libertarian party

Las Vegas is insane.

Everything I've heard about this Disneyland-for-adults is true: neon, sparkles, bells & whistles, herds (and hordes) of people, STAR WARS slot machines (pictures later)...I will definitely have to come back here one day for purposes other than business. My friend Jon Henke (@JonHenke) and I flew from DC yesterday by way of Newark, NJ and didn't even land in Vegas until 1am PT...it was a long day, and I slept in a bit. It was easy to do in my posh suite at the Venetian, with my sunken living room and remote-controlled drapes! Life is hard.

The first panel I attended today featured Todd Thurman (@toddthurman) of the Heritage Foundation, Brian Faughnan (@brianfaughnan) of Liberty Central, and Alexa Moutevelis (@alexashrugged) of the RNC, all moderated by my Liberty Pundits co-blogger Melissa Clouthier (@melissatweets). The panel focused on connecting grassroots activists in the field to policy shops in DC - like Heritage, Cato, or other think tanks - as well as to communications resources and activism training like those offered by FreedomWorks or the Leadership Institute.

Probably one of the better bits of information passed along during the discussion was the notion that activists in the field shouldn't be shy about engaging DC-based resources. Yes, DC is busy. Yes, DC occasionally has a heightened, over-inflated sense of self. But DC is also sitting on piles of your cash, looking for a way to return value back to you. So don't be shy about sending emails or picking up the phones to ask for help.

But more than just connecting grassroots activists to DC to get talking points and policy papers to support candidates back home, the panel focused on connecting activist to activist using technology - that means Twitter, Facebook, the blogosphere, and other online resources. The RNC announced some nascent, new API and they are transitioning all of their online tools to an open-source platform...the API is apparently already available for developers...more on this later. Despite this move to make RNC resources more available to more people, there was some grumbling in the audience that the RNC fails (on occasion) to return voter vaults back to activists on the ground once they pull out of town following a race. This makes people currently involved with components of the Tea Party movement a bit reticent to cooperate with the RNC in Washington.

After a few questions, and after some dancing around the issue, I asked the panel: is there a sense, going into this November's elections (and subsequently in 2012) that the Right should be worried about the Left exploiting a growing rift between conservatives and libertarians? If so, how can we, or more appropriately, should we be doing anything differently than the suggestions you've all made here today to, strengthen the coalition between these two groups?

The consensus from the panel seemed to be that there's not really any danger this year - libertarians and conservatives agree in principle that the prevailing issue of this election is the economy, stupid. Throwing the bums out is priority #1 in 2010. But the funnel of candidates is currently full, and the new Congressional primary begins, effectively, on November 3 - it is possible that infighting on the Right might get nastier in 2011 and 2012.

Todd Thurman told me after the panel "We just need to make sure we're talking, and that we're sticking together in areas where we agree." I agree in principle with this strategy, but only inasmuch as it's a first step. Because there is potential for infighting to become nastier on the Right as we approach 2012, it's important to talk about areas where we disagree too - libertarians remain (rightly) mistrustful of the Big Government GOP - the same GOP that is trying to ride the Tea Party Tiger into new majorities this fall. Ignoring our differences now can be our foil later.

Cross-posted at Liberty Pundits and Intelligence, Please...

I write this article neither as a Liberal nor as a Conservative. I write this article as an American. I write this as a Caucasian American who holds to a set of Moderate to Right-Libertarian political views.   I write this as someone who is quote worried about the direction our Nation is taking. I write this as someone who is heartsick over the deep divisions in the world of politics.

 For the first time, since I have been Blogging, I feel the need to speak out against those who hold similar political views as mine. I am referring to the comments that were made by Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Rep. Michelle Bachmann on an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball said that there were persons in the United States Congress, who held to Anti-American views.  She also said that these people should be investigated.

Before I get into why I disapprove of this, let me make some things clear. Contrary to popular belief, my Politics is not as far right as some. In fact, I tend to lean towards the center on some issues. I am a moderate on many issues. Although, when it comes to our Military, My disdain of the Islam Religion, Our Nations Constitution, and a few other things, I am much to the right of some. However, on other issues, I tend to be more of a Libertarian. For example, I do not believe that it is the Governments right to tell a woman what to do with her body. 

Now personally on a personal level, I object to Abortion on grounds that it is murder, this is because I am a Christian and I believe that life begins at conception. Nevertheless, on a Political Level, I believe that the United States Government does not have the right to dictate to woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Furthermore, I do not believe that the State Government should dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do to her own body.  

This is because I believe in personal freedom. I also reject the Conservative Christian idea of turning America into a Theocracy.  I also believe in a full wall of separation of Church and State.  However, just as well, I believe the woman should be given all the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy, however, if she decides to do so, that is between her and God. Let God be the judge of that woman. I reject the browbeating that the far right gives to those who decide to perform such an action. That sort of abject nonsense goes against the very core freedoms in our Constitution.  Those that cannot separate between the political and spiritual realms should not involve themselves in politics at all.  

Now do my personal political views of mine make me Anti-American? I think the sane and logical answer to that would be no. Now in the interest of full disclosure, I have little or no use for the far left. I will spare you the reasons for that. I will simply say that I did not leave the Democrat Party, it left me, long ago, especially during this election cycle. However, for me to sit here and write that Democrats were Anti-Americans would be a lesson in abject foolishness.  Frankly, Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s comments yesterday did nothing to raise the level of political discourse in this country whatsoever.  Rep. Michelle Bachmann was essentially doing a poor imitation of Ann Coulter or at worst channeling Joseph McCarthy. I am fully aware that it was written recently that Joseph McCarthy was correct on some matters; it, in fact, was the destructive behavior of Senator McCarthy that ruined his career.    

It is this writer’s opinion that channeling Senator Joseph McCarthy in this desperate hour would be a total and unequivocal disaster to the Republican Party’s cause.  It is not lost upon me that the political landscape of the Democratic Party has changed a great deal in the last eight years, Mrs. Katrina Vanden Heuvel ‘s response to the remarks being a perfect example of this. However, the channeling of McCarthyism will do nothing to further the Conservative cause. In fact, it will alienate more than it will help.

Cross-posted at The Electoral Map

An ongoing battle between the Nevada GOP brass and a fierce faction of Ron Paul loyalists could have major consequences in November: If the rift isn’t healed, the Paul supporters look like they’re poised to cast their ballots for a Paul as a write-in, or support Libertarian candidate Bob Barr or even throw their vote to Barack Obama out of spite for McCain.

The sour relations began at the state GOP convention when Paul supporters assembled a clear majority in the run-up to the vote to send delegates to the convention. Paul had finished in second place in the caucus, ahead of McCain, and their people thought that they should be well-represented in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

But the heads of the Nevada Republican Party, who are McCain allies, used parliamentary tactics to stall a vote and consequently ran out the clock. They decided that a state GOP committee, and not county delegates, would decide who went to the convention. The Paul people filed suit and lost, and vow to take their grievances to the Republican National Committee.

Even if they win, which appears unlikely, the damage has been done. According to this TIME article, it appears that the Paul supporters would rather vote for a ham sandwich than McCain. It’s not clear how large their faction is, but if it’s large enough to shave two or three points off of McCain’s tally in the state, it means that Obama could win Nevada’s five electoral votes with a plurality.

Bill Clinton won Nevada in 1992 with only 37 percent thanks to independent Ross Perot picking off 26 percent.

Paul and Perot share many similarities. Besides the fact that they’re both fiery Texans with bold views, they both espouse a distrust for the federal government and both command a loyal following. They also seem to win support in similar geographical areas.

If you look at the maps below of Ron Paul donations and Ross Perot performance during the 1992 campaign, Paul and Perot had their best success in Western state and in Nevada in particular.

Nevada is a tough state to analyze because so many of its voters are new transplants. But as the state grows and changes, one thing remains constant: It has a robust libertarian streak. Nevada’s DNA is rooted in libertarianism, from the anti-government and pro-gun lifestyle of the range to the prostitution, gambling and hedonism of Las Vegas.

This is prime Paul territory, and those Paul supporter will vote. The question, For who?

Ron Paul Donation in 2008 Q4

Ross Perot Performance in 1992

Bob Barr is changing yet another policy position in order to run for President.
 

Bob Barr's marriage of convenience to the Libertarian Party gained him the group's nomination for president and prompted the former Republican congressman to declare he will work to repeal one of his biggest legislative victories, the Defense of Marriage Act.

In his speech accepting the little party's nomination in Denver last weekend, Barr roundly denounced the law he once championed.

Barr was the sponsor of the 1996 act that (1) says no state is required to give effect to or recognize a same-sex union law of another state, and (2) defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and declares "the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Barr's reversal marks the repudiation of key conservative "family values" positions he once embraced. He also now favors legalizing "medical marijuana," and his new party's platform calls for repeal "of all laws creating 'crimes' without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes." He also opposes the 2001 Patriot Act he originally supported to expand intelligence-gathering powers in fighting terrorism.

Before the convention, Barr declared support for the California Supreme Court's mid-May decision striking down state laws banning same-sex marriages.

 

The War on Drugs, The Patriot Act, and now The Defense of Marriage Act. Barr is showing he will change his long held beliefs for political gain.

As of Saturday, Bob Barr is now the official Libertarian party nominee for President of the United States.  Some conservatives, dissatisfied with John McCain as the GOP's standard bearer, seem to think that here is a candidate ripe to receive the protest votes of thousands of movement conservatives dissatisfied with the direction that McCain is taking our party.

I wasn't shocked that the libertarian party picked Barr - they are desperate for a candidate who more than a tiny fraction of the country has actually heard of.  He's a compelling speaker and will gain publicity for the party.  But I'm surprised at how willing they are to ignore much of Barr's history in doing so.

Certainly, it seems ironic that the man who was once congress's greatest champion of the "War on Drugs" is now the leader of a fringe party devoted to opposing it.  A man who rails against overspending in Washington himself voted for No Child Left Behind, which libertarians hate.  A man who was one of the main movers and shakers in the impeachment trial of President Clinton, which most libertarians opposed.  A man who voted for the Patriot Act, but has now spent the last five years speaking out against it.

The bottom line is that when he was in congress, Barr was a loyal Republican footsoldier, not a movement conservative or libertarian who just happened to have an R next to his name.

His criticism of big government Republicanism, and then his movement toward the libertarian party and his rejection of Republicans altogether only occurred after Republicans rejected him - tossing him out of his congressional district in a 2002 primary, and failing to support an attempted return to congress the following year. 

When Bob Barr was in congress, when he had the opportunity to stand up for the principles he now claims to champion, he didn't.  He is not the principled leader he claims to be.  And conservatives and libertarians alike looking to cast a protest vote should look past him.

 Crossposted at http://alexbrunk.wordpress.com/