It’s Friday and that means it’s time for another installment of “Quick Hits”.
Helen Thomas and Chip Reid berated White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs the other day for pre-selecting questions for Obama’s “town hall” and “controlling” the press. It appears that the honeymoon (I call it the “Obamagasm”) is coming to an end. Gibbs seems to be out of his league as Obama’s Press Secretary. I’ll be surprised if he makes it through Obama’s first and hopefully only term.
There is one particular forbidden health care question for Obama. I would love to hear his answer to the following question:
“Mr. President, you are considered a Constitutional scholar. Could you educate the American people a bit and tell them what section, article, or amendment permits the federal government to provide health care?”
Sure, he would dodge the question, but it is one dodge that I long to hear.
On Monday, Ron Paul’s son Rand Paul held another money bomb campaign fund raiser. The goal was to break $100k. The goal was met. This is huge news and a great sign that the Ron Paul wing of the Republican Party is not going anywhere. Rand Paul raised over $100,000 in about a month without an official fund raiser. Senator Rand Paul has a nice ring to it.
There was high drama last Friday afternoon on the House floor during the debate on the narrowly passed Cap and Trade bill. The Republicans kept pointing out that the legislation will lose more jobs and put a higher tax burden on the American people.
A few years back, the late great Harry Browne (one of Liberty Maven’s Liberty Heroes) published a list of New Years Resolutions focusing on effective communication. We’d all be better off remembering these words of wisdom in our day-to-day interactions. Here they are again:
A Libertarian’s New Year’s Resolutions
by Harry Browne
I resolve to *sell* liberty by appealing to the self-interest of each prospect, rather than *preaching* to people and expecting them to suddenly adopt my ideas of right and wrong.
I resolve to keep from being drawn into arguments or debates. My purpose is to inspire people to want liberty — not to prove that they’re wrong.
I resolve to *listen* when people tell me of their wants and needs, so I can help them see how a free society will satisfy those needs.
I resolve to identify myself, when appropriate, with the social goals someone may seek — a cleaner environment, more help for the poor, a less divisive society — and try to show him that those goals can never be achieved by government, but will be well served in a free society.
I resolve to be compassionate and respectful of the beliefs and needs that lead people to seek government help. I don’t have to approve of their subsidies or policies — but if I don’t acknowledge their needs, I have no hope of helping them find a better way to solve their problems.
No matter what the issue, I resolve to keep returning to the central point: how much better off the individual will be in a free society.
I resolve to acknowledge my good fortune in having been born an American. Any plan for improvement must begin with a recognition of the good things we have. To speak only of America’s defects will make me a tiresome crank.
I resolve to focus on the ways America could be so much better with a very small government — not to dwell on all the wrongs that exist today.
I resolve to cleanse myself of hate, resentment, and bitterness. Such things steal time and attention from the work that must be done.
I resolve to speak, dress, and act in a respectable manner. I may be the first libertarian someone has encountered, and it’s important that he get a good first impression. No one will hear the message if the messenger is unattractive.
I resolve to remind myself that someone’s “stupid” opinion may be an opinion I once held. If *I* can grow, why can’t I help *him* grow?
I resolve not to raise my voice in any discussion. In a shouting match, no one wins, no one changes his mind, and no one will be inspired to join our quest for a free society.
I resolve not to adopt the tactics of Republicans and Democrats. They use character assassination, evasions, and intimidation because they have no real benefits to offer Americans. We, on the other hand, are offering to set people free — and so we can win simply by focusing on the better life our proposals will bring.
I resolve to be civil to my opponents and treat them with respect. However anyone chooses to treat me, it’s important that I be a better person than my enemies.
Video has been released for the hour long debate between Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, and Ralph Nader that was held last Thursday afternoon at the City Club of Cleveland in Ohio. For those that have rejected the two major party candidates this is your chance to compare the next tier of candidates. Although for some of us, we consider these 3 candidates our first tier.
The debate explores issues that you haven’t heard much about from the two major party candidates. That is quite refreshing in and of itself. Grab your beverage of choice, sit back and watch the debate below.
I wish I had paid more attention to politics in High School. I didn’t come to libertarianism until I was in my early twenties. A mock debate in a Michigan high school played out a bit like what the real debates could have been. Along with McCain and Obama, the mock debate included a student representing the views of Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. The student had never heard of Barr nor the Libertarian Party prior to planning for the debate.
Matt Tanyi, who played Barr, said it was important that students heard a different set of views.
“All you ever hear about is Democrats and Republicans. This opened my eyes to the need for an opposing view point,” said Tanyi, who’d never heard of Barr before the mock debate.
As Barr, Matt criticized government spending habits and talks of going to war with Iran.
“The government is money hungry. It’s going to spend as much money as it can get out of you,” Tanyi said. “Just because a country may have weapons of mass destruction is no reason to go to war. America is not the world’s police.”
The debate was put on by the school’s advance placement U.S. government and politics class.
Teacher Andy Nester said the debate helps students better understand the candidates.
“They learn the passion behind how these different groups believe the government should operate,” Nester said. “And when the students hear these things coming from their peers, it’s believable to them.”
The teacher, Andy Nester, deserves praise for including at least one of the third party candidates in the mock debate. That is more than can be said of the debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which strictly limits the participation of third party candidates with thoroughly un-American and unfair requirements.
Bob Barr will join Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin at a debate in Ohio. All three campaigns have confirmed their attendance. The debate will be held tomorrow October 30th beginning at 4pm. It is being held at the City Club of Cleveland.
This is truly short notice. One wonders how many people will show up. No word yet on television outlets picking it up. Since it is scheduled for tomorrow it seems unlikely any will.
Invitations have been sent to Obama, McCain, and McKinney but they have yet to confirm.
Free and Equal is hosting another Third Party debate. This time it is the Vice Presidential candidates. Three candidates have confirmed participation: Wayne Root (Libertarian), Darrell Castle (Constitution Party), and Matt Gonzalez (Independent). The event is scheduled for Sunday, November 2nd, 2008 in Las Vegas, NV.
I’m happy to see Root participating in this one. It suggests that Barr not appearing at the other debate due to scheduling conflicts was legitimate and not some matter of ego. Of course, we might be subjected to Wayne Root yelling “Bang!….. Bang!” following every answer (for those that witnessed him at the Libertarian Convention you know exactly what I mean).
Indeed, that’s the question we at Liberty Maven have been asking all along. What about the Constitution? Isn’t this illegal? Hello??? Of course we could count on Ron Paul to point out that not only would any bailout be disastrous, but the federal government is not permitted to intervene in such a way. But for the most part we didn’t even hear the word Constitution muttered while our representatives scrambled to “do something”. William J. Watkins, Jr. wrote commentary on TheTownTalk.com asking all the right questions….
Congress’ powers are enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. A number of specific powers are listed (e.g., coining money, establishing a post office, raising armies), but nothing is mentioned about intervening in private markets and managing large portfolios of assets. According to James Madison, the powers of Congress were carefully enumerated so that the federal government “can only operate in certain cases.” Unfortunately, over the years Congress has become so used to exercising plenary authority that no one even discusses the basis of its power to act. Questions of constitutionality were not raised by congressional leaders, the mainstream media, or by the presidential campaigns of John McCain and Barack Obama. The people’s fundamental law received the silent treatment.
Enumerated powers aside, the national debate also ignored the bailout plan’s lack of standards for directing the broad grant of discretion to the Treasury Secretary. Under separation of powers principles, legislative power typically cannot be exercised by members of the executive branch or the judiciary. The Supreme Court, however, permits some delegation by Congress. But with this act, the Secretary of the Treasury is given czar-like power over a large segment of the private market.
Americans should be concerned that a constitutional discussion was completely absent from the national debate about the bailout package.
Undoubtedly, the bailout package will have long-term effects on the American economy. The greatest impact, however, is the loss of any real constraint on government power. If the Constitution is not consulted or debated when the government seeks to acquire and manage billions in private assets, then we may safely assume that there are no limits on Congress’ powers. Untrammeled government authority — not economic stabilization — will be the lasting legacy of this Wall Street bailout.
According to the Miami Herald, the debate between third-party candidates on Sunday has been canceled:
The troubled presidential debate for third-party candidates scheduled for Sunday at Columbia University in New York was canceled Friday after none of the four candidates had committed to the event.
“Due to circumstances beyond our control, several of the candidates decided not to participate in the debate at the last minute,” said Lauren Salz, a student with the Columbia Political Union, which was hosting the debate.
Independent Ralph Nader, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin were expected to participate in what was billed as a “historic” event.
Barr claimed a conflict while McKinney opted for an online debate originally scheduled for that evening. Baldwin was reluctant to travel to New York. Nader was willing to participate, aides say, but, seeing the debate falling apart all week, held back.
McKinney, it turns out, also had another reason for staying in her hometown of Atlanta, said her running mate, Rosa Clemente. McKinney is attending the Black Panther Party annual reunion.
It’s a shame. I would have at least liked to see either Balwin or Barr (if not both) up on stage spreading the message of liberty.
Apparently, there has been some misinformation being spread by blogs and news organizations regarding Sunday night’s Third Party debate. I heard yesterday on CNN from Wolf Blitzer himself that the debate was being held and all third party candidates would be showing up except Barr.
The only confirmed participant is the moderator. So everyone, myself included, may have been a premature with criticism of the Barr campaign regarding this event.
WASHINGTON — Just a few days after seeming to agree to appear at a third-party presidential debate, none of the candidates is actually committed to attending the event Sunday at Columbia University in New York.
Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney is a definite “no,” saying she’ll participate that night in an online debate, appearing remotely via Web cam. The Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin didn’t get the invitation until Thursday afternoon, and his campaign manager isn’t promising anything. Libertarian Bob Barr was a no-show from the start, saying he had a scheduling conflict, and independent Ralph Nader, the biggest draw, is hedging his bets.
In fact, the Barr campaign has reiterated that they are open to the idea of participating in an event like this, but it needs proper timing and planning. Again, from the Barr campaign blog:
We are open to the idea of a third party debate if Bob’s schedule permits and it is organized properly with details laid out clearly to the campaign more than a few days before the debate is supposed to take place.
Perhaps some of the recent criticism of Barr and the campaign was unwarranted.
Andrew Davis, on the Libertarian Party HQ website addresses why Barr will not attend the third party debate scheduled for Sunday evening.
…official invitations for the debate just went out this week — mere days before the event is to take place. Given that the proposed event is intended to take place less than 16 days before the election, it is a little absurd to assume that candidates, in the peak of a presidential campaign, have time to drop all pre-scheduled activities and run off to New York for a hastily planned event.
The Barr campaign, which has a very fast paced travel schedule, had already made campaign commitments in other parts of the nation that can’t, and won’t, be dropped for an event that another campaign put together at the last minute without prior coordination. There is good reason why the Commission on Public Debates puts out their schedule well in advance; it gives the campaigns a chance to put it on their calendar.
Contrast that with the fact the invitations to this hastily conceived event are still in the mail.
All along, the Barr campaign has said it would be willing to debate any third-party candidate if the debate was going to be at the national level. Otherwise, the Barr campaign has a campaign plan and they are going to stick to it.
Please understand that we cannot help the events surrounding the organization of this debate. Bob will continue to do as he has been doing for the last few weeks, visiting battleground states and spreading the message of Liberty.
Looking at the comments to the blog entry from the Barr campaign, It looks like Barr is losing some formerly staunch supporters over this decision. Others are heartened by the decision and view the debate as an opportunity to preach to the choir rather than campaign for new votes.
I can see both sides but I must admit I lean on the side of wanting Barr to participate in the debate. Although this desire could be more selfish than practical because I think Barr could earn some votes by actually campaigning face to face.
This is equivalent in strategy to shunning your base while seeking new votes. That is a balancing act in any campaign, but I think for Barr it is a particularly dangerous strategy when a good portion of his base isn’t already completely devoted to him. In the end he could lose more votes from his brittle base than he gains from courting the undecided.
Liberty Maven
Follow LM on Twitter