No Child Left Behind Act as well as Romney on the Massachussetts healthcare plan that no one is allowed to refuse. I vaguely recall calling McCain "a traitor to the First Amendment" on a live television interview.
Literature, stickers, pins and the ever-popular free candy
In addition to the traditional literature passed out at such events, we also distributed a presidential survey. Most people who stopped by the booth were interested in filling out the survey and we obtained new contact information for hundreds of people. While we haven't had a chance to tally the results, I did a quick count of day one responses to the first question. Only 1/3 of the respondents said they would vote for the GOP presidential nominee, no matter what. The other 2/3 opted for the best candidate, regardless of party line or a third party/independent candidate if they weren't satisfied with the GOP nominee.
The majority of our booth visitors were on the younger side, ranging from college students to interns to junior policy wonk types. There was a higher percentage of female visitors than I had expected, but perhaps here's the reason why. This blogger also noted "...I thought this was a much more libertarian year at CPAC, much less socially conservative than previous years."
Because many of our booth visitors weren't representative of the inside-the-beltway mentality, I also asked some "off the record" questions to members of the conservative mainstream media. While I won't identify the pundits, what they had to say was quite revealing.
"Everyone has their lines and limits," I asked. "At what point would you vote for a Libertarian presidential candidate?" One popular journalist/author responded "If Romney is the nominee." A key Second Amendment advocate responded with "Giuliani."
A leading Bush apologist stuck her fingers to her mouth and made a "barfing sound" when asked her opinion of the GOP frontrunners. A national reporter said he'd vote for "a Goldwater" before he'd stick to party lines in 2008.
Richard Viguerie: "Just because the Republican Party has a death wish doesn't mean [small government conservatives] have to go down with them."
Joe seems to favor this quotable Viguerie line: "You don't get grounded in your philosophy by listening to Sean Hannity and reading Ann Coulter." I prefered his Blues Brothers approach: "We're going to get the band back together and we're on a mission from God."
The Failure of Fusionism: Moderator Nick Gillespie (left) of Reason and panelist Donald Devine (right) of the American Conservative Union Foundation
The debate on fusionism continues within the libertarian/conservative movement. While I'm used to seeing Nick Gillespie sit on panels dealing with this general topic, it was interesting seeing him moderate the debate.
Donald Devine of the American Conservative Union Foundation, Daniel McCarthy of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and Ryan Sager, author of "The Elephant in the Room" were the panelists.
Gillespie was more eloquent than normal, casting zinging one-liners filled with humorous irony and metaphor throughout the debate. It was quite interesting to observe a member of the audience noticeably flinching because he/she had his/her political awareness snagged by one of Gillespie's sharp rhetorical barbs. I'm rather opinionated about this topic, as well.
Bob Barr wearing a Libertarian Party tie
While you can't see it from the pictures, everyone in the crowded ballroom could observe the tie former Congressman Bob Barr wore because of the two giant video monitors in the room.
Barr debated "War By Other Means" author John Yoo on the topic of Balancing Individual Rights and National Security. The debate was moderated by Fox News analyst Angela McGlowan. "We still need leaders like that," McGlowan observed about Barr in her introductory comments.
While they disagreed about the topic du jour, Yoo agreed with McGowan's assessment of Barr. The applause level made it quite clear that the audience agreed, too.
Then the debate started. Barr provided some constitutional history about the Bill of Rights and illustrated that a curtailment of civil liberties is not necessary to defeat terrorists. He pointed out that the Constitution/Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land and that there is a constitutional process for changing our laws, should it ever be required. The Constitution is our protection against a tyrannical abuse of power, he observed, adding that the audience should consider the scenario of Hillary being handed the powers the Republicans have usurped.
Yoo's initial premise was that there have been precendents for using the Bill of Rights as toilet paper. He provided a chronological list: The Alien and Sedition Act, habeas corpus suspension during the Civil War, WWI, WWII, yada, yada, yada. By this line of reasoning, wife beating, slavery and even genocide can be excused. Lest you think this a case of political exaggeration, remember Michelle Malkin's book "In Defense of Internment."
Of course, Yoo didn't think the Patriot Act should be repealed, suggesting that this current war against the nameless, faceless Jihadists requires a balance between civil liberties and security. "Our civil liberties are not subject to a balance," was Barr's response when he had the floor next.
The conversation turned to torture. Apparently hoping to soften the imagery, Yoo didn't use the word "torture" in his defense of this barbaric act. He suggested that we are in a different kind of war and we have to use different mechanisms to protect our security. He said that we shouldn't have to read terrorists their Miranda Rights. Because Yoo tried to softsoap the subject, this left Barr a great opportunity, of which he took advantage.
Because of noise at the next table, I missed some of what Barr said, but it was along the lines of "Never before have we toyed with wordsmithing various definitions of torture. This is a slippery slope that we need to pay attention to."
While Barr recieved more applause during the introductions, the audience response was about the same for Yoo and Barr though the debate. At the end, Yoo recieved significant applause for his defense of torture. Once again, I was reminded of why I'm embarrassed to have ever been a member of the Republican Party. As a veteran of over ten years in the Army, knowing that half the people in the audience cheer torture cheapened the feeling of pride I felt whenever they honored those who have proudly worn our country's uniform.
Obviously, the GOP presidential campaigns were the main focus of attention for the mainsteam media as well as many of the college students who were bussed to CPAC in support of one campaign or another. However, many thought leaders from issue groups and the media were also present. While libertarianism wasn't the main theme of the conference, it was noticeably present thoughout the event.
One blogger put it this way: "There was actually a large libertarian influence at CPAC."
At one level, the libertarian influence was illustrated by Cato's Mike Tanner putting Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson on the spot, forcing her into an embarrasing defense of earmark spending.
At another level, the ongoing debate over fusionism meant that libertarianism isn't dead within the conservative movement--but it may be dead within the the GOP. One of my observations was that there seemed to be two sorts of Republicans present: Those who truly care about the issues and those who care about winning, at any cost.
While plenty of libertarians were present, the Libertarian Party was, too. I ran into three former staffers from the national office and several former campaign staffers who I've had the pleasure of working with on LP campaigns. Quite a few people came up and picked up "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian" buttons. While some people proudly displayed their buttons, a few had to hide them because they were afraid of losing their jobs on the Hill or with various policy organizations.
I'd divide CPAC participants into three general categories. There were libertarians, "true conservatives" and apologists for the GOP. While there isn't any way to work with the latter category, we can work with the former two groups of people. Should the GOP continue along its current big government path, we'll eventually get the libertarian vote. We also have a lot to offer small government conservatives who aren't bent on forcing their social views on society, especially at the national level.
Not only did the LP have a booth, but it was well attended and received. Our staff (and a few others) did a great job manning the booth, and I'd like to thank Edward, Louise, Pare, Deborah and Sam for the countless hours they put into CPAC. I'd also like to thank Robert, Nicole and George for supporting not just our booth operations but for supporting Shane and me while we were attending events, networking, conducting business or being interviewed. When they weren't running things back and forth from headquarters to CPAC, they were handling the full load of office responsibilities that continue while we were otherwise occupied. Most of all, I'd like to thank Joe for his excellent coverage of CPAC from Blogger's Corner for YourTurn.
After submitting my last piece from the National Affairs Desk, I had a terrible lunch at a local joint and then helped Edward to break down our booth. Well, actually, this is a union only hotel, so teamsters were involved in the assembly and breakdown of the booths (terribly fast and efficient, I assure you). I said my goodbyes to Steve and Edward and rolled back inside, hunting for big game.
I found it. I walked in and sat down in the Regency Ballroom right as the "No Retreat, No Surrender: Fighting the Shadow Party" panel was getting underway. The speakers? Tom Delay and David Horowitz. Tom Delay was greeted by a huge standing ovation. Horowitz was also well received, but did not quite get the same love as The Hammer.
Horowitz spoke first. I was deeply unimpressed. This guy is a famous author and activist? Let me sum up the message of his speech in one sentence; with a religous fervor the American political left seeks to impose its beliefs on the rest of the American populace. This could be the most hypocritical speech I've ever heard given by a Republican, and I've heard about 20 of them in the past three days.
I'm now listening to Tom Delay try and scare the crowd into believing that the left is far more crafty, organized, and efficient than is the right. Could anyone in this room possibly believe this to be true? Delay then went on to mock unions for illegally financing campaigns and highlighted the Mark Foley affair as one that cost the Republicans seats in 2006. I am in a political Alice In Wonderland where the Republicans don't seek to impose morality through legislation and Tom Delay is a saint.
The Also-Rans
Following the Chesire Cat and the Mad Hatter, the Republicans decided to roll out a series of also-ran speakers. The first was Congressman Patrick McHenry, who, like every time I've seen him on TV, was remarkably unremarkable. The man needs a new speech writer. Badly. McHenry was followed by William Greene, who is running for the open seat in the GA-10 following the death of Congressman Charlie Norwood. Greene's speech was alright, not great. He pretty much just pimped his website and campaign for 10 minutes.
The next speaker delivered the most interesting commentary I had seen from a Republican speaker. A young woman named Heather Smith gave an eye opening speech about the marked uptick in voter turnout among the youth. Additionally, she mentioned that 2/3 of voters never change their party line vote from the first Presidential canidate they voted for. Also, above the age of 30, very, very few change their party preference. In other words, get them while they're young. Given the growing positive reception of the LP among the youth, I came away from this strongly believing that we need to continue to pound away on the youth vote. If you're looking to improve your ground work with LP youth, I highly recommend you get in touch with Mark Augustyn of www.thinklibertarian.com. Mark is a great guy and the best LP member I've come across at youth organization.
There was another speaker, who I actually met on Bloggers' Corner, but I forgot his name already. He's running for President. Needless to say, I don't think he's going to win.
The Straw Poll Results
A total of 1,705 ballots came in, 36% more than last year. It was the single largest straw poll in CPAC's history with voters coming from 49 states plus D.C. (no one from Alaska). The notable results:
Why do you think the Republicans suffered the losses they did in last November's elections?
1. The War in Iraq
Do you support the troop surge?
1. Yes; 82%
All things being equal, which brand of Republicanism would you be MOST likely to support?
1. Reagan Republican; 79%
2. George Bush; 3% (Which White House staffer do you think will have the honor of telling the President that conservatives prefer his idol to him by a roughly 26:1 margin?)
Who is your FIRST preference to win the 2008 Presidential Republican nomination?
1. Romney; 21%
2. Giuliani; 17%
3. Brownback; 15%
4. Gingrich; 14%
5. McCain; 12%
6-8 (5% or below); Gilmore; Huckabee; Tancredo
Romney won the "small government" voters group, Brownback won the "traditional values" block, and Giuliani won the "secure and guarantee safety" voters.
Combined percentages of first and second preference:
1. Giuliani; 34%
2. Romney; 30%
3. Gingrich; 30%
By the way, when McCain's totals were mentioned? Thunderous boos.
The Newt
I thought the VP got a big introduction. Newt came in from the back door like a frickin' rockstar. I had flashbacks of a Metallica show in college. Like a State of the Union entrance, only everyone in the room actually likes (more like passionately loves) the man walking down the aisle. These folks love them some Newt. Even the senior press corps guys were laughing at this practically insane show of love and support.
Newt came and dropped a Reagan quote within the first 90 seconds. But of course. Painfully for him, it happened to be the same one about "bold colors, not pastels" that McHenry used in his speech. Not really his fault, though, since every single Republican I've seen this weekend has tried to use an old Reagan CPAC quote (or three)in their speech. He called for bold and positive campaigning, as well as a series of open debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees on a weekly basis, not unlike the live debate hosted on the West Wing in season 7. Moving on, Newt said that he is not going to think about the Presidential campaign until September.
Gingrich called for a strong movement as using English as the nation's official language. He moved on to citing statistics showing Americans are overwhelming cool with the phrase "one nation under God" and that our government should be more proactive in embracing God and our faith. He then gave a somewhat clunky healthcare reference citing Jeb Bush. Looking for a Veep there, Newt?
Newt then told what I must admit was a very funny anecdote comparing cruise lines and health care. You'll have just to take my word that it was very funny. Low taxes were next on the docket followed by an argument for a taking a strong line with North Korea and Iran. He closed shortly thereafter...
That's A Wrap
Well, it was fun. I am pretty worn out from running around, fast food, and having to surround myself with thousands of Republicans.
I hope that you had some good takeaways from my coverage. As evidenced by the huge support the conventiongoers showed for more old school Republicanism than the current neo-con brand, the conservative base in this country is extremely displeased with their choice of leaders. There is room for a positive, agressive, and most importantly principled group (us) to make our move.
We need to choose our fights wisely. I believe that the best way for us to progress will be to target local and sometimes statewide races where we can make the most impact for the lease amount of resources.
Let's organize. Start pulling together a donor list in your area. For the love of Friedman, take an LLS class. They are fanastic experiences at dirt cheap prices. $50 to learn how to build a successful blog with which to push your candidate? $50 to learn how to fund raise? Are you kidding me? The question is not why should you be taking LLS classes, but if you're even remotely serious about running or working a campaign why on earth would you pass on such a great learning opportunity?
Slow and steady wins the race. You may not win your next local race, but you can organize a group of volunteers who you can rely on in years to come for both dollars and hard nosed campaigning, build the LP brand, and spread our message. Those results may not show up at the polls, but they will next time - and the time after that.
The opportunity is there for the taking, friends. We just need to work our tails off and strike while this iron is hot.
Let me make a long story short: I missed the Barr panel this morning. I was all set to be here 15-20 minutes early, only to get derailed by Metro repairs / construction. Fear not, though, my friends, as Steve Gordon was at the event and should be providing color on Barr's remarks/debate right here on the LP Blog in the next few days. Just like at the 2006 LP Convention, Steve covers more ground on foot than practically anyone at the event. Quick and nimble. Like an elf.
Since I'd already missed out on the Barr panel, I stopped by Mickey D's to get an O.J. and hash browns. I ran into Steve while stuffing my face as I was walking through the door into the Exhibition Hall. We passed on the chance to see Sean Hannity (I didn't want to lose my breakfast) to go see a panel titled "Lessons From the Last Revolution" that featured the colorful Paul Weyrich (Free Congress Foundation), Muriel Coleman (best known for her work with the 1980 Reagan campaign), and Richard Viguerie, a very well known and respected conservative activist who is actually speaking at the LP State Chairs meeting next month (www.statechairs.org).
Weyrich was the first speaker and was flat out great. Bearing a maroon sport coat and relaxed demeanor, Paul gave a candid lecture on the background of the conservative movement and how he perceived the Republican leadership to have dropped the ball. I dig this guy.
The pioneer of conservative direct mail efforts, Viguerie, came up next. Viguerie is a well spoken, colorful, old school guru. Richard spoke to the importance of activists focusing on and sharpening their understanding of their core belies and principles. He felt that conservative youth were out of touch with the princples that were the driving force of the conservative movement. Said Richard, "You don't get grounded in your philosophy by listening to Sean Hannity and reading Ann Coulter." I love this guy. Hell, I love this panel. Paul just nodded off for like the third time. This panel is 10 times more fun to watch than the last one I attended.
Richard feels that the conservative movement has essentially become a ship without a captain. Further, he believes that "Conservatives have become far too close to the Republican party. We have become an arm of the Republican Party, an appendage...we need to be independent of the Republican Party." That is money. When I arrived at this conference I was shocked at the cool reception I received from many of the conference staffers. You might think that they would be receptive to an emissary from the most fiscally conservative political body, but as Richard pointed out, these people are Republicans, not conservatively minded individuals
The best takeaway for us Libertarians from Richard came when, describing why conservatives have for the most part been handing it to the left over the past 27 years, he said "We have always approached politics as a marathon -- not a sprint." Richard made the argument that Republicans have spent the past few decades focusing on base and infrastructure development, while the Democrats tend to only care about the race right in front of them. Indeed, hardly anyone would disagree that the Republicans are not vastly ahead of the Democrats in terms of structure and organization.
We need to take this infrastructure cause to heart. In Georgia, where I just moved up here from, our people seem to be catching on to the idea that the fact that relying solely on our ideas just isn't going to get it done. Guys like Brad Forschner and James Bell are doing great work down there building up infrastucture. But, moving on...
Nick Gillespie Brings Down the Hammer
Steve has been telling me all week not to miss this panel, "The Failure of Fusionism", simply because it was going to be moderated by Reason editor Nick Gillespie. Gillespie came to the table sporting a leather jacket -- the third best jacket I've seen all weekend behind the bizarre maroon jacket in the last panel and the rhinestone jacket a Texan was wearing at the Cheney reception.
Gillespie came out firing with both barrels. He gave a bit of background on fusionism, which I'll just quickly describe as the binding of libertarianism and conservatism, and then described how the two ideologies have strongly veered off from one another since the Big Government Bush Machine took control in 2000.
I apologize; I was trying so hard to keep up with the previous panel that I was unable to quote much of the text in this panel. The first speaker, Dr. Donald Devine, bored the crap out of me. Aside from taking some less than stellar defensive shots at Nick's wonderfully well spoken bashing of the Bush regime, he spent literally spent more than half of his time quoting Ronald Reagan. Conservatives like Reagan. We get it.
Daniel McCarthy followed Devine and gave a nice address on fusionism and clearly showed himself to be quite knowledgeable on the subject. Ryan Sager, author of The Elephant in the Room, came out swinging much like Gillespie; slamming Bush, No Child Left Behind, and a slew of other big government neo-con agenda items. Sager, a self described libertarian, came out in support of Giuliani as the ultimate conservative / libertarian fusionist candidate.
In the Q&A section, though, McCarthy blew about 27 holes in the Giuliani / libertarian argument (thankfully). I liked Sager, but I'm not down with this Giuliani jazz. The Q&A also included a couple more Devine Reagan references. One wonders what old conservative men would talk about if Ronald Reagan had never existed. Goldwater? Ovaltine? Bueller?
All in all, two great panels. The Gillespie panel was undoubtedly the intellectual highlight of the weekend for me. I'm now sold on buying a subscription to Reason.
I got distracted at lunch by hanging out with a few Libertarians. As a result, I ended up missing the Urban Conservative panel. Oh well, I'm sure it was fluff anyway.
I came back and found a massively long line leading to the now delayed 2:45 Mitt Romney speech. I mean massive. The Huckabee speech was full...packed...and it had nothing on the Romney speech. Outside of a literally packed massive ballroom, there was a line 300 yards long of a slew of Republican fans. With a press pass, I was able to walk straight past these folks into the press section and was given about 500 dirty looks as a result. So sorry!
When I arrived inside I was crammed standing in the press section next to the reporter from the Washington Post, among others. Unfortunately, the area was just too cramped for this blogger who decided to come back to the comfort of Bloggers' Corner with its closed cirucuit feed and direct DSL connections.
The Romney speech drew the first legit crowd I've seen around the closed circuit television. There were two central themes of Romney's speech: that he was not the lefty flip flopper that many of his opponents made him out to be and that he was pro, pro, I mean pro-military.
Beyond his focus on American strength, both military and economically, Romney, who rose to financial prominence as a founder of private equity powerhouse Bain Capital, strategically came out describing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation as being a frank violation of 1st ammendment rights. Romney vowed that as President he would work to unwind the legislation, which I might say was a libertarian bright spot in his speech.
Romney also came out against the death tax, Islamic facism, Nancy Pelosi, and activist judges. He also felt the need to go hard right on many social issues, including abortion and gay marriage, which of course rubbed this Libertarian the wrong way.
The Coulternator
Some dude came out after Romney, but since he wasn't famous I spent that time recapping what ol' Mitt had to say.
It was time for the Ann. Talk about a religous following. Her reception was something like I would envision Jeff Foxworthy's at a NASCAR race. She did not waste any time firing away by taking some shots at Al Gore and his recent issues with energy credibility. Moving past Gore, Coulter took aim at Barack Obama, or as Coulter said "B. Hussein Obama." Coulter described our first black President as being Bill Clinton, then proceeded to say that whereas Obama would be our first half white / half black President, Clinton was the first who was half white / half trash. Then came the clincher that sent bloggers sprawling for their laptops...
You know what, I just can't put this in print on our website. It was disgusting and classless. If this were any blog but the LP's I would run it in a heart beat as it was a public statement by a public figure, but if you want to hear about it you'll have to visit another site. Suffice to say, it was a major turnoff.
Coulter then followed with some additional remarks, but they were not as well received by the audience, who perhaps had been taken aback by Coulter's...directness? The ever popular Q&A with Coulter sounded lively, but it was completely overshadowed by the rush following her Edwards comment (the classless one). At some point, I have to believe that spewing kind of hateful garbage is going to blow up in her face. Yet, there is a 200 yard long line behind me to get her autograph.
Sometimes being a Libertarian can be an uphill, gut wrenching experience, but at this moment I am most proud to be the lone person at Bloggers' Corner who doesn't have this woman stump for their candidates.
As far as I'm concerned, there are two notable surveys floating around: the Libertarian Party Presidential Survey and the CPAC Straw Poll.
The LP Survey
The booth which the LP was assigned could not have been in any worse a position than it is in terms of foot traffic. Making limeade from limes, though, our diligent staffers have created a significant amount of interest and traffic by handing out a survey regarding the voting habits of the conventioneers. The LP booth is one of the most trafficked non-end cap booths at the event. Edward has done a great job of chatting up visitors who have been eager to learn more about the party and our positions. We also have a nice selection of stickers, pins, etc., that seem to be moving at a decent pace. All in all, the guys (and Louise) have done a great job of pushing the party.
So, the survey. Let me first note that I believe the questions were very well written. Nice job on that. There are four categories split into four primary categories; general questions, federal fiscal policy, social and domestic agenda, and foreign policy. There is also an area where participants can submit specific forms of LP information they would be interested in receiving in the future. Given the number of people that appear to have taken the survey, I would guess this has been rather fruitful in terms of data collection. This in addition to the general interest it has drawn to the booth.
In terms of focus, the general questions are focused around who the survey participant intends to support and vote for (in descriptive terms, not by name), what qualifications they find most significant for a Presidential candidate, what qualities they find most appealing in a Presidential candidate, and which group of general issues is most important to them.
Fiscal questions have to do with what the individual's top priority is, what federal programs they would most like to see disbanded or greatly reduced in scope, and whether they support the Presidential line item veto. Social and domestic questions are brief, asking participants to name the most important issue to them and to provide feedback on which issues regarding immigration best represent their point of view. Finally, the foreign policy questions zoom in on Iraq policy, our national military focus, and asks participants to describe their feelings about foreign aid.
The Straw Poll
One of the hottest things going this weekend is the CPAC Straw Poll. The questions run as follows:
From the following list, who would be your FIRST choice to be the Republican Nominee for President in 2008?
1. Sam Brownback
2. Jim Gilmore
3. Newt Gingrich
4. Rudy Giuliani
5. Chuck Hagel
6. Mike Huckabee
7. Duncan Hunter
8. John McCain
9. George Pataki
10. Ron Paul
11. Mitt Romney
12. Tom Tancredo
13. Tommy Thompson
14. Other
15. Undecided
Romney's perceived relative liberalism will be more than offset by the vast number of volunteers he has present. I'm guessing that the number of Romney volunteers is actually more than the rest of the Presidential hopefuls' combined. Brownback has the second best presence, followed by former Virginia Governor Gilmore. I just overhead some guy at the bar say that this is the first event Gilmore has pressed at. His end total will be disproportionately large due to the home state factor.
The only other names on the list with volunteers on the ground are Hunter and Tancredo. I've seen both Newt and Huckabee in the flesh, but there have been no Rudy sightings on my end as of yet.
Predicting the Winner
Here is how I expect the vote totals to come:
1. Mitt Romney - the man just has an army here. The votes of the volunteers themselves will skew the vote.
2. Mike Huckabee - the man lit it up this morning with his "I am Republican -- hear me roar!" speech.
3. Sam Brownback - Strong presence on the ground coupled with his big time righty social agenda will place him disproportionately well here.
4. Jim Gilmore - only because he is a homer
5. Rudy Giuliani - despite his lack of a ground presence and his left leaning nature, it is hard to put the national frontrunner below 4th.
6-13. Newt, McCain, Tancredo, Pataki, Paul, Douglas, Thompson, Hagel.
The following question asks who would be your SECOND choice to be the Republican Nominee for President in 2008? I'm not going to bother ranking this one.
Another gem of a question is as follows: all things being equal, would you be MOST likely to support a Republican Nominee for President who called themselves a...
1. Ronald Reagan Republican
2. George W. Bush Republican
3. Neither
4. Either
There additional questions, as well, including ones on an Iraqi troop surge, America's foreign policy, why the Republicans lost the November elections, and for participants to describe their core beliefs and ideology. Based on the Republican leadership, I'm doing to assume core beliefs and ideology largely have to do with record deficient spending, pre-emptive war, and the lack of a right to privacy...
After leaving my coat and bags with my good friends at the LP booth, which once again was receiving a lot positive of interest from convention goers, I headed to see a speech Mike Huckabee. I really only knew three things about Huckabee; he was the most interesting thing going on at the time, he was the Governor of Arkansas, and he lost a whole lot of weight. Like, triple digits kind of weight.
When I got there, the ballroom temperature must have been up in the high 80's, as I was sweating within 2 minutes of my arrival. Huckabee was introduced immediately after I had set up shop in the press area and received a standing ovation from the uncomfortably packed ballroom.
I'm here to tell ya: Huckabee might have more of a chance in the Republican primary than most folks realize. He connected exceptionally well with the lusty Conservative audience, starting with a warm and fuzzy background spiel then moving into his experience in Arkansas as a tax slicer and his support of the Bush tax cuts. Generally, I get annoyed with Republicans who preach tax cuts without mentioning our disgustingly large entitlement programs, but to Huckabee's credit, he said that "It is not a problem that our taxes are too high, but that our spending is too high and out of control."
Huckabee touched all the Republican bases. He talked up his pro-life stance, opposition to gay marriage, providing more local control and personal choice in the educational process, taking a harder line on immigration, and second amendment rights -- "I am not a stranger to the N.R.A. I was the first governor in America with a conceal / carry, so don't mess with me." Huckabee was also hard on "Islamic fascists", but we was careful to say that such martyrs are not reprehensive of the average Muslim. His section on his belief that we must win the war on terror was very well received. Huckabee, a straight party man if there ever was one, may not really have a chance of winning the Republican nomination, but he sure picked up some points with his speech.
The Day Ahead
In order to beat the crowds, get access to an outlet to charge my laptop, and hop on a wireless connection, I opted to take an early lunch at Murphy's. I thought this would also give me a good chance to fully plan out the rest of my day. The panels over the next few hours, including "Conservative Victories with New Media" and "Congress: Have the Big Spenders Rigged the Game?" look particularly boring. If you're reading this, you're probably fairly up to speed on developments in the new media and I think we can all agree that the "big spenders" these panelists are worried about are actually in the White House.
Tom Tancredo speaks at 1:00 and is followed by Sam Brownback at 1:30. I think I'm going to have to give a big "No thanks." to both of those. Things really start to gear up at "Conservative Solutions for Urban America" at 2:00, which I'm rather intrigued by (did I mention that when I went by the Black Republicans booth yesterday the only person working the booth was an old white guy?). Mitt Romney speaks at 2:45 and at 3:25 the presentation for "Blogger of the Year" will be presented by Jed Babbin and Erick Erickson. I don’t like my chances.
I somehow forgot to mention this yesterday, but Erick was the man who endorsed Bob Smithers on Red State in 2006. Oh, and regarding the blogging award, considering Malkin's absolute rock star status at the convention, it would be hard to believe that anyone but her has a chance to win.
This presentation is immediately followed by a speech from the Dark Queen, Ann Coulter. Not much of a Coulter fan, myself, but I'll be on hand. Things cool a bit from there, with the less than exciting "Trouble Brewing in Asia & Latin America" (when isn't troubling brewing in either of these regions?) and "The Power of the Box Office: Bringing the Pro-Life Message to the Masses." Does anyone believe that pro-life focused movies have a mainstream chance of success? The only people buying such videos are the ones that buy Christian video games for their kids. Trust me, the people watching the movie are already convinced.
I'm debating sticking around for Mike Pence's banquet address this evening. On the one hand, he seems to be a hot commodity here. On the other, I don't know a thing about him. I'll look into it further.
Well, the Gilmore thing fell through. I ended up spending more time than I would have liked trying to knock out my last post. By the time I finished it up the Blogger Happy Hour, sponsored by the P.R. firm which organized Bloggers' Corner, was already fast approaching. Ever the forward looking blogger, though, I did some checking and it turns out that I actually was going to have to miss most of the happy hour if I was to get in to attend the Vice Presidential dinner. As hard as it was to pass up what undoubtedly would be a fantastic happy hour, I thought it would be asinine to pass up the chance to see the Vice President speak to such a group.
I came upstairs with my stuff and talked to the media check in group on what I would need to do to get in with my laptop, at which point they informed me that I would have actually needed to check it with Secret Service an hour before. I told the girl that no one had told me that when I checked in this morning, but she didn't seem to care. At this point, I decided to punt on my laptop and just take a pad and paper with me. Of course, after checking my bags a Secret Service agent told me that I could bring my laptop with me, but that they would have to screen it before admission. Fine with me, so I ran back, got my laptop, and waited for the group to start admitting folks.
While waiting to get in I struck up a conversation with a freelance photographer who was covering the VP for the first time tonight. We stood around chatting up just how disorganized the event staffers were when Jeff Gannon, yes, that Jeff Gannon happened to cruise by our space. The photographer and I looked at each other and did our best not to crack up over being in his presence. Frankly, I can't believe that this guy is still welcome to GOP related events, but then there are a lot of things about the GOP that shock me.
I worked my way to the metal detectors and was told by the Secret Service (Note: As someone who has a general dislike of talking to law enforcement officers, talking to the Secret Service was extremely unnerving.) that I would need to boot up my laptop and allow a DOD rep to check it out. "Sure, no problem." Only, there was a bit of a problem: the background on my desktop was the cover of Hunter Thompson's Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 which, if you've seen it, is exactly the kind of thing the Secret Service would kick the crap out of you for having on your computer. Praise science, I was able to quickly change the background to "Tulips". How quaint.
After clearing the bomb sniffing dogs, metal detectors, and laptop inspection I finally made my way into the ballroom. The free market must love flags because it made so many of them. As evidence, I present to you the 18 American flags on stage way out in front where Cheney and Bolton will be dining and speaking. There were probably 60 tables in the ballroom to go with those 18 American flags, not to mention the two 20 foot tall screens featuring a pre-recorded film of Michelle Malkin making a whole lot of mean spirited and frankly crappy jokes about Cindy Sheehan and Rosie O'Donnell. Malkin's attempts at humor were followed up by some mind blowingly cheesy crooning from some apparently deeply patriotic and spiritual dude.
The press corps, myself included, was seated in the back-center along with numerous video cameras. I ended up sitting between some well dressed young reporter from Eastern Europe who spoke no English and a girl who was there accompanying her friend who was making a documentary on conservatives. I tried to get more info on that but the girl was kind of tight lipped about it. Suffice to say, though, this will not paint conservatives in a positive light.
The first speaker of the night was Michael Steele, who recently lost his Senate bid in Maryland. As I pointed out earlier, this event is incredibly non-diverse, so it was a bit... well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Steele introduced the important folks sitting up front with Bolton and Cheney. I honestly had no idea who most of them were, but they had important sounding conservative titles, including the CEO of the N.R.A. (not Charlton Heston). When presented, Bolton received a rousing standing ovation from the ballroom.
The colors and pledge followed, as did the National anthem. David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, then spoke for several minutes leading into the introduction of the Vice President of these United States, Richard Cheney. The Vice President was greeted with thunderous applause and a standing ovation from all, including these liberal media hacks we hear so much about.
Following his warm reception, Cheney gave thanks to John Bolton for his service and to Michael Steele "who has a great future in American politics." Umm... okay.
Cheney discussed his most recent international trip, making light of the recent assassination attempt against himself in about as smoothly as an assassination attempt can be joked about. Indeed, Cheney did make several quality jokes, including the comment that he "was probably the last non-candidate [we] were going to see this weekend." That is absolutely true.
He remarked that the administration would work with the new Congress, but that it would not give up on the agendas upon which the administration was elected in 2000 and 2004. I could note that this administration actually got less votes than another tandem in 2000, but I wouldn't want to be a stickler, now would I?
Cheney then gave the obligatory lengthy Reagan quote and then touted the country's 5 years of economic growth and 7.5 million new jobs. This was shortly followed by the obligatory Friedman quote. Has there been a Republican fundraiser in the past decade where Reagan and Friedman were not quoted? These guys are like the Thoreau and Frost of high school graduation speeches.
I just noticed the Vice President is wearing what appears to be a purple tie. Meet the new, softer, gentler Dick Cheney.
Cheney continued on pitching the Bush tax cuts, saying that all Americans who pay taxes benefited from them. Roughly thirty seconds later, he proudly announced that tax receipts have soared over the past two years. Now, I get that he is arguing that the tax cuts were a positive economic force, but it seemed kind of a clunky thing to say after bragging about cutting taxes.
Cheney made additional statements regarding the need for tight fiscal policy, though anyone who has actually looked at our budget growth during the Bush administration had to be laughing (or perhaps crying) on the inside at that one. Further remarks keyed in on the new Bush healthcare package, a pitch for drilling in ANWR, and encouraging the Democrats to push through Bush judicial appointments who are in the mold of "mainstream" justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts.
Fast Forward
I left CPAC for the night immediately after Cheney had finished speaking. All of the running around, a lack of a full night's sleep, and the mental gymnastics of pumping out this much content left with me a splitting headache. I came home, played with the dog, and then went and had a few beers with a friend. Until tomorrow...
I was positively floored by all the activity going on in the lobby when I passed through on the way to lunch. On the way out to grab a bite (drink) I saw that the Beatles once rented out a wing of this hotel. So, this place must be at least relatively snappy if it was good enough for John, Paul, George, and Ringo to seriously splurge on.
I ate lunch at a local Irish pub run by Hispanics. Go figure. While sitting at the bar, I had a most interesting encounter with an African-American Georgian named Andrew Honeycutt, husband and the campaign manager for his wife's Congressional campaign in the GA-13th, Deborah Honeycutt. Honestly, despite the nice images of black church choirs at the Republican Conventions, the percentage of minorities here is probably under 5%.
Following lunch, I ran back, grabbed my laptop, and headed to a panel on "America's Business Elites - Do They Really Believe in Free Enterprise?". Given the choice of attending this session, which featured Ed Hudgins, a leader at the Atlas Society and the Objectivist Center whom I had met half an hour before, or the "Why Are Liberals Hell-Bent on Raising Our Taxes?" I opted to go with the presumably less vitriolic "Free Enterprise" session.
Another panelist, the first to speak, was Tim Carney, author of the recently popular book The Big Rip Off. I'd heard some rather interesting things about Tim, as I'd heard great things about his book. Steve Gordon also mentioned to me that Tim was an interesting guy, so I figured it was worth the chance.
Tim started out by hammering on Philip Morris, which is now known collectively as the Altria, for their unique techniques in lobbying and legislative management. Unique being borderline underhanded. Tim went on to present several examples of how major corporations had used influence via lobbying and contributions to help create legislation that was in fact anti-competitive and counter productive to the greater economy. Mr. Carney was followed by Mr. Hudgins, who gave a well written and distinctly Randian speech. Ed was followed by John Carlisle from the National Legal and Policy Center. John spoke about one of my favorite topics: Wal-Mart. I love me some Wal-mart. Carlisle did, as well, until they recently began working towards softening their corporate image. John strongly denounced Wal-Mart's recent green-focused initiatives. He also spoke out strongly against Wal-Mart's recent push to support state sponsored health care, which brought a smile to the face of corporate welfare critic Carney.
Back to the Floor & Bloggers' Corner
Neither of the following panels at 3:00 seemed particularly notable to me, so I decided to head back and check out some of the booths. The ladies at the Fair Tax booth were less than thrilled to hear that I was the campaign manager for a man who wrote a book condemning the Fair Tax as fiscally irresponsible. You'd think I'd spit in her coffee. I did warm her up, though, by telling her that I strenuously agreed that we needed drastic tax reform in our nation. Unfortunately, this got one of her fellow booth workers all fired up and he proceeded to give me a two minute summary of the Fair Tax book, which I've read.
Gasping for air, I worked my towards some booth giving away bobble heads to those who sign up for their email list. I just put down Jason Pye's email and took the bobble head. It will look great in my bar. Thanks, Pye.
I swung back by the LP booth and there was a good bit of interest from attendees. I touched base with Shane, who said that he liked my last post, dropped off a pile of propaganda that had been passed on to me at booths and by the 200,000 Romney volunteers in attendance, and worked my way back to Bloggers' Corner. Seems I missed a few goodies while I was away, including stuffed puppies tagged "Petakillsanimals.com". Touching.
There is a panel currently going on titled "Terrorism: Is Religious Extremism or Secular Extremism the Problem?" featuring Dinesh D'Souza, author of The Enemy at Home. Seriously, was Sam Harris unavailable? I would have given my pinky toes to see him on this panel.
I did a loop around and spoke to reps from both Gilmore and Romney's campaigns. I honestly knew very little about either candidate, but both are having receptions in the hotel which will be serving refreshments. While the Gilmore people would not commit to whether or not there will be free booze involved, the Romney people confirmed that free drinks will be available. Mitt 1, Jim 0.
Bloggers' Corner is really turning into a trip. Michelle Malkin is here and everyone seems intent on watching her type. Erick Erickson just did a lengthy on television interview with an attractive blond woman. I'm sitting next to Mary Katharine Ham, who just had a few adoring fans come up and basically say over and over again "I read your stuff all the time." Honestly, the big name bloggers are just as if not more popular draws than most of the panelists.
Fox News is currently working its way down Bloggers' Corner, interviewing bloggers for their takes on the convention and about the blogs they run. It would thrill me to no end to fire off a "Which Republica am I supporting? I'm a Libertarian, thank you very much." They'd probably cut the feed.
Scratch that, they actually just asked me to move so that they could have more space to interview Mary Katharine. Be still, my ego, the pain will subside.
