The official blog of the Libertarian Party

« May 2007 | Main | July 2007 »

June 28, 2007

Absolute Power Absolutely Corrupting

It looks like GOP leaders have won one small battle but they are being challenged on so many legal fronts that their line may ultimately collapse. The first update comes from Texas, where one of the charges against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was dropped.

Texas' highest criminal court upheld on Wednesday the dismissal of a campaign finance conspiracy charge that contributed to the political fall of Republican Tom DeLay, but he still may face trial on two other felony counts.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused to reinstate a charge thrown out by a lower court that DeLay and two associates conspired to violate Texas election law by funneling corporate money to Republican state legislature candidates in 2002.

Corporate political donations are forbidden under Texas law, but the charge was dismissed on a legal technicality.

"We knew we were right from the start. The bottom line is (Travis County District Attorney) Ronnie Earle's office obtained an indictment that wasn't even on the books," DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin told Reuters.

DeLay, the former U.S. House of Representative majority leader, still is charged with money laundering and conspiracy to launder money, but has appealed the indictments on grounds they were politically motivated.

Moving from Texas to inside the Beltway, Bush is balking at turning over subpoenaed documents in the potentially political firings of federal prosecutors.

President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.

Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.

In yet a different issue, Vice President Cheney (along with the Department of Justice and the White House) have been subpoenaed over the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, acting under bipartisan authorization, yesterday subpoenaed the White House, the Justice Department and Vice President Dick Cheney for records on the administration's controversial warrantless surveillance program. [snip]

The subpoenas seek documents relating to the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping, which began in 2001 and continued until last January, when President Bush ordered cooperation with the secret court that approves foreign-intelligence wiretaps on U.S. soil. But the administration has reserved the right to act without a court order and has proposed legislation that would codify elements of the program.

The deadline for subpoena compliance is July 18.

Jonathan Swift wrote that laws "are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through." On rare occasions, I've seen larger insects trapped in spider webs. If we keep applying more and more webs, perhaps we will see one of those larger pests someday being devoured by a judicial spider.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 10:19 AM | Comments (20)

June 27, 2007

CIA Releases 693 Page Report Of CIA Abuses

For those of you interested in 20th century history, here's an interesting report:

The CIA shined an unaccustomed light on its dark side Tuesday, making public a 693-page report that documents some of its worst historical abuses. They include failed assassination plots against world leaders and illegal spying on Americans, as well as the agency's links with the hapless Watergate burglars whose arrests eventually toppled the presidency of Richard Nixon.

Known inside the agency as the "family jewels," the collection of memos, investigative reports and handwritten jottings confirm many details of the CIA's troubled past from the '50s through the early '70s. It reveals the determined work of the American espionage bureaucracy to conceal some of its worst deeds behind its sizable cloak of government secrecy.

They've even admitted to using mobsters to try to assassination Fidel Castro. While I'm generally in favor of transparency on political issues, it's easy to see that keeping recent vital secrets would be integral to the mission of the CIA. Periodic declassification is important, too.

With so many allegations of recent CIA wrongdoing, it's also important to have some sort of check and balance on the operations of the Central Intelligence Agency. Any ideas on how to maintain this delicate balance?

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 01:50 PM | Comments (8)

June 26, 2007

Torture, Neo-Cons, and Cover-Up

At a time when eight out of ten Republican presidential candidates justified torture in a recent televised debate, this article by Sey Hersh in the New Yorker is certainly timely. It's distrubing, so don't read on if you become upset with graphic depictions of abuse or sometimes strong language. Hersh wrote the article so well I'll not add any commentary, but simply provide a few samples to paint a picture of the article:

Administration officials had insisted that only a few low-ranking soldiers were involved and that America did not torture prisoners.

Numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees . . . systemic and illegal abuse.

Taguba told me that he understood when he began the inquiry that it could damage his career; early on, a senior general in Iraq had pointed out to him that the abused detainees were "only Iraqis."

"Here . . . comes . . . that famous General Taguba - of the Taguba report!" Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice. The meeting was attended by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (J.C.S.); and General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, along with Craddock and other officials. Taguba, describing the moment nearly three years later, said, sadly, "I thought they wanted to know. I assumed they wanted to know. I was ignorant of the setting."

In the meeting, the officials professed ignorance about Abu Ghraib. "Could you tell us what happened?" Wolfowitz asked. Someone else asked, "Is it abuse or torture?" At that point, Taguba recalled, "I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, 'That's not abuse. That's torture.' There was quiet."

By the time he walked into Rumsfeld's conference room, he had spent weeks briefing senior military leaders on the report, but he received no indication that any of them, with the exception of General Schoomaker, had actually read it. (Schoomaker later sent Taguba a note praising his honesty and leadership.) When Taguba urged one lieutenant general to look at the photographs, he rebuffed him, saying, "I don't want to get involved by looking, because what do you do with that information, once you know what they show?"

Having male detainees pose nude while female guards pointed at their genitals; having female detainees exposing themselves to the guards; having detainees perform indecent acts with each other; and guards physically assaulting detainees by beating and dragging them with choker chains.

I learned from Taguba that the first wave of materials included descriptions of the sexual humiliation of a father with his son, who were both detainees. Several of these images, including one of an Iraqi woman detainee baring her breasts, have since surfaced; others have not. (Taguba's report noted that photographs and videos were being held by the C.I.D. because of ongoing criminal investigations and their "extremely sensitive nature.") Taguba said that he saw "a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee." The video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings, nor has there been any public government mention of it. Such images would have added an even more inflammatory element to the outcry over Abu Ghraib. "It's bad enough that there were photographs of Arab men wearing women's panties," Taguba said.

Nevertheless, Rumsfeld, in his appearances before the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees on May 7th, claimed to have had no idea of the extensive abuse. "It breaks our hearts that in fact someone didn't say, 'Wait, look, this is terrible. We need to do something,' " Rumsfeld told the congressmen. "I wish we had known more, sooner, and been able to tell you more sooner, but we didn't."

That should provide a quick image of the 11 page report. I'd not only suggest reading it, but printing copies and confronting everyone you know who is supportive of current policy with this article.

Major General Taguba summed it up well in the final paragraph:

"From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service," Taguba said. "And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable."

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 12:32 PM | Comments (9)

June 25, 2007

Campaign Finance Reform Takes Another Hit

Another portion of McCain-Feingold just bit the dust:

Reigniting the debate over campaign finance regulation, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a part of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Monday.

That legislation, also known as the McCain-Feingold law, restricts corporations and labor unions from broadcasting ads at election time using general funds. Proponents of campaign finance reform fear Monday's ruling will create a major loophole in the legislation and cause an influx of "sham issue" ads that McCain-Feingold was created in part to combat.

At issue was the Wisconsin Right to Life case, one where advertisments from the organization urging voters to contact their Senators about a specific issue were prevented from being broadcasted.

Whether I agree with the particular issue or not, it's only fair that everyone have the freedom of political expression in this country.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 11:04 AM | Comments (22)

June 22, 2007

Surprise of the Day: Americans Don't Have Much Confidence in Congress or the President

The title Reason's editor Nick Gillespie used pretty much explains it: National Mood Ring at Orange Alert: Approval Ratings in the Crapper for Just about Everything!

He's referring to the latest Gallup report about how American's feel about various public institutions, including government. The military and small business generally scored well -- but the media and government didn't. As expected, American's perception of the presidency is suffering, and here's the take on Congressional approval:

The current confidence rating for Congress -- 14% -- is the lowest in Gallup's history for that institution. Although ratings of Congress have never been high, they were at the 40% level at the time of Watergate in the 1970s, and again in 1986.

To me, this looks like a vote of no confidence for both Congress and the White House. Why do Americans, if they feel this much dissatisfaction for the people whom they elect, continue to keep voting for the same two political parties over and over again?

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 08:56 AM | Comments (61)

June 21, 2007

Hillary and Pelosi Booed Yesterday

While I had planned to be in attendence yesterday, I got caught up in scheduling difficulties and missed the event. I would have loved to have been a fly on this wall:

Clinton is no stranger too jeers from the thousands of activists who attend the Take Back America conference. Her comments on U.S. involvement in Iraq provoked a similar reaction last year.

"I love coming here every year," she said, as her supporters tried to drown out the boos, and members of the audience waved "Lead us out of Iraq now" signs.

Antiwar activists were more vocal later, however, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. spoke. She was introduced by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who was cheered for his strong opposition to the war.

Pelosi was repeatedly interrupted by cheers of "bring our troops home now," and "stop the funding," as she listed initiatives that, under her leadership, were recently passed or will come before the House soon.

The outbursts were started by activists from a grassroots women's peace organization called Codepink, whose members were decked in pink and were vocal throughout the three-day conference.

For all you people who have been adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq, I'd suggest that the Democratic leadership is only voicing opposition to the war now because of prevailing public opinion. People like Hillary had the chance to vote against the war initially and people like Pelosi could have pushed for better legislation to send our troops home from Iraq.

Unlike the Democratic leadership, Libertarian Party candidates have opposed this war even before opposing the war was cool.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 11:30 AM | Comments (44)

June 20, 2007

Will Bloomberg Run for Prez?

He says no:

A day after he dropped his affiliation with the Republican Party, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York insisted today he will not be running for president.

"My intention is to be mayor for the next 925 days and probably about 10 hours," he said in a news conference today that was intended to be focused on the city's 311 telephone information line. "I've got the greatest job in the world and I'm going to keep doing it."

Mr. Bloomberg fueled speculation that he would be jumping into the race as an independent when he announced on Tuesday that he was dropping his Republican affiliation during a campaign-style swing through California.

However, the NY Times article suggests this may not be the case:

Even as Mr. Bloomberg continues to say that he has no plans to run for president, his announcement has set off a storm of interest in political circles across the country, where it is being viewed as a signal of his serious contemplation of a campaign. His ability to self-finance a campaign presents him with obvious advantages, including the option of delaying even until next year a decision on whether to run.

Mr. Bloomberg's aides are working intensely behind the scenes promoting the idea of the mayor's candidacy and exploring the mechanics of starting an independent campaign.

The aides have said he would travel the country to see whether the message of centrist problem-solving he delivered in California resonates. They would seek to identify states where his positions on major issues - global warming, immigration, a crackdown on illegal guns - could resonate. If he is well received, the travels could begin to lay a foundation for his candidacy.

While I clearly disapprove of quite a few Bloomberg positions and policies, the article does open up some of the challenges faced by third party and independent presidential candidates. From a Libertarian Party perspective, the prospect of a billionaire [Libertarian] (added for clarification) candidate who can outspend both the Republicans and Democrats certainly has crossed most of our minds at some time or another.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 03:25 PM | Comments (33)

June 19, 2007

4th Amendment Upheld

It looks like at least one federal court has recently read the Bill of Rights. From MSNBC.com:

The appeals court's unanimous ruling upholds a lower court ruling temporarily blocking investigators from additional e-mail searches without warrants. The panel said the government would have to either provide an account holder a chance to contest such a seizure or to prove that the holder had no expectation of privacy.

The ruling stems from a fraud investigation against Steven Warshak, owner and president of Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, an herbal supplement company known for its "Smiling Bob" ads.

Warshak, whose company markets supplements that include a "natural male enhancement" product called Enzyte, argued that his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures were violated when the government went after his e-mail records.

The appeals court said the lower court correctly reasoned that e-mails stored at a service provider "were roughly analogous to sealed letters, in which the sender maintains an expectation of privacy. This privacy interest requires that law enforcement officials obtain a warrant, based on a showing of probable cause."

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd in Washington said the decision was being reviewed. The government could appeal to the full 6th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now that the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has figured out the 4th Amendment, let's hope they start working on the other nine main components of the Bill of Rights.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 01:53 PM | Comments (14)

June 18, 2007

National Taxpayers Union Conference

Because I've been busy on other projects for the last few days, I've been a bit slow on blog entries. From Thursday to Saturday, the LP ran a booth at the National Taxpayers Union Conference. While there were plenty of libertarians there, we were also well received by Republicans tired of run-away congressional spending. Here's a picture our booth (and Alexa, who is a new employee at LPHQ):


Several presidential candidates spoke at the event. When it was Governor Gilmore's turn, I noted that the Wall Street Journal's John Fund was digging around for some reading material. If you will look carefully at the picture below, you can see that Fund chose the LP's Adventures in Liberty to read.

We're with you, John. Adventures in Liberty is certainly more exciting than a presidential candidate who wouldn't, when asked, even identify one government program he'd eliminate -- even with such an friendly audience for that particular subject.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 03:24 PM | Comments (14)

June 14, 2007

Putting Congressional Democrats in Their Place

Remember Adventures in Liberty? Here's a quote from it:

While we take no joy in seeing another political party take power, there is no question that the reason Democrats control Congress is the role that the Libertarian Party played in the mid-term elections.

Control of the U.S. Senate was decided by a single seat. Nationwide, third party candidates "beat the margins" in three Senate races. In two of the three races, LP candidates earned many more votes than the margin of victory, thereby deciding the outcome. As for the third Senate race, that independent candidate is now a card-carrying Libertarian.

Make no mistake, Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democrats owe their victory to Libertarian candidates. While we may not like the thought of Democrats taking power because of our performance at the polls, it's the cost of entering the arena. Political success will not come overnight and we must realize that with each election cycle we will play a role in deciding the victor...that is until the day comes that we take command.

Stuart Richards and the folks at LastFreeVoice came up with a cool graphic to illustrate the point:

If the Democrat-controlled Congress would stop doing stupid things like these, perhaps their approval rating wouldn't have tanked to around the same level as President Bush's. In the mean time, we brought them in and likewise, we can take them out.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 11:37 AM | Comments (29)

June 13, 2007

Lieberman Wants to Expand Middle East Conflict to Iran

This should not come as a big shocker, but Senator Joe Lieberman wants the U.S. military to strike Iran. From USA Today:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Sunday the United States should consider a military strike against Iran because of Tehran's involvement in Iraq.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

An alternate solution might be getting U.S. forces out of Iraq so U.S. forces couldn't be attacked there. But that's just common sense speaking.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 12:43 PM | Comments (49)

June 12, 2007

Bono Wants to Spend Your Hard Earned Dollars

It looks like Bono will be spending $30 million in order to influence politicians to take more of your hard earned money to give it to poor people in other countries. Of course, that's not the way the mainstream media presents the story, though.

The anti-poverty campaign founded by U2 rocker Bono and others is investing $30 million to pressure the presidential candidates to focus on the oft-forgotten issue, with its leaders arguing on Monday that helping the poor is a national security issue.

Dubbed ONE Vote '08, the bipartisan political push aims to get
President Bush's successor to commit to taking concrete steps to combat hunger and disease while improving access to education and water across the globe.

BTW, most of the money seems to be coming from Bill Gates.

Some even challenge the efficacy of such foreign aid in the fist place. Here's Kenyan economist James Shikwati:

Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

Bono and Bill, if you really want to help, give the poor all the money you want -- but leave my wallet alone.

H/T to Michelle.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 11:12 AM | Comments (35)

June 11, 2007

Both GOP and Dems Prefer Leaving Children Behind

The No Child Left Behind Act is coming up for reauthorization this year. While most Americans opposed the current Act, Bush is literally jumping out of helicoptors in Harlem in his efforts to support the unpopular bill. The Scripps Howard News Service reveals just how unpopular the bill is:

Respondents in the poll were also asked: "Based upon everything you've heard, do you want Congress to renew the No Child Left Behind law, do you want Congress to make changes in the law or do you want Congress to cancel the No Child Left Behind law?"

Twenty-three percent said they want the law renewed in its current form, 14 percent want it abolished and 49 percent want it amended. Fourteen percent were undecided. Taken together, 63 percent want the law abolished or amended.

About three-quarters of people who said they are "very familiar" with the law also say they want it altered or abolished, compared to less than half of people who say they are "not familiar" with the measure.

Well-educated people, especially college graduates and those who've attended post-graduate schooling, are especially likely to call for changes to the law. People who have public school children at home are somewhat more likely to want the law altered or abolished than are people who don't currently have children in school.

Although much of the criticism in Congress against the current form of the law is coming from Republicans, the poll found that Democrats in the general public were more likely to want changes in the law than were Republicans.

Democrats, long-time lovers of big government education programs, are straining to find how to disagree with a Republican big government centralized approach to education. The San Francisco Chronicle provides their angle:

Speaking before thousands of cheering teachers in Washington last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., agreed that federal activism is required to boost the schools, "but not the kind of accountability that the NCLB law has imposed. The tests have become the curriculum instead of the other way around."

Former President Bill Clinton then sharpened the attack on No Child's holy grail -- standardized testing -- speaking to the nation's local school boards in San Francisco. "You don't need to test every child, every year," he said. A nationwide poll out late last month revealed that just more than two-thirds of all parents with school-age children believe that No Child should be rewritten or simply killed by the Congress.

So there you have it, folks. The Republicans prefer authoritarian top-down federalized big government education. The Democrats prefer top-down federalized big government education with no performance standards.

Most of the rest of us realize that one-size-fits-all solutions tend to instill performance around the lowest common denominator. Additionally, we agree that the federal government should have no role in the education of our children.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 12:59 PM | Comments (11)

June 09, 2007

Weekend Open Thread

I'm traveling right now and can't even keep up with current events at the moment. Feel free to comment about or debate whatever topics are on your minds. Have a great weekend!

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 02:47 PM | Comments (43)

June 07, 2007

Surgeon General Nominee Already Controversial

While clearly not the most important issue of the day (most Americans consider Iraq paramount), it looks like the appointment of the next Surgeon General may be the next public brouhaha coming from DC. The key point of debate is over Dr. James Holsinger's views about homosexuality. As I am first learning about him, perhaps some of you can enlighten me if I miss the target on some of my early assessment of the situation.

To begin, he takes the view that homosexuality is unnatural. From WaPo:

Sixteen years ago, he wrote a paper for the church in which he likened the reproductive organs to male and female "pipe fittings" and argued that homosexuality is therefore biologically unnatural.

Some libertarians might agree with that assessment; others certainly won't. What's important is how his views will be reflected in public policy, however.

It appears that some presumably liberal groups are challenging him about actions taken in a religious, and not political setting.

As president of the Methodist Church's national Judicial Council, Holsinger voted last year to support a pastor who blocked a gay man from joining a congregation. In 2004, he voted to expel a lesbian from the clergy. The majority of the panel voted to keep the lesbian associate pastor in place, citing questions about whether she had openly declared her homosexuality, but Holsinger dissented.

Libertarians will certainly agree that a private organization or religious body is entitled to its own views.

Holsinger's defenders tried to make that point, but they missed on a crucial issue:

"Jim is able, as most of us are in medicine, to separate feelings that we have from our responsibility in taking care of patients," said Douglas Scutchfield, a professor of public health at the University of Kentucky.

The last time I checked, the Surgeon General was more engaged in healthcare policy than in taking care of private patients.

He's also been involved in the controversial practive of conversion therapy. From the Advocate:

Holsinger, along with his wife, also founded the Hope Springs Community Church, a well-known "ex-gay" ministry where, according to the church's pastor, gays and lesbians undergo conversion therapy to rid themselves of their homosexuality. Such therapy has been denounced by nearly every major medical organization in the country, including the American Psychological Association.

I still don't know enough about him yet and I certainly don't agree with liberals trashing him in a political forum about his religious views and actions, but at first glance he seems a lot more like Fred Phelps than a compassionate doctor or someone who would not let his personal opinions influence public policy.

At best, Bush made a poor selection of a potential Surgeon General nominee. At worst, this could be a sign that the Executive Branch wishes to find yet another way to treat people unequally under the law.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 02:02 PM | Comments (15)

June 06, 2007

TB Patients the New Enemy of the State?

Bob Barr wrote an interesting piece in the AJC about a lawyer who voluntarily isolated himself in a hospital for treatment of a treatment-resistant form of tuberculosis. What makes this case interesting, however, is how the Feds ordered him to be quarantined in a foreign country.

Persons known to have been in close proximity to Speaker have been tested, and none has tested positive for TB - not surprising insofar as he was told early on that he was not contagious.

But, judging by the front-page news Speaker's case continues to generate, and by the congressional hearing it has spawned, you'd think our young barrister was traveling the globe deliberately infecting people with the bubonic plague. Some readers of stories on Speaker call for him to be prosecuted. Prosecuted for what? Endangering people? He didn't. For not voluntarily subjecting himself to detention and medical treatment in a land far away from his own? Would his critics have done so? I doubt it. I know I wouldn't. He elected, as a law-abiding citizen of the United States to come home and seek what he and the rest of us know is the best medical care he could receive anywhere in the world.

Other critics are lambasting federal agencies for not having done enough to stop Speaker. Stop him from what? Getting on a plane when he had broken no law? Do we really want the government to be able to detain someone simply because he may have a disease that is serious but is not a threat to others? Should a citizen's own government be allowed to turn him away at the border as he seeks to re-enter his country, just because someone decided to place him on an advisory "watch list"? I think not.

Barr's concluding sentence is the one which really drives the message home about the unchecked power of big government:

Actually, maybe we'd best keep this quiet, at least from the president and the attorney general; else they might declare Speaker an "enemy combatant" and imprison him indefinitely with no access to anyone. Or, maybe they already have done this - in secret.

When we allow our government to lock people up without due process, we've moved from the rule of law to the rule of tyrants -- which is contrary to the very reasons our country was founded in the first place.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 12:17 PM | Comments (27)

June 05, 2007

Ask Your Presidential Debate Question Here

USA Today had this criticism of the recent presidential debates:

But the political debate so far has been largely unenlightening. The Democrats' discussion has focused almost entirely on what the candidates did or didn't do in the past, not about what they would or wouldn't do in the future.

The Republicans, meanwhile, aren't so much stuck in the past as hung up on the immediate future. They warn about the dangers of setting timetables for withdrawal (aka "surrender dates") but say little about what they'd do once the ongoing troop escalation runs its course.

This lack of specificity makes it hard for voters to make informed decisions, much less for the country to reach a consensus. It's also a telling measure of just how unappealing the options in Iraq are.

With that in mind, what questions would you ask the candidates at the debate tonight, as well as future presidential debates?

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 11:16 AM | Comments (33)

The Most Ethical Congress Ever...

While there are already new ethical concerns out there, one of the lingering sores festering on Pelosi's "most ethical Congress ever" has finally erupted. Here's the Fox News take:

A federal grand jury on Monday indicted Louisiana Democratic Rep. William Jefferson on 16 charges relating to a long-running investigation into bribery, racketeering, obstruction of justice and money laundering.

Calling it a "broad range of serious crimes," federal prosecutors called the case one about "greed, power and arrogance."

"The 16-count indictment alleges a pervasive pattern of self dealings, bribery and corruption by Mr. Jefferson, in violation of his oath of office, of his duty to the United States Congress in which he served, and of the duty to the citizens of the United States," said Chuck Rosenberg, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Dems, who placed Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee long after corruption allegations (remember the cash in the freezer story) had been made public, are now concerned that Jefferson will become the Democratic Tom DeLay. From HuffPo:

Democrats can point to Ethics legislation that recently passed the House. But, it doesn't really change the way business works in Washington.

If Democrats are serious about ending ethical abuses in the Congress, they will start by calling for William Jefferson's resignation. Americans certainly must remain innocent until proven guilty. In reality, however, questions of ethics and fitness for office are much different than the legal semantics. Therefore "innocent until proven guilty" has no place in an ethics discussion, where the bar is much higher than the legal world.

If he won't resign, then the Congress must act to expel him from the House. While this is a serious act, it is required to begin the process of showing the Democratic Party as being willing to make the tough decisions that will restore public confidence in the Congress for the long term.

Don't let William Jefferson become our Tom Delay.

I'm not sure whether it's more interesting to watch congressional Dems or Repubs squirming under public scrutiny for such allegations.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 10:47 AM | Comments (3)

June 04, 2007

The Big Government Parties

Even Newt Gingrich is going after Bush lately. From the Washington Times:

Newt Gingrich stood by his criticism of President Bush, saying yesterday that the government is "not getting the job done" and that his unpopularity could be harmful to Republicans running for office next year.

"The government is not functioning. It's not getting the job done," said Mr. Gingrich, a Georgia Republican who is considering a run for his party's presidential nomination. "Republicans need to confront this reality."

The former House speaker, who stepped down from his post after his party lost seats in the 1998 midterm elections, cited the debate over illegal immigration, Iraq and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as examples of where the administration has not met public expectations.

"All you have to do is look at the examples I've given you today where the government simply fails," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

Nonetheless, he stressed that "this is not about the presidency. The government is not functioning." He thinks Mr. Bush "means very, very well," in his policy-making decisions.

In the meantime, I missed the Democratic presidential debates and am having to read the news to catch up on them. Hopefully, some of you can help fill me in on your take of them in the comments section. Here's one angle on the Dem debates:

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards cast himself once again in the role of the aggressive progressive, determined to claim the party's anti-war, anti-Bush mantle, mostly at the expense of front-runner Hillary Clinton. The senator from New York stuck to her script, refusing to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq and parting ways with Edwards on the war on terrorism. And Barack Obama stayed true to his practical idealism, with a twist of added policy heft and quick wit thrown in.

Just minutes into the debate, the three found themselves in a sharp exchange over the war in Iraq and terrorism when Clinton pointedly disagreed with Edwards' characterization of the war on terror as a "bumper sticker" and a mere "political slogan." Clinton not only refused to endorse that view, she came dangerously close -- for a Democratic candidate -- to complimenting the Bush administration. "I believe we are safer than we were" before 9/11, she said before adding: "we are not yet safe enough."

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 11:43 AM | Comments (2)

June 01, 2007

GOP Fundraising Difficulties

While it's obviously premature to even begin speculating about the demise of the Republican Party, it is certainly enjoyable to watch them squirm a bit. At a time when pretty much every indicator of Libertarian Party success (i.e. number of members, money raised, votes in last election) is on an uphill climb, it looks like the RNC is struggling a bit. From the normally GOP-friendly Washington Times:

The Republican National Committee, hit by a grass-roots donors' rebellion over President Bush's immigration policy, has fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors, The Washington Times has learned.

Faced with an estimated 40 percent falloff in small-donor contributions and aging phone-bank equipment that the RNC said would cost too much to update, Anne Hathaway, the committee's chief of staff, summoned the solicitations staff and told them they were out of work, effective immediately, fired staff members told The Times.

Several of the solicitors fired at the May 24 meeting reported declining contributions and a donor backlash against the immigration proposals now being pushed by Mr. Bush and Senate Republicans.

While Ralph Hallow primarily targets immigration as the cause for GOP donor discontent, I suspect the problems are much deeper than this single issue. As an example, I was at an event last night where a lot of Republican policy types hang out. While there were Republican complaints about immigration policy, there were far more about foreign policy and out-of-control domestic spending. Also, I communicate regularly with our call center employees and while immigration is certainly an issue raised, foreign policy and domestic spending are very important to our donors, as well.

It's not just GOP telephone solicitations which are dropping:

Yet there has been a definite downward trend in Republican fundraising, said Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in elections.

"The GOP's overall haul from its three national fundraising committees [the RNC, NRSC and NRCC] is down 25 percent from the equivalent period in 2005," Mr. Ritsch said. "The Republicans still have more money than the Democrats but fundraising is down for Republicans and up for Democrats. That has to be a cause of concern for Republicans."

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee collected $4.6 million in April, more than double the NRSC's $2.1 million in April contributions. What's more, the Republican group spent about $60,000 more than it had received in donations, while using only $260,000 to pay its debt.

At the Washington Times blog entry pertaining to this article, perhaps one commenter said it best:

I certainly hope these comments are passed along to the RNC and the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls. I stopped donating last year prior to the '06 election. I am sick and tired of the liberal Republicans in the House, the Senate, and in the White House. We need to throw the bums out before they totally trash the founding fathers' vision.

Republican leadership has long forgotten about individual rights and fiscal responsiblity. They've now become apologists for torture more concerned about foreign adventurism than in the Constitution. People interested in truly limiting the size and scope of government can send the RNC a powerful message by donating here.

Posted by Stephen Gordon at 01:35 PM | Comments (30)