Candidates: Hire A Campaign Finance Director First

The Campaign Doctor newsletter offers marketing tip for campaigns. I subscribe because their advice is often useful for thinking about how to best promote political ideas. A recent issue offered some disturbingly useful advice: a candidate should hire a campaign finance manager first, before anyone else. Yes, that's just how onerous our campaign finance laws are.

How to determine who and what to hire for your campaign
By Chris Ingram

Most campaigns have limited resources. In today's trying economy, scarce dollars requires even more prioritizing of expenditures than ever before.

Many candidates start their campaign with the idea that they will hire a pollster, a press secretary, a campaign manager, and so on - until they realize those guys (and gals) cost money. In most areas, anyone running for county commission, town council, school board, or the like ends up being their own manager, press secretary - I've even seen a few try to be their own pollster!

My advice to candidates is always this: the first person any campaign should hire is not a strategist, manager, or pollster - it's a good accountant who will file their campaign finance reports. I also advise them not to rely on a friends or relatives who are accountants who will do it for free.

Allow your accountant friend or family member to serve as your campaign treasurer who signs the reports if you want, but you should pay a professional to do the grunt work and keep you out of trouble. And since you're a paying client, they will return your phone calls, which free labor doesn't always do.

The person in this role could be called lots of things, but I would call them your campaign finance compliance officer. Ideally they have familiarity with campaign finance law as well as accounting. This person is the most invaluable person on your campaign team and worth every penny. Filing bad campaign finance reports can be embarrassing, costly, distracting, and can result in civil fines and even criminal prosecution.

So when it comes to tracking donations, expenditures, campaign finance law, and disclosure reports, don't skimp, pay up and hire a good campaign finance compliance officer.

Chris Ingram is the president and founder of 411 Communications a corporate and political communications firm, and publisher of Irreverent View. Ingram is a frequent pundit on Fox News and CNN, and has written opinion columns for the Washington Times, UPI, and National Review online.

Thanks to campaign finance laws, a candidate dare not move without a hired accountant to track and report contributions. That's the predictable effect of demanding "transparency" (read: onerous reports) and "accountability" (read: hefty fines) in elections.

(If you want to sign up for the newsletter, you can do so here.)

Read more...

The Conspiracies of Ron Paul

A few weeks ago, an unknown Ron Paul's supporter (or supporters) created a stir with a video attacking John Huntsman. Reuters reports:

Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman and members of his family expressed outrage on Friday at an advertisement targeted at his adopted daughters by a group supporting rival Ron Paul.

An online ad authored by "NHLiberty4Paul" shows footage of Huntsman with daughters Gracie, who was adopted from China, and Asha, adopted from India, when they were infants.

"American values. Or Chinese," the ad asks to a soundtrack of Chinese music. It calls Huntsman "the Manchurian Candidate" and ends with an image of Huntsman dressed as China's former communist leader Mao Zedong, and the words "Vote Ron Paul."

Here's the video, and I definitely recommend watching it:



So what is Ron Paul's response?

Paul, a Texas congressman, disavowed the ad during an interview on Friday on CNN, but said he could not control the actions of all his supporters.

"I couldn't even hear it, haven't looked at it, but people do that, and they do it in all campaigns," Paul said.

(Update: Apparently, Ron Paul's campaign did attempt to sue to discover the author of the video, but they were rebuffed by the courts.)

Unfortunately, Ron Paul has a long history of tolerating these and other varieties of racist, homophobic, and otherwise disreputable supporters. He distances himself in tepid terms, and refuses to condemn them in anything remotely like the strong language that they deserve. That's why he's got problem after problem with downright frightening supporters.

Ron Paul's 2008 campaign had such problems in spades, particularly for refusing reject donations from neo-Nazis. In this 2010 campaign, Ron Paul's campaign welcomed the endorsement of a Christian dominionist pastor in Iowa who -- consistent with his overall theology -- advocates the death penalty (!!!) for homosexuality. (Please go read the whole story, because it's quite remarkable.) The announcement on Ron Paul's web site welcoming this fothermucker's endorsement was deleted, but as far as I can tell, Ron Paul never repudiated the endorsement.

Moreover, Ron Paul has never adequately explained or repudiated the viciously racist and homophobic comments in his newsletters.

How should the lunatic fringe be handled in a campaign? Consider the reaction of Bob Barr's campaign to a racist endorsement when he ran for president in 2008 on the Libertarian Party ticket:

The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters. Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms.

Tell the haters I said don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out!

I'm not a fan of Bob Barr, but *pow* *pow* *pow* -- that's how it's done!

Instead of doing that -- or anything like it -- Ron Paul tolerates dangerous idiots, only setting them at arm's length when exposed by the media. This pattern of actions reveals something amiss with Ron Paul's character and judgment, I fear. He's not a racist, I don't think: he's said and done too much too clearly against that. So is he just willing to tolerate and pander to dangerous nonsense in the hope of a few more votes? I don't think that explains the pattern, not when he sticks to his guns on economics.

I suspect that a major cause of these problems is that he's got a serious but mostly hidden penchant for conspiracy theories. This fascinating NY Times article explores that in some detail. For example:

In a 1990 C-Span appearance, taped between Congressional stints, Paul was asked by a caller to comment on the "treasonous, Marxist, alcoholic dictators that pull the strings in our country." Rather than roll his eyes, Paul responded, "there's pretty good evidence that those who are involved in the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations usually end up in positions of power. And I believe this is true."

Paul then went on to stress the negligible differences between various "Rockefeller Trilateralists." The notion that these three specific groups -- the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller family -- run the world has been at the center of far-right conspiracy theorizing for a long time, promoted especially by the extremist John Birch Society, whose 50th anniversary gala dinner Paul keynoted in 2008.

Wow, just wow. By all means, go watch the video for yourself. He just smooth talks right in and out of the conspiracies.

Judged by the standards of a rational epistemology, conspiracy-theorism is nearly at the bottom of the barrel. The mind of the conspiracy theorist is in complete disarray, utterly unable to evaluate evidence or stick to facts. It's engaging in a constant process of invention, and then confusing those inventions with facts.

For that to be the basic psycho-epistemology of the US President... well, that would be frightening.

Read more...

Rick Santorum on Pregnant Rape Victims

Rick Santorum says that pregnant rape victims should "accept the gift of human life" and "make the best out of a bad situation." And yes, that's what every advocate of "personhood for zygotes" must say.



As Ari and I said in The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties:

In [a] 2004 survey, around 1.5 percent of women who got an abortion cited rape or incest as the cause of the pregnancy. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term when the pregnancy was caused by a sexual assault victimizes her yet again. Even if she gives up the child for adoption, she must live with the ever-present physical reminder of her assault for the duration of her pregnancy. Moreover, the woman might feel a torturous conflict over the born child: she might desperately want to raise her own child, but abhor the thought of raising the child of her rapist.

That last point, I think, is particularly important.

Read more...

Rick Santorum on Free Speech

In this video, Rick Santorum answers a question on SOPA. He doesn't express an opinion about the bill, but he does explain his view that he regards all rights as limited and subject to regulation, including free speech rights:



Here are some highlights, but I recommend listening to the whole video:

My general feeling is that we have a free market and a free market should work. But like any freedom, there has to be regulation. We're not unlimited in any right, even rights that we have within our Constitution: they're not unlimited rights. There is, and can be, limitations on that. Freedom of speech, there are things that you can't say: you can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater. There are limitations to all freedom: there are no absolute rights. There are rights that have responsibilities that come with them. If you abuse those rights -- piracy -- if you abuse those rights, then you have a consequence of abusing that right. ...

I would make the case that ... there are limits to freedom on the internet. The internet is a powerful source for good. And, as we all know, it has been a powerful source for bad in this country. So the idea that we should just "hands-off" -- and it's a moral-free zone, it's a regulation free-zone, and that people should be able to do whatever they want -- I don't know of any other zone in America where that's the case. Why should the internet be different than everything else?

So I would say that responsible, well-[something], discussed regulation -- if there is abuse, taking someone's private property -- if there is abuse, as there is in pornography and a lot of other areas where we are destroying the moral fabric of our country -- to say, "well, it's just tough, let people to whatever they want -- let a 12 year old -- let them do whatever they want."

There are limitations that have to be put in place because your free speech rights can be incredibly harmful to someone else. Your desire to go a grab something that doesn't belong to you can be very harmful to someone else. ...

Rick Santorum views liberty as mere license to indulge in whims, including stealing from others. That's an utterly corrupt conception of rights. A person does not have the right to violate the rights of others! Yet on Santorum's view, protecting intellectual property from theft is on par with banning pornography to protect the moral fabric of society. They're both a matter of limiting rights to prevent harm to others.

Oy vey.

Read more...

Vermin Supreme for President!

Presidential candidate Vermin Supreme is offering free ponies and zombie-powered turbines. I'm voting for him for president!

Read more...

Ron Paul on Israel

In this video, Ron Paul talks about Israel and Gaza:



Two things:

First, it's appalling that he'd speak to the state-controlled Iranian television at all. By doing that, he sanctions a repressive dictatorship and avowed enemy of the United States.

Second, he's not just saying that we shouldn't be meddling in Israel's problems but instead leave her to manage her own self-defense as she sees fit. He explicitly criticizes Israel on moral grounds, citing her as the aggressor in the conflict, and he sides with the Palestinian terrorists.

Oy vey.

Read more...

Rick Santorum Versus Happiness

Rick Santorum versus the right to the pursuit of happiness:



Newsflash, Mr. Theocracy!

Life does not consist of a burdensome slew of unpleasant responsibilities to other people, whereupon each person is required to immolate himself for the sake of the common good.

To pursue one's own happiness does not mean snatching solitary moments of pleasure, but seeking deeply meaningful values and joys over the course of a whole lifetime. That requires the scrupulous use of reason and dedication to virtue.

Every person has just one life to live, and that life is his own. He ought to make he most of it, pursuing the values that he holds dear -- not waste it away in submission to the demands of others.

The right to the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental right, and the Founders deserve every praise for recognizing it as such.

Whereas you... you deserve to be tarred and feathered and run out of town.

Yet, you are "surging from behind" in Iowa.

GOP, I hate you. And yes, I would vote for Obama over Rick Santorum.

Read more...

Civility in the Election Season

Alas, the 2012 election season already looks unpleasant and contentious... and we have ten more months to go. So... here's my policy, which I hope that others will adopt too.

I'm happy to be friendly with people who support and advocate candidates that I regard as unworthy of my vote. Politics is extremely difficult, even if you've got all the proper principles in place. So I expect that I'll differ in my judgments from many people that I like and respect. That's okay. I hope that we can discuss our differences in a friendly way, and perhaps learn something as a result.

However, if you accuse me of dishonesty, call me names, or otherwise behave in an uncivilized fashion simply because I disagree with you, then I will be perfectly happy to never have anything to do with you again. I will un-friend you on Facebook, I will un-follow you on Twitter, and I will ban you from these blog comments -- without hesitation. That crosses a line for me, and I'm just not going to tolerate it.

Unfortunately, this kind of ridiculous behavior seems to be the particular modus operandi of some (but not all) Ron Paul supporters. Honestly, even if he were an excellent candidate, without the baggage of those disgustingly racist and homophobic newsletters, the uncivilized belligerence of so many of his supporters would make him unelectable. Such people would do him a huge favor if they'd make some attempt at civilized discourse, rather than launching into personal attacks.

So when you feel that rush of burning anger in an online political discussion with friends and allies, please step back from the keyboard for a few minutes to focus on the broader context. I'll try to do the same -- and if I don't, please remind me (in a friendly way) to remain friendly. Just those few seconds could do all of us a world of good!

Read more...

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy

Recently, I spent some time watching videos of Ron Paul speaking on foreign policy, particularly Iran. Ever since my webcast discussion of his views, I've wanted take a closer look, because my sense is that his views are not merely mistaken, but reveal some deep error in his principles.

In a recent editorial -- What Ron Paul Thinks of America -- Dorothy Rabinowitz writes:

Ron Paul's efforts on behalf of Iran's right to the status of misunderstood victim continued apace. On the Hannity show following the debate, Dr. Paul urged the host to understand that Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had never mentioned any intention of wiping Israel off the map. It was all a mistranslation, he explained. What about Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust? A short silence ensued as the candidate stared into space. He moved quickly on to a more secure subject. "They're just defending themselves," he declared.

So is that a fair recap of his views? Well, you can see for yourself in the following videos.

(1) Iowa GOP Debate: 11 Aug 2011



(2) Ron Paul with Sean Hannity: 22 Sep 2011



(3) Ron Paul with Sean Hannity: 15 Oct 2011 (?)



(4) Ron Paul on Fox News Sunday: 6 Nov 2011 (?)



(5) GOP Debate: 15 Dec 2011



(6) Ron Paul with Sean Hannity: 15 Dec 2011



So what do I think of all that? Oy, that's a bit hard to untangle. Mostly, however, I see deep-rooted moral equivalence.

Ron Paul flatly refuses to draw any distinction between (mostly) free countries like the US and Israel and repressive dictatorial theocracies like Iran. He seems to think that every government is legitimate, including governments run by batshit-crazy terrorists who repress their own citizens and threaten their own neighbors. Hence, he supposes, every regime is entitled to defend itself against its perceived enemies, including with nuclear weapons.

That basic view -- that moral equivalence between nations -- is why Ron Paul repeatedly stresses the sheer number of nukes possessed by various countries -- without any regard for the principles, policies, or even sanity of the regime. That's also why he regards Iran has having just as much right to the "respect" afforded to nuclear regimes as does Israel. Perhaps worse, he can't even fathom that Iran might be allah-crazy enough use nuclear weapons offensively against other nations (i.e. Israel, then America). He's not just ignorant of that possibility: he's willfully blind to it.

Ultimately, the serious threat posed by Iran and other totalitarian Islamic regimes could easily become reality under any Ron Paul presidency. He would open the door to the slew of state-sponsored terrorist groups seeking to destroy America and establish a global caliphate. As I said in my webcast discussion, if you think that Obama can destroy the economy with more controls, you're right... but just think about the economic devastation inflicted by a nuke in Manhattan. Iran doesn't need a land army to do that -- just the nuclear weapons that Ron Paul urges us to permit Iran to develop.

Contrary to Ron Paul's moral equivance in foreign policy, other nations ought to be judged based on their respect for rights. A nation that respects rights is not a threat to other free nations -- and likely would be an ally. Dictatorial nations must be clearly identified as such, then monitored for threats. Serious threats should be swiftly and decisively eliminated. Ron Paul will not do that, not because the threats don't exist, but because he refuses to see them.

Even when military action would not be proper, dictatorial regimes should be identified as morally illegitimate, clearly and forthrightly. Any American president with a shred of love for liberty ought to say to despots, "Your regime is despotic and vicious. Your power is unjustly obtained and unjustly exercised. Your citizens, if they value their lives, ought to rise up in revolt, then establish a constitutional government based on the principles of individual rights." Ron Paul won't do that, not even to Iran, because he doesn't draw moral distinctions between nations.

What will Ron Paul do instead? He suggests that America befriend Iran, a barbaric theocracy openly seeking to destroy us. After all, he says, we used diplomacy with the USSR and China, so why not use it with Iran? Basically, he wants America to adopt a stance of weakness and cowardice -- even now, while the threat is merely potential and could be defused at minimal risk to American lives.

Ron Paul's views on these matters are so fantastically twisted that I can't even regard them as any kind of "foreign policy." He's willfully blind to the proper moral principles and to the basic facts -- and hence, he would be the best possible ally of our sworn enemies. Although I'm far more concerned about domestic than foreign policy in this election, Ron Paul's foreign policy is so bad as to disqualify him, in my view. America would not survive four years with him at the helm, I don't think.

Read more...

The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties

Earlier this week, Ari Armstrong's and my new paper on abortion rights -- The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties -- was published in the The Objective Standard. Happily, our article is available for free to everyone.

Here's the opening paragraph:

In recent years, antiabortion activists have stepped up their attacks on a woman's right to abortion and have achieved a series of victories in their efforts to outlaw the procedure. This increasing assault poses a major threat not only to women's right to abortion, but, more broadly, to individual rights as such. Rights form a logical unity, and to the extent that any are threatened, all are threatened. The antiabortionists' war on a woman's right to her body is ultimately a war on all our rights, including our rights to property, free trade, and freedom of speech. To demonstrate this, we will briefly survey the goals, methods, successes, and rationale of today's antiabortion movement; we will then turn to the reasons women seek abortions, to the nature of rights and the positive case for a woman's right to abortion, and finally to the reasons why any restriction on abortion rights necessarily clears the way for violations of other rights.

If you like the article, please share it with friends and fellow activists. Given that conservatives tend to be hostile to abortion rights -- or at least squishy about them -- we think that our article is one that desperately needs to be circulated in free-market and tea-party circles.

Again, you can read the whole article here: The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties.

Read more...

Videos: An Early Look at the Election and GOP Candidates

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I took an early look at the 2012 election, then surveyed four GOP candidates -- Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson. I've posted all five questions as videos, and so here they are!

The first question was:

What's your view of the upcoming 2012 election? By what standards do you judge the presidential candidates?

My answer, in brief:

In a presidential candidate, I'm not looking for either John Galt or "Anyone But Obama." I'm looking for someone who will do more good than harm to the cause of liberty in America.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The second question was:

Should I support Mitt Romney for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Romney deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My answer, in brief:

Mitt Romney is a smooth talker, but his proposal reveal that he has no understanding of individual rights or the economic problems facing America. He's no better than Obama – and likely worse, because the opposition will vanish. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The third question was:

Should I support Newt Gingrinch for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Gingrinch deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My answer, in brief:

Newt Gingrich is explicitly theocratic, and a major threat to the separation of church and state. He advocates and practices "active governance," meaning right-wing social engineering, not liberty. Like Obama, he is enamored of bold transformative ideas, which could be okay or horrible for liberty. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The fourth question was:

Should I support Ron Paul for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Paul deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My answer, in brief:

Ron Paul is not even libertarian, but a neo-confederate conservative Christian, albeit with some grasp of basic economics. He's a rationalist, driven by ideology, and not open to facts. He would be very dangerous to elect as president, not just for actual policies, but as a supposed advocate of liberty. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The fifth question was:

Should I support Gary Johnson for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Johnson deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election? Also, should supporters of Gary Johnson vote for him on a Libertarian Party ticket?

My answer, in brief:

Gary Johnson is not John Galt. However, he's fundamentally oriented toward facts, plus he has good basic principles about liberty. Alas, he was shut out from the race by the media and the establishment GOP. I recommend voting for him in the primary, as well as in the general election, if he runs as the Libertarian Party candidate. I still reject the Libertarian Party, but a protest vote can be delimited to endorse him and not the party.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoyed these video, please "like" them on YouTube and share them with friends in e-mail and social media! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

All posted webcast videos can be found in the Webcast Archives and on my YouTube channel.

Read more...

Video: Supporting Political Compromise on Legal Marijuana

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed political compromise on legal marijuana. The question was:

When is it morally right or wrong to support political compromises? The marijuana legalization initiative for the 2012 Colorado ballot also specifies open-ended taxation that circumvents the protections of TABOR (the Taxpayer Bill of Rights). It specifies that the first $40 million raised goes to government schools. Both of these taxation items are compromises added to get voters to accept the marijuana legalization. Is it ethical to support more taxation to get more freedom from drug laws? Is it okay to circulate petitions to get this on the ballot so the voters can decide? More generally, when if ever should a person support political compromises that uphold some rights but violate others?

My answer, in brief:

With mixed legislation, you need to examine the good and the bad, with particular emphasis on precedents set by the law. Sometimes, like with this measure, you should support it because the good hugely outweighs the bad, but that's not always the case.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends in e-mail and social media! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

All posted webcast videos can be found in the Webcast Archives and on my YouTube channel.

Read more...

Video: Voting for Horrible Politicians

In last Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast (Nov 6th), I discussed when and why people should vote, given that politicians are mostly horrible. The question was:

All the candidates are nearly perfectly horrid, just in different ways. Why should I even bother to vote?

My answer, in brief:

We're not always faced with choice between two varieties of evil in elections, and in those cases, it's proper to vote. Also, it's good to vote for ballot measures. So vote selectively!

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends in e-mail and social media! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

All posted webcast videos can be found in the Webcast Archives and on my YouTube channel.

Read more...

Gary Johnson Unfairly Excluded from the Michigan Debate

The Gary Johnson 2012 Campaign wrote the following message on their Facebook page this morning:

CNBC and the Michigan GOP are excluding Gov. Johnson from their debate next week.

CNBC Contacts: 201-735-4778, Emails: Steffanie.Marchese@nbcuni.com, Beth.Goldman@nbcuni.com, brian.steel@nbcuni.com, jennifer.dauble@nbcuni.com, amy.zelvin@nbcuni.com
Michigan GOP: 517-487-5413, email robert.schostak@migop.org

Ask them WHY Gov. Johnson is being excluded when the debate criteria specified that a candidate must have polled 3% and Gov. Johnson achieved this benchmark in a May 26 poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147806/Romney-Palin-Lead-Reduced-GOP-Field-2012.aspx)!

If you look at that link, Gary Johnson does poll at 3% in the second poll listed. If you'd like to see Gary Johnson included in the debate, please send a letter!

Here's the letter that I sent:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Diana Hsieh
Date: Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:10 PM
Subject: Please Include Gary Johnson in the GOP Debate
To: Steffanie.Marchese@nbcuni.com, Beth.Goldman@nbcuni.com, brian.steel@nbcuni.com, jennifer.dauble@nbcuni.com, amy.zelvin@nbcuni.com, robert.schostak@migop.org
Cc: email@garyjohnson2012.com


I'm writing because I'm a supporter of Gary Johnson's campaign for President, and I'm sorely disappointed that he's going to be excluded from yet another debate -- particularly because, in this instance, he meets the criteria of polling at 3%, as you can see from the second poll listed on this page:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147806/Romney-Palin-Lead-Reduced-GOP-Field-2012.aspx

I'm completely disgusted with the other Republicans presidential candidates. I want a experienced candidate who is pro-choice, pro-immigration, and truly fiscally conservative. As a two-term governor still popular in his own state, Gary Johnson qualifies in spades.

I'm frustrated that the news media and the GOP leadership seem determined to only have GOP candidates for president only from the religious right -- which I abhor and absolutely refuse to vote for. It's not fair, and it's not smart.

I sincerely hope that you'll reverse your decision and include Gary Johnson in the debate. His views deserved to be heard.

Please let the American people decide for themselves whether they like Gary Johnson or not!

Again, if you want to see Gary Johnson included in the debate, please write a brief letter in support of that! You can also call the numbers listed above. Here's an e-mail link with all the addresses.

Read more...

Gary Johnson: Don't Waste the Opportunity

GQ published an excellent article on the only presidential candidate that I could possibly support, namely Gary Johnson. Here's a tidbit:

A few things you need to know up front about Gary Johnson. There is nothing he will not answer, nothing he will not share. For six straight days, we spent virtually every waking hour together, which might have had something to do with the fact that there wasn't another reporter within ten miles of the guy. Or that when you're polling in the low digits and your campaign fund is less than Mitt Romney's breakfast tab and your entourage is Brinck and Matt, you tend to be more forthcoming. But in fact, Johnson is fundamentally incapable of bullshitting, which is one of the many, many things that make him so unusual for a presidential candidate. (When a reporter asks him, after he gushes about how great New Hampshire voters are, if he says the same thing in Michigan, he replies, "No, Michigan's the worst.") He finds presidential politicking of the sort we've grown accustomed to—slick, scripted, focus-grouped, how-does-the-hair-look—to be "absolutely phony."

Johnson is not just determined to eliminate the budget deficit by immediately cutting the budget by 43%. He's also pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-marijuana-legalization, and more. He's not as hawkish on foreign policy as I'd like, but he's opposed to altruistic foreign wars. You can read about his positions here.

In my view, Gary Johnson is a far better candidate than I thought possible from the GOP. And I'll be damned if I'll sit on my hands while something that good passes us by -- particularly when our alternatives are wild-eyed Jesus freaks, slimy pragmatists, and economy-killers. Hence, I've donated a few hundred dollars to his campaign -- and I'd urge others to consider doing the same.

If you're not able to do that but you like what you see, please pass on the GQ article (or this blog post) to friends and fellow free-market activists.

Read more...

Michelle Bachmann, Theocrat

I refuse to vote for politicians whose votes are determined by prayer. I'm looking at you, Michelle Bachmann!

She's speaking about the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples violated the state constitution. Here's the transcript:

When that happened, I heard the news on my local Christian radio station in Minneapolis, St. Paul and I was devastated. And I took a walk and I just went to prayer and I said Lord, what would you have me do in the Minnesota state senate? And just through prayer I knew that I was to introduce the marriage amendment in Minnesota.

While we're here, don't forget about the varieties of marriage that God sanctions in His Holy Scriptures. (Click to read the fabulous details!)



Maybe, Michelle, if you pray real hard, God will make you some powerful man's concubine! Alas, that's one of the better alternatives.

Read more...

Election Results: Personhood Defeated!

I'm delighted to report that Colorado's "personhood" measure was defeated strongly, yet again. Ari Armstong and I were certain of its defeat, but we worried that it would gather significantly more support than did Amendment 48 in 2008. (Amendment 48 was defeated with 73% NO and 27% YES.)

Much to my delight, the results so far (with 88% of precincts reporting) show that "personhood" is almost as unpopular as ever, with 70% NO and 30% YES. That's despite the more confusing language of Amendment 62 and far less of a campaign in opposition by the major coalition, Protect Families, Protect Choices -- in comparison to 2008's Amendment 48. While "personhood" is still a threat, particularly in the long-run, I'm hopeful that enough Colorado voters understand its moral and practical evils to vote against it, time and again.

Once again, I want to give a heartfelt thanks to everyone who pledged to support our hugely revised policy paper on it: The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception. That paper was viewed 3,000 times in HTML format, and downloaded 500 times as a PDF and 100 times as in e-book format.

Unfortunately, Stephen Bailey did not prevail in his race against Jared Polis, but I'm so glad that he ran. And Amendment 63 -- for health care choice -- looks like it will be defeated by a narrow margin. The rest of Colorado's election results -- including the dead-heat in the Senate race between Ken Buck and Michael Bennet -- can be found on 9 News.

Read more...

Obama's Victory and Media Malpractice

Over at HowObamaGotElected.com, they wanted to investigate how someone like Obama sails into the White House. Their conclusion? That the news media simply refused to do their job.

On Election day twelve Obama voters were interviewed extensively right after they voted to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. These voters were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience. The rather shocking video below seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not.

It is indeed shocking to see the demonstration of just where abysmal ignorance contrasts with easy knowledge.


I wouldn't lay it at just the media's feet, though -- this sort of thing is enabled by serious cultural and epistemological degradation. The state of the news media is only a symptom. An incredibly nasty symptom.

UPDATE: A little clarification: the quote from their website was only sharing what they claim. Obviously, I have no idea what their methodology was for selecting their interviewees, nor how fair they were in their editing. What caught my attention was the contrasting pockets of knowledge and ignorance within the individual people.

Read more...

LTE: The Republican Party Has Gone Bankrupt

My following letter to the editor was published in the Denver Post Editorial page of November 15 in response to David Harsanyi's column, "Getting out of the Republican coma."

I would like to add to David Harsanyi's comments about Republicans needing renewed idealism and intellectualism. To put it bluntly, the Republican Party is bankrupt. Their "statism-lite" support of the massive growth in government is a pathetic imitation of the the sacred policies of the left. And their hijacking by the religious right has turned them into "theocrat-lite." There is nothing of the idealism of limited government and individual liberty -- policies they give only lip service to. They deserve the whooping they got; and as an advocate of reason, individual liberty and laissez-faire capitalism, I'm hoping that out of the ashes will emerge a leader who won't let America go down in flames.

Gina Liggett, Denver

Read more...

Yes Sarah, Africa Is a Continent

The more news like this about Sarah Palin we hear, the less likely we are to see her as a candidate in 2012:



And that's good news!

Read more...