Tag: politics

Ron Paul wins the CPAC straw poll:

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a stalwart foe of government spending, won a blowout victory Saturday in the annual Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll. With participants naming “reducing the size of federal government” as their top issue, the 74-year old libertarian hero captured 31 percent of the 2,400 votes cast in the annual contest, usually seen as a barometer of how the GOP’s conservative wing regards their potential presidential candidates.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished second with 22 percent of the vote, ending a three-year winning streak at CPAC. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin finished third with 7 percent of the vote, followed by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty at 6 percent and Indiana Rep. Mike Pence at 5 percent.

Needless to say, this straw poll win won’t be trumpeted by the NY/DC Axis Republicans the way it would have if Romney or Jindal had won. It is astonishing how they continue to argue that a liberal Mormon from Massachusetts or an Indian from Louisiana is going to have more national appeal than the libertarian Texan who everyone now knows was correct about the failed World Democratic Revolution, correct about the financial crisis, and correct about TARP and the banking bailouts.

Ron Paul would have beaten Obama because his positions were in alignment with the American people rather than with the financial elite. John McCain couldn’t because his weren’t. McCain had the election and threw it away by siding with Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and the Federal Reserve rather than with the voters. Look at the alternatives now. Romney is a liberal Mormon; he’s about as electable as an Aztec priest. Palin is a political rock star, but she’s a lightweight and won’t be running if she has any sense at all because she’d be throwing away a very lucrative career in what passes for political commentary these days. Jindal is a lightweight who looks and talks funny. Pawlenty is an unprincipled snake, which is probably why the neocons are talking him up. I don’t like Huckabee, but he’s probably the only other serious candidate in the bunch.

With apologies to Ann Coulter, if you call yourself a conservative but don’t support Ron Paul due to his foreign policy, you’re neither economically literate nor are you truly conservative. It doesn’t matter how afraid of Iranian nukes you are or how sexually aroused you become at the thought of invading foreign lands because the great terrorist hunt and the world democratic revolution are rapidly coming to an end for lack of funding. This will become abundantly clear with the first failed Treasury auction or when the bank meltdowns begin to pick up speed. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who realizes this, which is precisely why he is the only viable Republican candidate in 2012 in much the same way that he was the only viable candidate in 2008.

Running another Wall Street-approved, neocon-vetted presidential candidate is about the only way the Republicans can guarantee an Obama victory in 2012. So, it won’t surprise me in the least if that is precisely what they do. If, on the other hand, they actually want to win, the ideal candidacy would probably be a Paul-Palin ticket. The economic situation is not about to get better, so the bipartisan appeal of Paul’s message is only going to grow.

It seems Robert Costa is, along with Jonah Goldberg and John Derbyshire, one of the few remaining voices of sanity at National Review: “There may have been some boos, but Paul was by far one of the more popular speakers at CPAC this year. “End the Fed!” was one of most-heard chants and his “Campaign for Liberty” group was everywhere… Unlike the 2012 wannabes, Paul doesn’t play coy: He has a manifesto and wants to broadcast it. Period. No worries about the media spin or whether the speech gets headlines (see Pawlenty, Tiger doctrine). And, instead of the usual anti-Obama talk, Paul framed a hefty chunk of his CPAC address upon a critique of Woodrow Wilson. And the crowd dug it.

Some older CPAC attendees don’t seem to care much for the Texas congressman, sure, but many young activists seem to regard him as a hero of sorts. When he talks about the debt, like he did on Friday, calling it a “monster” that will “eat up” our future, it was with a passion that you can’t fake in politics. He also didn’t mind challenging many of the room’s security hawks on foreign policy. “There is nothing wrong with being a conservative and having a conservative belief in foreign policy where we have a strong national defense and don’t go to war so carelessly,” Paul said. That line was met with a lot of silence, some nods, but, based on my conservations with activists afterward, strong respect from many for not simply pandering.”

Paul Krugman inadvertantly explains the Order ab Chao mechanism:

None of this should come as a big surprise. Long before the euro came into being, economists warned that Europe wasn’t ready for a single currency. But these warnings were ignored, and the crisis came.

Now what? A breakup of the euro is very nearly unthinkable, as a sheer matter of practicality. As Berkeley’s Barry Eichengreen puts it, an attempt to reintroduce a national currency would trigger “the mother of all financial crises.” So the only way out is forward: to make the euro work, Europe needs to move much further toward political union, so that European nations start to function more like American states.

It works like this. The government enacts a stupid policy doomed to failure. When the policy inevitably fails, the government swoops in to fix it by expanding its power. Repeat as needed. The European Union has been attempting to turn itself into a continent-wide empire for decades; now that the inherent contradictions of the Euro that were known to every economist since the idea was first broached have revealed themselves, they are being used to justify eliminating the last vestiges of national sovereignty that remain to the “member states”. There is no government failure so big that the government will not attempt to use it to expand the scope of its power. Regardless of whether their policies fail or succeed, both results are cited as evidence that more centralized power is required. On a side note, Krugman is incorrect. Spain was not fiscally responsible and could easily have prevented both its housing boom and subsequent bust despite its lack of control, (which you will recall it gave up of its free accord), over its own currency.

As for the fate of the Euro and the European Union, I suspect that the “unthinkable” will not only become entirely thinkable, it will eventually become the reality. Krugman’s refusal to contemplate the breakup of either isn’t based on any political or economic analysis, it’s mere ideological ostriching.

Here’s a fun little game called Spot the Self-Professed Conservative Self-Contradiction:

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

* It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
* It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
* It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
* It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
* It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

As the example of every war from De Bello Gallico to World War II should make eminently clear, America not only has no national interest in “advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world”, but all attempts to do either are inherently contradictory to the principle of limited government based on the rule of law. There is not a single argument for “advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world” that will not directly and demonstrably violate the principle of limited government based on the rule of law.

Go ahead, feel free to try to make one. And, one notes, with no small amusement, that this incoherent Mount Vernon conservatism would require the USA to at least consider going to war with both the European Union and the People’s Republic of China as well as abandoning its military bases in Okinawa, Afghanistan, and Iraq. American freedom is in the American self-interest. Greek freedom or Chinese freedom may or may not be in the American self-interest, but obtaining the wherewithal required to forcibly impose freedom on the Greek or Chinese people, or anyone else around the world, is totally and utterly incompatible with both limited government and the rule of law. This is a matter of statistical and historical fact.

Needless to say, I won’t be signing it, my long affection for Mount Vernon notwithstanding. One of the more pleasant drives you can ever make is to take the top off the MG and drive from Oldtown Alexandria to Mount Vernon.

Nate W objects to a statement of the obvious:

Flies, honey & vinegar Vox. Flies, honey & vinegar. Calling someone a “fucking moron” is not usually the best way to gain allies. And Dana certainly comes off as a potential ally.

As Nate pointed out, I am not looking for allies. I have no need of them since I am neither looking to build a media career nor am I seeking to influence the political process. I am certainly not attempting to save the people of the United States from themselves since I do not believe it is possible at this point for anything or anyone to save them from the bankruptcy and serfdom that they have collectively and democratically chosen. The Tea Party movement is an irrelevant means of harmlessly releasing populist steam from the system and I have seen no indication that it is capable of accomplishing even the least of the trivial goals espoused by its members. The economic pressures of incipient bankruptcy and rising interest payments will eventually do more to reduce tax revenues than ten million people dressed up in 18th century attire waving placards.

Second, if someone publicly demonstrates he is a moron, he has usually done so without my assistance and he can be correctly judged on the basis of his actions regardless of whether I happen to recognize them or not. If Ms Loesch was asserting that two plus two equaled negative thirty-seven, I expect you would quite readily accept that she was either insane or a complete moron. But the belief that eradicating terrorism from the world is in any way, shape, or form compatible with small and limited government is no more credible than the aforementioned calculation of the sum. And I don’t think the woman is insane.

Terrorism isn’t a mystical force of chthonic evil, it’s primarily a weapon utilized by the weaker side against the stronger side in a military conflict, often one involving the military occupation of an emotionally significant territory. The only way to end it is to a) eliminate the weaker side, or, b) reduce the emotional stakes, ideally by ending the conflict. It should be very clear that the World Democratic Revolution strategery of the last 10 years has completely failed, and moreover, failed by its own Rumsfeldian metric. More terrorists have been created than were killed. And, as those who have read Umberto Eco’s essay, Striking at the Heart of the State? know, terrorism is an aspect of big government.

“Terrorism is not the enemy of the great systems. On the contrary, it is their natural, accepted, taken-for-granted counterpart…. Terrorism helps justify the existence of armies and police forces which are otherwise left idle and need to be given something more active to get on with. Finally, terrorism provides a justification for disciplinary intervention in circumstances where an excess of democracy is making a situation ungovernable.”

It might have sounded more precise had Eco written “populism” rather than “democracy”, (NB: the Italian sense of the term is closer to the former as it does involve the American vote fetish), but nevertheless, he provides a remarkably apt description of the situation despite the obvious handicap of having written it 30 years prior to the present events.

There is the possibility that a small, restricted government with limited funds could be distracted with “overseas” operations rather than harassing their citizens, no?

No, that is not a credible possibility. You might as reasonably posit the possibility of a small and limited government of Playboy playmates whose sole interaction with the citizenry is entertaining them by disrobing nightly on PBS. While it is theoretically possible, it is historically, logically, and practically impossible.

2nd question: who would you rather vote for?
A socialist isolationist
Or a libertarian(ish) interventionist.

This is a ridiculous question. It’s akin to asking if one would rather vote for an oxymoron or a contradiction in terms. Socialists, at least the dominant Marxian strain, are not isolationists by definition. Libertarians are not interventionists. And, even if we assume these nonexistent beasts existed, I would no more vote for either than I voted for Obama or McCain. Regardless of whether you drive north to Massachusetts or Maine, it isn’t getting you any closer to Miami.

This is what happens when a Mommyblogger strays outside her areas of competence:

I love Ron Paul immensely with one exception: I vehemently disagree with his foreign policy. A nation alone in a world of enemies is a nation that does not last long. It’s part of a strategy in protecting American citizens. Big difference from “nation building,” a broad, sweeping term tossed at anyone who dares look to protect America from outside her borders – that and “neoconservatism” which just, ugh, gag me….

I don’t speak for all tea partiers, but having been involved in politics most of my life, this movement for a year, and having met thousands of tea partiers, I’ve yet to met one who thinks that eradicating terrorism, beyond our borders if need be, isn’t a good idea. There isn’t a concrete policy on anything but limited government power, low taxes, and devotion to the American government’s first (and only, really) priority which is protecting its people.

Eradicating terrorism beyond our borders is a good idea? It appears that the woman doesn’t understand that this is significantly less tenable than simply eradicating crime, poverty, and drug abuse within them. As the recently confirmed federal policy on assassinating American citizens abroad proves, it is also tantamount to handing Washington an unlimited license for lethal abuse. And it is absolutely neoconservative in two of the primary senses of the word to support the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, to use the Bush administration’s neocon parlance. There is simply no way that supporting a limited government and low taxes is consistent with an endless hunt for terrorists, both real and imaginary, around the world.

If Americans don’t want to be targeted by terrorists, the answer is very clear. Stop the military occupation of foreign countries and stop permitting nationals from countries with whom we are at whatever passes for war these days to enter the country. Most terrorism, past and present, is directly tied to military occupations and is directed at ending the occupation of specific territory.

At least Ms Loesch doesn’t claim to speak for the Tea Partiers. Even so, this is only one of what will be many attempts to hijack the movement for various Republican and neoconservative causes.

Not so much in these latter days of what used to be the Republic:

In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee today, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told representatives that American citizens can be assassinated by the US government when they are oveseas. Blair said the comments were intended to “reassure” Americans that there was a “set of defined policy and legal procedures” in place and that such assassinations are always carried out by the book.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R – MI) inquired about the procedures involved, asking what the legal framework was under which Americans could be killed by the intelligence community.

Blair insisted that under no circumstances would Americans be assassinated overseas for criticizing the government, adding “we don’t target people for free speech.” Rather they are subject to assassination when the government decides they are a threat and when they “get specific permission.” Exactly who was giving that permission was unclear.

It would certainly be interesting to know precisely what defines threat these days. Are they talking about employment in a secret Iranian nuclear weapons facility, making fun of Obama’s teleprompter, or shorting the stock market? Regardless, one would think that an official U.S. government policy of assassinating American citizens might be of some small interest to the Tea Party movement, given their much-ballyhooed concerns about government overstepping its bounds.

No matter how neoconservative you are, no matter how much of a pro-war National Greatness Conservative you might be, no matter what a complete Obama Democrat you have been since his glorious ascension to the Cherry Blossom Throne began, you cannot possibly condone your government targeting your fellow American citizens for execution sans arrest, trial, or conviction.

Terry Pratchett is an author of wonderful fantasy books. He is also, quite lamentably, a victim of early-onset Alzheimers. And as an ethicist, logician, and political activist I can only say that he makes a wonderful fantasy author:

Sir Terry said that if he knew he could end his life at a time of his choosing, without the fear of incriminating a friend or family member, he would enjoy the rest of his life far more. “If I knew that I could die at any time I wanted, then suddenly every day would be as precious as a million pounds. If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice,”

Sir Terry can already die at any time he likes. He can walk out in front of an onrushing truck today. He can blow out his brains with a .50 Desert Eagle tomorrow. Alternatively, next Thursday he can walk into one of the many mosques of Londonistan and wave around a penciled caricature of a certain individual who is not under any circumstances to be depicted. The motto: “My life, my death, my choice” is not only misleading, it is a cowardly evasion of the obvious. It is the frightened cry of a stricken man who is afraid to kill himself and prefers for someone else to take the responsibility from him.

There is room for reasonable disagreement about how those who are unexpectedly rendered helpless are treated, particularly if their previous wishes are clearly expressed in notarized writing. But any man who is capable of giving a public lecture on assisted suicideconsensual murder is also clearly capable of exercising his own choice with regards to the continuation of his present existence. Do not misunderstand me here; I don’t dislike Terry Pratchett nor do I want him to die. I would vastly prefer that he survive long enough for them to find a cure so that he can keep writing his excellent and underrated books. And while I have sympathy for the man, I have none for the suicide activist.

If the man really wants to die for fear of his disease, then he should simply go ahead and take responsibility for the act himself, whether that is today, tomorrow, or two years from now. It’s precisely because it is his own decision that no one else can assume the responsibility for ending his life. It is evil and stupid and cowardly to attempt to lay the foundation for what is already known to have led to the murder of more than 15 children per year in the Netherlands simply because you don’t have the fortitude to commit suicide while you’re of sufficiently sound mind and body.

I hope that Mr. Pratchett has not seriously thought the matter through, as it’s hard to imagine that he genuinely desires the English infanticide that would inevitably follow to become a part of his legacy. Law should not be based on enjoyment, especially when a more accurate description of what Pratchett is saying is “my life, my death, my choice, your action.”

I have to admit that I do find this sort of self-destructive political action to be amusing:

On Tuesday, unions in Oregon won a charred earth victory that will drive already troubled Oregon, straight off the cliff. Oregon voters passed Measure 66 which raises tax rates on individuals who earn more than $125,000 and couples with incomes greater than $250,000. Voters also passed Measure 67 which increases business taxes.

The worst thing is that Measure 67 taxes gross revenue. So, if a business is losing money, it still has to try to come up with money from somewhere in order to pay its tax bills. Or, it could just, you know, close. I wonder what will happen to the Oregon unemployment rate? I mean, who could possibly foresee what the consequences of tax hikes in a difficult economic environment might be.

And when Portland looks like Detroit, the stinking, filthy left-wing masses will rage at the evil John and Jane Galts who either left or quit working in order to sustain them. I can’t believe that anyone still believes in the myth of progress after watching people voluntarily commit the same idiocies over and over and over again.