Politics – Page 123 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Libertarian Leadership

I am starting to think that the message Ron Paul wants to send is that leadership under a Libertarian is best described as, “I didn’t personally do it, so you can’t blame me!”

First, we have the newsletter debacle. He made money off of them, and he signed his name to the mailers, and he knows who was writing them, but refuses to name them. But since he says that he didn’t actually pen the words, he has no responsibility to be held accountable for things printed under his name and in his business.

Now, we have the Twitter crap. What Twitter crap? Well, Ron Paul now says he can’t be held accountable for things published on his verified campaign Twitter account.

When pressed about the fact that the message was sent under his official Twitter handle, Paul said, â€œI have some help on tweeting,â€ and continued to dismiss the whole episode as â€œirrelevant.”

When a former colleague posted this on Facebook, a jokester decided to give us some insight into Ron Paul’s leadership style in the White House: “â€ŽI have some help with the missiles. Someone else launched that one. I wasn’t involved.”

If people are serious about a libertarian message, these missteps should be alarm bells blaring very loudly. I do realize that you can’t blame a candidate for every bad decision an underling makes, but the candidate still needs to step up and accept responsibility for the problem. A real leader would also explain whether they have actually addressed the problem. Personal responsibility doesn’t mean an end to leadership, especially when you’re running for the White House.

Two Ricks Entered Iowa…

…and only one came out. I just stole that from Jim Geraghty this morning, but it seems to be the headline of the day. Rick Perry is effectively out, and Rick Santorum is the so-co anti-Mitt now. I don’t see him doing well in New Hampshire, so the question will be whether he maintains any of the “surge” into other states. He could end up being in the same position as the Huckabeast in 2008, in that he largely ends up being a protest vote by more socially conservative states down the line, but won’t take the nomination. He did so well, in part, because he spent so much time on the ground in Iowa. There simply aren’t enough days between primaries to do that in many other states. Consider that out of all of the candidates in Iowa, only two are even on the ballot in Virginia.

By the way, when Santorum runs on the fact that he’s the only candidate to have won a swing state like Pennsylvania before, feel free to remind people that he also lost Pennsylvania to a guy whose own staff doesn’t know if he’s alive.

I will also steal this bit of commentary from him to put it in context of why Iowa shouldn’t be any more relevant than any other small state:

The Hawkeye State killed off the chances of a perfectly good candidate, Tim Pawlenty, in favor of his Minnesota rival Michele Bachmann, only to drop her like seventh-period Spanish by the time the actual caucuses rolled around. The caucuses werenâ€™t even over when the Fox News Decision Desk could project, with confidence, that she would finish sixth out of six major candidates in the caucus. As of this writing, she is set to finish 5 percentage points ahead of Jon Huntsman, who effectively conceded the state.

For all the surges we’ve seen of potential “anti-Romneys,” Pawlenty likely would be the best one.

Some of you might think that Ron Paul’s third place showing is the story of the night, but it isn’t. Here’s an interesting tidbit as to why that momentum won’t hold as we head into races where people who actually vote for Republicans have a chance to vote:

According to the entrance polls, 38 percent of caucus-goers had never voted in a GOP caucus before; of those, by far the largest share, 37 percent, voted for Ron Paul. Among the registered so-called independents who took part in the caucus, 48 percent voted for Ron Paul, way ahead of anyone else. Next highest was Romney with 16 percent.

Closed primaries in future states will largely keep this number down as we progress through the primary calendar. The exception to that being Virginia where he will be the only protest vote against Mitt available, save for write-ins.

UPDATE: Well, I admit that I’m wrong. It looks like two Ricks stay in the race. That’s wise for Perry. Iowa shouldn’t be in a position to coronate any candidate, and he could do well in South Carolina.

UPDATE II: I stand corrected on write-ins in Virginia primary in the comments. Also, I take back what I said about Perry. He may still have a campaign going, but apparently he plans to take a couple of days off. Ummm…let’s see, NH is next week, and South Carolina shortly after that. I don’t think he can afford days off right now. So while there might be a campaign that exists, I don’t think this bodes well for the future vitality of it.

The Ronulution

With the Iowa Caucuses well underway, I feel it’s time to weigh in a bit on the 2012 GOP primary race. I am mostly despondent, a state of which I am quite familiar with when it comes to GOP politics. But, but, RON PAUL!!! How could I possibly be despondent?

Sorry, never liked the guy. I don’t think he’s a good libertarian standard bearer. I share Ilya Somin’s view that Gary Johnson would have been a better candidate, from an ideological perspective. I share Professor Somin’s disdain for the now infamous Ron Paul Newsletters. Probably the best account that covers the topic of Ron Paul’s craptacular candidacy can be found over at Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

Clayton Cramer notes:

There is not even a pragmatic argument for refusing to condemn white supremacists–we are not talking about a significant fraction of American voters, even in the Deep South. For every white supremacist that might sit out the election if Ron Paul condemned their views, there would likely be a dozen voters who are charmed by Ron Paul’s blunt speaking and in love with his foreign policy approach who would be more inclined to vote for him. My guess is that Ron Paul is not as hostile to those offensive ideas as he pretends.

That disturbs me as well. Roger Simon thinks Paul’s actions border on blatant racism. I’m not sure I’m willing to go that far, but I’ve never gotten excited about Paul. Like many politicos, he strikes me as any other panderer, and he’s certainly not been above bringing in the pork for his district to stay elected. That certainly isn’t a mortal sin, in my view, being a politician, but a lot of folks seem to be convinced that he isn’t your ordinary politician. I am less convinced.

Paul needs to answer for the material in the newsletters. If it were me, I’d disown them all. I wouldn’t want that kind of support. But Paul has not done that. That tells me he’s not really any different than other politicians, and you don’t get to claim you’re my savior when that’s the case. So count me out as a fan of Ron Paul. I’m not going to endorse Mitt, by any means, at this stage in the game, but I’m not liking my alternatives.

Protecting Technology

The Second Amendment is a bit unique among our constitutional rights. In order to protect some rights, our Constitution places obligations on the government, as is the case in Fifth Amendment, which requires to government to indict via grand jury, and the Sixth Amendment, which requires the government to provide “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” The rest of the Amendments generally forbid the government from doing things, like infringing on speech, quartering troops, or inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. The Second is not different in this regard, but I’ve heard some of our opponents in the gun control movement try to argue the Second Amendment has to be a unique case because it protects dangerous objects, and no other amendment protects objects. In that context, I find this recent law review by Eugene Volokh interesting, in regards to what constitutes “the press.”

But other judges and scholarsâ€”including the Citizens United majority and Justice Brennanâ€”have argued that the â€œfreedom . . . of the pressâ€ does not protect the press-as-industry, but rather protects everyoneâ€™s use of the printing press (and its modern equivalents) as a technology. People or organizations who occasionally rent the technology, for instance by buying newspaper space, broadcast time, or the services of a printing company, are just as protected as newspaper publishers or broadcasters.

Professor Volokh’s review takes a look at early case law, and demonstrates that protection of the press as a technology is the predominant one in American jurisprudence. It is actually surprising how much the early media resembled what’s grown organically from the Internet.

But it shows that the Second Amendment is hardly unique among rights in protecting the right to own an object. Implicit in freedom of the press is the right to own one, or the modern equivalent, which would be a computer, and an Internet connection. Computers and Internet connections can certainly be subject to heinous abuses, such as distribution of child pornography. One could even imagine it possible to kill many people by hacking into the right public works systems and disrupting them.

Yet, in most cases, the Government is quite limited in how it can restrict access to the press. Could the government ban child molesters from owning a computer? From an Internet connection? Actually, this is an active issue, currently. But far from being an extreme point of view, it’s completely justifiable to question whether the government can require a license for owning a firearm, when it can do no such thing for a printing press or a computer. Could the government even subject computer buyers, or Internet subscribers, to an instant background check? That’s probably of dubious constitutionality. So why is it to radical to suggest guns be treated in the same manner? It is only radical because our opponents, who are extremists, say it is. But in the realm of constitutional law, it’s a legitimate question.

Spin No One is Buying in a City Where No One is Accountable

As the Philadelphia Daily News was headed to print with the headline “Kill-adelphia: Yet again, city tops list of homicide rates,” they missed another homicide for their report. As I told Wyatt in response to that tweet, the city’s leaders think he’s using fuzzy math for considering year-over-year numbers. They only count from the very highest number and consider all numbers below it to be an improvement. Even as murder is on the rise, they use a “method” of counting that considers it down by double digits. The problem is that no one believes them, but the city voters aren’t willing to hold anyone accountable.

But John Coleman, shopping at the Uceta market yesterday, wasn’t buying the spin.

“They lyin’,” said Coleman, 25.

They use every excuse under the sun. You can’t track trends with year-over-year data. (Really? Yet, using the absolute worst year is a method for tracking long-term trends?) The city’s leadership says that the numbers aren’t accurate because they actually include every homicide, and they don’t think all of them count. Which ones don’t count?

“We’ve been pretty much flat for about two years, if you take the Gosnell numbers out,” said Everett Gillison, deputy mayor for public safety, who spoke for the Nutter administration.

What are “the Gosnell numbers” that shouldn’t count? That would be the doctor who murdered seven babies & one woman.

Of course, even though shootings are down, the lack of extreme gun control in the rest of the state is to blame, according to the head of the Philadelphia Police Department. The mayor’s spokesman says that the economy is to blame, as does a social worker interviewed in the article. It’s easier to blame everyone else for a city that chooses to do nothing to stop the culture of violence.

Promises are made by the city’s current leaders, but no one cares enough to hold them accountable.

Mayor Nutter, at a debate during his 2007 campaign, pledged that he wouldn’t seek re-election if the 2010 homicide tally was more than the 288 killed in 2002. Then at his inauguration in January 2008, he set what turned out to be an overly ambitious goal of slashing the city’s murder rate by 30 to 50 percent in three to five years. He won re-election this year.

He didn’t meet a single one of those promises, but there was never any doubt as to his chances to hold office this year. I think it speaks volumes that in the picture for the article that only two people in the crowd look upset at the body covered just a few feet from them. I think far too many residents in that city have simply decided to accept this level of crime as a way of life.

Gura Gets $1.1 Million for Heller

Today, Alan Gura gets a decision on how much he should be paid by DC for having to fight on behalf of Dick Heller & others against the city’s unconstitutional gun laws.

A federal judge on Thursday issued an opinion awarding Heller’s attorneys $1,137,072.27 in fees and expenses. The attorneys had argued they should be awarded $3.1 million. Attorneys for the city said the figure should be closer to $840,000. …

The judge’s opinion awards Gura approximately $662,000 for more than 1,500 hours of work on the case, paying him at a rate of $420 per hour. Five other members of Heller’s team are also compensated.

There’s no comment from Gura in the article, but the city is very happy with the award.

PA Castle Doctrine Tested

Ironically, it didn’t involve a gun. Instead it involved in someone shooting an arrow at an attacker wielding a club from his porch. To the best of my knowledge, no Cherokee were harmed in this first test of the law.

New Jersey Has a Coyote Problem

In addition to a bear hunt, it looks like New Jersey is planning to cull the coyote population. Apparently one of them tried to make off with a baby. A lot of people seem to have a hard time understanding, without the ability to manufacture and use weapons, human beings are not apex predators, we’re prey. When other predators lose their fear of people, bad things are going to happen. The advice from the state is if you see a coyote, make sure it moves along. In most other areas, even in New York, as the article notes, it’s lawful to shoot them. It doesn’t take very long before the predators learn to steer clear of humans.

Not Reading the Same Constitution

Obama is essentially saying he won’t be bound by the bill that prevents him from doing anti-gun studies on the taxpayer dime. This is the same guy who our opponents and the media touts as not, in fact, leading a stealth gun control campaign. You’re apparently paranoid for even thinking so, from what I’ve read from these charlatans.

Obama’s claim is essentially this:

“I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient,” Obama said in a statement as he signed the bill into law.

No. This is not how it works. Congress controls the purse strings. This is how the system works. Dave Hardy, who thankfully reads the same Constitution the rest of us do, notes:

I can’t find that clause in my own copy. I just find “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Maybe I’ve got an outdated version. But I’m sure my copy of theÂ anti deficiency actÂ is up to date. So is the provision making violationÂ a felony.

The President isn’t just skating on thin Constitutional ice here, he’s staking on water, and he’s going to sink of he follows his words with deeds.

Ending Wasteful Spending on Anti-Gun Work

The Washington Times has a piece about GOP efforts to stop spending on anti-gun research by the federal government. Most of it isn’t huge news to those of us who have followed the issue closely for years, but I do love their flourish in language describing some of the studies:

It took $2.6 million of taxpayersâ€™ money to find out what could have been assumed for free: that teenagers who possess illegal guns, engage in underage drinking and hang out with other neâ€™er-do-wells are more likely to get shot.

I love it.