Do it, Ron!

There has been a lot of discussion about the possibility of a Ron Paul independent/3rd Party/Libertarian run for President if he does not get the Republican Nomination, which at this point looks likely. Today, new poling numbers from Rasmussen, arguably the best name in the polling business around, that more than justify such a run.

In short, these polls plot three different scenarios of a race involving Ron Paul and Mike Bloomberg as independent/3rd Party candidates: Romney as the Republican Nominee, Obama as the Democratic Nominee; Romney as the Republican Nominee, Clinton as the Democratic Nominee; and Obama as the Democratic Nominee, McCain as the Republican Nominee. The numbers are, needless to say, striking, and both worrisome for the Republican Party and quite discouraging for Mike Bloomberg. They are as follows:

With Obama and Romney:

Obama 42%
Romney 30%
Paul 8%
Bloomberg 6%

With Clinton and Romney

Clinton 46%
Romney 32%
Paul 7%
Bloomberg 7%

In both those scenarios, Paul and Bloomberg are statistically tied, but Paul is ahead. The fact that he is still able to draw this much support with another well-known 3rd Party candidate in the race is quite telling.

However, this doesn't even begin to tell the story. Here are the numbers in the scenario that I personally think will be most likely from the Democratic and Republican perspective:

With Obama and McCain:

Obama 40%
McCain 33%
Paul 11%
Bloomberg 5%

McCain and Obama are, quite simply, surging toward their nominations. McCain has racked two of the historical big three, New Hampshire and South Carolina, and he's topped it off with a huge win tonight in the most demographically diverse (and CLOSED) primary in the GOP contest this year: Florida. With the Giuliani endorsement coming, I just don't see how he can be stopped in the huge delegate states. Huckabee will probably win the southern states, but McCain has shown he can do extremely well there already with wins in South Carolina and Florida. It's POSSIBLE that the anti-McCain contingent in the party, which is certainly strong, will mobilize and try to stop him, but they've already failed in South Carolina and Florida. Romney will still rack up some delegates, and he'll probably win a few more states, but the evidence suggests that McCain is set to take the big delegates states of California and New York. With the Giuliani endorsement (I'm sensing an AHNULD endorsement will come with it in Cali), this should pretty much seal the deal. Lot's of my fellow Paulites are hoping for a brokered convention, but I suspect there would be some type of deal in the works (particularly between McCain and Huckabee) to prevent this from happening and us from enacting our 2nd ballot strategy. I think a McCain-Huckabee ticket is a safe assumption from the Republican side at this point, especially with Lieberman saying today he wouldn't run as Veep again on the GOP ticket with McCain.

Obama has shown that he can energize and turn out his base, the black community, with a monster of a win in South Carolina that positively shocked everyone and blew the polls out of the water. I just don't see how he can be stopped; Hillary's biggest asset, Bill, has turned out to be a net negative for her. She can't make the electability case anymore, because Obama is besting her in head-to-head matchups in polls. Hillary may win more states on Super Tuesday (although I dispute this is as certain as the pundits are making it out to be), but with all of the heavily black-populated areas in states next Tuesday, it's quite possible (I'd argue probable) that Obama will come away with more delegates. Even in the event of a brokered Democratic Convention, I think we can safely say that Edwards would release his delegates to Obama. Hillary's got no energy; Obama's got it all. Obama will be the Democratic Nominee.

This is Paul's time to strike to promote the liberty movement. Obama and McCain are two candidates who can be hit hard on issues relevant to the liberty movement. McCain has made the "100 years" declaration in Iraq, and Obama can't make the commitment to get out before 2012. Furthermore, Obama has a voting record on Civil Liberties that is less than sterling: he voted for the Real ID, and he voted for the Patriot Act reauthorization. Paul will be able to draw substantially from anti-war voters in the Democratic Party who will not wait another 4 years for a withdrawal and will not stand for a candidate who essentially supports the creation of a police state. Furthermore, McCain has done little to support the notion that he is a small government conservative: he voted against both Bush tax cuts, he campaigned in 2000 on a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens, he is a co-author of the McCain-Lieberman bill on greenhouse gas reductions that will impose a serious cost, he is using his earmark crusade, which will do NOTHING to resolve our fiscal problems since funds will be distributed by the executive branch and not Congress, as a smoke-and-mirrors campaign for fiscal conservatives. Add to that the addition of Tax Hike Mike as a potential Veep, and you have a match made in hell for small government and fiscal conservatives still in the Republican Party. From these sources, Paul will be able to substantially build his libertarian base, which we can assume in a general would be a substantial amount of the 20% of the voting populace estimated to be libertarian by CATO, and he would certainly be able to get into the debates in October with more than 15% support in polls.

I am a Republican. I've been a registered Republican as long as I've been a registered voter. But my commitment is to my principle, and my principle is the defense of liberty and small government. These are, of course, the stated principles of the Republican Party. If the Republican Party is willing to nominate not just a Presidential candidate, but a Vice Presidential candidate, who is virtually indistinguishable from the Democratic nominee on so many issues regarding economic and individual liberty, then the Republican Party deserves to be punished for nominating a candidate that fails the test twice in a row and for not hearing the message in the Midterm Congressional elections. Ron Paul is the leader of the Liberty movement right now. If he splits and runs as a Third Party candidate due to the Republican Party being too stupid and unprincipled to nominate him, then I will have no choice but to support him.

Trust Me, Kos: That cliff is a lot longer than it looks.

I have never really been a fan of the work of Markos Moulitsas. I find him to be primarily interested in the promotion of party politics and not so much in intellectual enlightenment. Now, though, I am struggling to remain civil when reading his latest post on his blog. (By "civil," I mean "Holding back vivid thoughts of violence toward his nose.")

In the latest round of what has seemed to be a particular interest of his- slamming Ron Paul smears that are unprovable, irrelevant to today's important issues, or just flat out ignorant- he pretty much accuses Paul and his supporters of being silent on the issue.

For all the talk of "freedom" that the Paulbots claim to believe in, they sure as heck have been silent on the horrible FISA bill we're fighting to fix in the Senate right now. Same for Ron Paul. Why the silence? And the CATO people and the libertarian publications like Reason, where are they?

Here we are engaged in a huge civil liberties issue, and progressives are being forced to fight this thing alone. It's easy to talk about "liberty". It's much more impressive to actually do something about it.

By actually doing something about it, Markos, do you, by any chance, mean actually write a bill about it that had progressive queen Naomi Wolf (who is a TREMENDOUS fox) fawning over him? Furthermore, if one looks for Markos' own efforts in this battle, one would not find much: a search of his website for entry under his name discussing FISA will find just one post in which he indicates a substantive action he has taken on the issue in the past year. It is a post from the 16th of this month in which he (quite naturally) cites his own article in The Hill. In the vast majority of entries of his, he discussing FISA in only brief passing, uses it in a partisan rhetorical tirade in support of one of "his" candidates, mentions it as only a small part of attacking Congressional leadership of the Democratic Party, or viciously attacks Joe Klein of Time on the topic. See for yourself.

Of course, Ron Paul supporters haven't done much on the issue. There are only 112 hits when you search "FISA" on Daily Paul's website. They've just been posting Reid's and Pelosi's phone numbers on Ron Paul Forums in a thread entitled "Switchboard Shutdown: The FISA Flood Begins." There's only 172 hits on a Reason search for the world "FISA." Oh: and nevermind that the LP petitioned pro-FISA Democratic Senators.

For more perspective, FD and DW take on the issue at his spot. As much as I would like to conclude by commenting on my very specific and extremely violent feelings toward Markos, I will refrain, both because it counterproductive to achieving the goal of ending these wiretaps, if for no other reason than I will likely become subject to the unaccountable NSA that we are trying to stop.

Government-Enacted Health Care Squeeze

A terrific piece from the past week's Economist details some issues arising from Medicare, Part D and continuing debates over health care policy. Here's the article in full:

Boon or bane?

Jan 24th 2008 | NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition
Medicare spending is soaring, but could that ultimately harm the elderly?

WHEN George Bush signed a controversial bill that reformed Medicare, the government health plan for the elderly, into law back in 2003 he declared it would be “the greatest advance in health-care coverage for America's seniors since the founding of Medicare.” The reform's central provision, known as Part D, subsidises the supply of prescription drugs by private insurers. Critics mocked the chaotic launch of that scheme, and feared its huge cost would end up wrecking the budget.

So who got it right? At first blush, it would seem that Mr Bush did. Despite those teething pains, the Part D plan has taken off in earnest. Many millions have signed up, and private insurers have flocked to the scheme. Polls show the plan is popular. But look closer and the plan's warts appear. For one thing, as predicted, it is hugely costly. The official Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently estimated that while overall health spending grew only 6.7% in 2006 to $2.1 trillion, about the same rate of increase as in 2005, Medicare spending shot up 18.7%—double the rise a year earlier and the fastest since 1981. That could well affect the elderly in coming years by forcing the government to make cuts elsewhere.

Mindful that recession may be coming, Democrats are now trying to boost spending on Medicaid, the government health scheme for the poor, by tacking on provisions to the big economic stimulus package wending its way through Congress. Bush administration officials have made clear they will not allow cuts in Part D, as some Democrats propose, so how to pay for this is unclear. What is clear is that costs are already squeezing Medicare, as a big row over doctors' pay reveals.

Doctors and hospitals already had a disincentive to take on Medicare patients, as cost-cutting laws enacted by Congress years ago were anyway hurting their margins. But in late December, Congress went further, and very nearly enacted a mandatory 10% cut in doctors' reimbursements for Medicare patients. In the end, doctors got a six-month reprieve; efforts are now under way in the Senate to extend that reprieve for a further two years. If such cuts go through, most doctors will think again about treating Medicare patients.

Mr Bush's Medicare reforms are popular today, but a backlash may be coming. Some private firms have been caught manipulating the elderly into signing up for inappropriate plans. Questions are being asked about why the public is subsidising the marketing expenses of pharmaceutical companies—expenses that the public sector does not incur. Those doubts will turn into howls if Part D puts the rest of Medicare under the scalpel.

Medicare, Part D was, of course, a terrible policy enacted by the Bush Administration that will be INCREDIBLY costly going forward. And of course, the predictable result of this big-spending plan has been a marked increase in the prices of drugs covered by Medicare, Part D, as well as in the premiums of drug-covering plans. And don't worry that this policy will likely lead to giving the government price-setting power in the drug market, which will have disastrous consequences for R&D spending and, based on experience in Europe, a massive delay in the timing of new product launches. But no matter, because Karl Rove got his wish: a wipe-out win over Kerry in the 60+ age demographic in 2004.

However, I find it ironic that, as the article points out, the very people it was sold to are likely the people who will be directly hurt by it. Slashing reimbursement to physicians for treating Medicare patients will lead to a huge decline in care for Medicare patients. This will inevitably lead to calls from Democrats who are seeking a nationalized health care system with all of its vices to institute regulations forcing physicians to treat Medicare patients with the decline in reimbursement.

So much for small government.

Changed Moniker.

I changed my moniker from my name to "LibertyRepublican." You may call still call me by my first name, as well.

I apologize for not introducing everyone to FD. He is going to be a guest writer on this blog at times. He is a Democrat, but his views will line up with the views of Liberty Republicans probably about 85-90% of the time: he's just chosen a different route. But no bother: we in the Liberty movement are all in this together, and we have to work together. I think it will be healthy to get his perspective on things from the (D) side.

I would love to get more writers here, so if you are a Liberty Republican and would like to writer for the blog, please email me at pmms972008@gmail.com.

The Libertarian Republican in Florida

Hello! This is my first post at Liberty Republicans. While I consider myself a libertarian Democrat and blog most of the time at Freedom Democrats, I plan on popping up here from time to time to comment.

This Tuesday is the Florida primary, an event of far more importance for the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. With Fred Thompson out, the Republican field has settled down to five: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Ron Paul. Sadly, Florida may be the first time that Rudy Giuliani finishes ahead of Ron Paul. But the libertarian Republican should not be discouraged.

This is, after all, Rudy's "firewall" that was supposed to be his big win going into Super Tuesday. Remember when he was ahead in the polls here? Now, he'll be lucky to finish third ahead of Mike Huckabee.

My hope is that Ron Paul will stay in the race long enough, and Rudy Giuliani will drop out soon enough, for Paul to regain his lead over Giuliani in the popular vote and in the delegate count.

Libertarians in Florida, and across the nation, should also take pride in the drop in Huckabee's poll numbers. The nomination of Tax Hike Mike has been avoided, but a VP position is not yet out of the question. He'll keep in the race and probably sweep the South on Super Tuesday, a McCain-Huckabee ticket built on their need of joining forces to block Romney from the nomination is one possible scenario. But there are so many possible scenarios.

On Tuesday, Romney could beat out McCain, or vice versa. From the perspective of slowing down the Republican nomination and keeping McCain away from the White House, I will be cheering for a Romney victory. For my view of the real John McCain, check out my Freedom Democrats post.

Libertarian Republicans should be cheering on a Romney victory because it will continue to make the Republican primary competitive. A McCain win could solidify him as the nominee, potentially making Super Tuesday a total sweep for McCain. If Romney wins, the Republican establishment will not solidify behind one candidate. Ron Paul supporters saw what happened when the Republican establishment got behind one candidate (or non-candidate) in Louisiana. The only chance for Ron Paul to do well in caucus states like Idaho and Alaska and pick up delegates by winning Congressional districts in Georgia and California is for the establishment to stay divided.

The True Meaning of Conservatism and Liberalism, and The Heart of Our Division

One of the unfortunate realities of today's political environment is the fixation on the idea of a divide between two groups: the Conservatives vs. the Liberals. Perhaps this is a natural consequence of a society that cherishes competition (and God knows how much I cherish competition myself), but it is unfortunate that we should prioritize association with these identities and the clash between them to the point where we treat the situation the same as Yankees vs. Red Sox. (Or, to use an example with more local (and personal) relevance, Carolina vs. The University of New Jersey at Durham.) But rarely is the question ever asked: what does it truly mean to be a conservative or a liberal?

As one studies political philosophy extensively, one finds that the labels "conservative" and "liberal" typically do not describe an unmistakably clear set of policy positions. It is often the case that "hyphenation" of these terms develops: the segmentation of these groups into certain subgroups. For instance, the term "paleoconservative" is used to describe conservatives of the Pat Buchanan variety: protectionist, isolationist, culturally conservative, fiscally conservative, and pro-civil liberties. This is in contrast to the "neoconservatives," as represented by the Bush Administration, who generally favor free trade, military interventionism, restriction of civil liberties in the name of security, and are not as concerned with fiscal restraint, favoring Supply-Sider ideas about taxes and tolerating the existence of the welfare state. However, even within these subgroups there can exist substantive disagreement on certain issues. For instance, in the paleo tent, there can be a disagreement over what role the Federal Government should play in regulating cultural matters. Typically, paleocons tend to support adherence to Federalism, whereas some, like Buchanan, tend to favor a more activist approach using the federal government to preserve traditional culture. Furthermore, within the neoconservative tent, an issue of considerable divide tends to be immigration, with those such as President Bush and Senator John McCain favoring less restrictive immigration policies, while others like Duncan Hunter tend to favor more restrictive policies. One achieves a similar analysis when observing liberalism.

So, what do the terms "conservative" and "liberal" really mean in the realm of politics? I contend that they mean exactly what they mean in every other realm of life. From a search on Merriam Webster online, one finds this definition of "conservative":

3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b: marked by moderation or caution c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

As for liberalism? Well, quite a few ideas come to light here:

2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c: ample full
4: not literal or strict : loose
5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

Thinking about these definitions of "conservative" and "liberal," can you unmistakably pin down someone's position on any issue whatsoever when they possess conservative or liberal attitudes and/or world views? Let's take, for instance, the Bush Tax Cuts. By these definitions, one who is a "conservative" may have objected to them on the grounds that they would produce large deficits, if conservatism is indeed "marked by moderation or caution." On the other hand, one could view the tax cuts as quite a liberal policy, given that they were "provided in a generous and openhanded way." In fact, an analogous situation occurred in the 1960s: conservatives in Congress opposed the tax cut proposals of the Johnson Administration, an administration that history has tended to label as the poster-child of American liberalism, on the fear that they would produce large deficits. Instead of this scenario playing out in 2001 and 2003 when the tax debates came up, we have seen the exact opposite situation: the tax cuts were linked to the "conservative" position, while opposition to them was considered the "liberal" position.

My point in all of this is that, in terms of defining consistent and predictable sets of political positions, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are rather useless. Instead, what these label describe more than anything are attitudes and the psychological approach through which one arrives at positions. Conservatives value adhering to tradition, caution, and restraint from radical change. Liberals value anti-orthodoxy and generosity, and they tend to possess more lax attitudes toward society and to react more favorably to change. What it all boils down to is that the individual who possesses these attitudes is ultimately the authority over what positions they take based on these attitudes and their own understanding of issues.

Hence, we have arrived at the source of the division in our society. It is precisely because we in society seek so firmly to establish a form of team sport in politics, with the "liberals" vs. "conservatives," where we view politicos and voters as members of these two teams and cheer them on as they take on our opponents, that we have established this rigid division in our political system and our society as a whole. Identity politics, and particularly party politics, is a particularly divisive and destructive form of collectivism that suggests we maintain loyalty to groups rather than loyalty to our own attitudes, world-views, and unique conclusions on policy positions. It is only when we begin to view ourselves and each other as individuals with unique perspectives, and understand what is truly meant by the terms "conservative" and "liberal," that we can end the division of today and conduct ourselves with the primary motivation of what is best for our country.

Just to clear something up.

Apparently, I have been introduced to the world through The Crossed Pond, and with some confusion as to my sex. As badly as my mom (or mum, for you blokes "Across The Pond") wanted otherwise (hence the name), I am in fact a male.

Play Nice, Boys: We're All In This Together

In the last couple of days, Ron Paul 2008 has announced the addition of their first two economic advisers, both of whom are absolutely top notch aces in the financial sector. These two men are Don Luskin of Trend Macrolytics and Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital. Schiff has been rocking with EuroPAC the last few years, reaping huge returns through investments in foreign markets, and he has gotten nearly every major call in the financial world in the last few years right. Luskin has been around the block for a while and is known as a top notch investment strategist, being credited for numerous innovations in investment strategizing that have paid dividends for a number of institutional investors. On top of this, he is a also a terrific debater and a whitty writer; his blog, The Conspiracy To Keep You Poor and Stupid, is some of the best mix of economic analysis and sardonic humor you will find, and he has conducted a just and glorious Holy War over the years on the economic anti-Christ himself. Together, they form probably the best pairing from the financial world you will ever find teamed with a campaign.

The problem? Well, they don't like each other very much.

Hopefully, they will put their personal conflict behind them in pursuit of the greater good. Both are top notch, and I am fans of both.

Welcome!

In the course of the past year, I have been thoroughly re-energized in my political involvement by the campaign of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. After being disillusioned for years by politics, particularly by a President who has fundamentally contradicted the princples that my party, the Republican Party, is supposed to stand for, this great man has brought these principles back to the forefront and given rise to a widespread movement to bring the country back to one in which government is limited in its size and operations by the Constitution and in which economic and individual liberty govern us. I have become firmly committed to this movement, as I am the Coordinator of the Students for Ron Paul chapter at the University of North Carolina, and I am currently the Youth Coordinator and a Volunteer Coordinator with the BJ Lawson for US Congress campaign in District 4 of NC.

I am currently a 4th-year Senior at UNC, double-majoring in Economics and Math. I aspire to one day become an economist in the financial sector and to do what I can to champion the principle that has led to the greatest growth and advancement of all human kind and
the idea for which all most fundamentally yearn: the principle of Liberty.