Category: political challengers

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

The New Centrism?

CNN, debates, town hall, libertarian, green, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, centrism, illustration

Have you noticed that CNN has been offering multiple “town hall” presentations of the Libertarian and Green Party presidential candidates?

I think this is not only great for the Libertarians and the Greens, but also good for the country — and I hope it proves good for CNN.

When the Cable News Network started, it was the only player in its league. Then Fox News pulled away its right-leaning viewers. MSNBC followed, offering a safe space for the far left. And there remains the center-left of the rest of major media.

So CNN has to distinguish itself. Why not appeal to those left . . . out of the political process?

By opening up to libertarians and radical environmentalists, CNN may bring in more viewers. And temper its well-known bias.

With the libertarians, though, CNN may really be just appealing to the new center.

Which is now libertarian . . . -ish.

Surely, with Trump harrumphing from the apparent “right” and Hillary Clinton dominating the neo-con left — and Dr. Jill Stein trying to soak up the far left — moderates need a voice.

And with moderate libertarian Gov. Gary Johnson and libertarian-leaning centrist Gov. Bill Weld, there does exist a reprieve from the scary extremes. Surprised? Well, that is precisely the case Johnson and Weld make. They pitch themselves, as Walter Olson perceptively argues in Reason, as “the ‘sane’ choice, the ‘responsible’ and ‘adult’ ticket . . . campaigning not on fear and anger but on a positive message of problem-solving.”

More of that, please.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

CNN, debates, town hall, libertarian, green, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, centrism, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability ideological culture media and media people moral hazard national politics & policies political challengers Popular

Smash the Duopoly

presidential, debates, duopoly, two party, illustration

When Donald Trump called our country’s electoral process a “rigged system,” he was not wrong. The system is a legally secured duopoly.

I’ve discussed a number of the elements of this system previously. But one I may not have explored enough is the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

The League of Women Voters sponsored the first televised presidential debates in 1952, and from 1976 till 1988 ran a “tight ship,” as How Things Work puts it. After the League refused to cooperate with the bullying major parties, the CPD was established by former R and D bigwigs aiming to fully accommodate the major party candidates.

And no one else.

The CPD calls itself “non-partisan,” but that’s a misnomer. It is a bipartisan commission, as everyone who knows its history knows. The commission raised the bar on minor party candidates to polling 15 percent in a number of polls.

Recently, we’ve been hearing that the commission is preparing a third place on stage, for Libertarian candidate Gov. Gary Johnson. But he still hasn’t quite yet hit the prescribed percentage, though he has met the most important qualification: he is the only minor party candidate likely to be on all state ballots.

And now there’s a kicker. According to Brian Doherty, historian extraordinaire of Reason, “The Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative PAC (Solifico) [yesterday] morning sent a letter to Janet Brown, executive director of the [CPD], threatening to send the IRS after them over their policy of not allowing all legitimate candidates for president in their debates.”

The case looks solid.

And could secure for Johnson a podium at the debates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.   

Printable PDF

presidential, debates, duopoly, two party, illustration

 

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers

Libertarianish, Democratish?

Gary Johnson, Weld, Libertarian, moderates, presidential, election, illustration

With the two most disliked and distrusted politicians in American history snatching the two major party presidential nominations, lots of voters — free-market conservatives, libertarians, liberals concerned about civil liberties and war, moderates, decency advocates — are looking for an alternative.

The Libertarian Party, our age’s perennial “third party” on state ballots, has a golden opportunity.

Perhaps that’s why delegates to 2016’s Libertarian Party nominating convention chose two two-termed former Republican governors to take up the freedom banner: New Mexico’s Gary Johnson and Massachusetts’s Bill Weld.

Both are nice men. They are the most accomplished and credentialed politicians in the race — more than Hillary Clinton; far more than Donald Trump. They don’t seem radical or threatening.

But that might be a problem. They are too nice. They are not threatening enough.

I’m not suggesting they threaten anyone, but in ideological terms they often appear more as moderates than as libertarians, as Ilya Shapiro noticed last week when he asked the pointed question, “Is Johnson-Weld a Libertarian Ticket?”

The Johnson-Weld take, economist Mark Thornton noted, is more libertarianish than libertarian: the pair are “fiscally conservative and socially liberal for Republicans which is great, but they fall short of Libertarian.”

This isn’t exactly a shock. Anyone who watched the bizarre CNN town hall with Johnson and Weld will remember that odd moment when Johnson called Democrat Hillary Clinton “a wonderful public servant” and Weld dubbed her a “lifelong friend.”

No need to attack Mrs. Clinton personally, of course, but when a Libertarian cannot find one discouraging word about what a President Hillary would mean, it seems they want to appear Democratish.

And not libertarian.

Well, it’s a strategy. But it won’t appeal to #NeverHillary voters, or impress many #NeverTrumpers, either.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.   

Printable PDF

Gary Johnson, Weld, Libertarian, moderates, presidential, election, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability government transparency ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies political challengers porkbarrel politics responsibility Second Amendment rights too much government U.S. Constitution

The Clinton Chasm

Hillary Clinton, trust, lie, truthful, Ezra Klein, illustration, VOX

Hillary Clinton is roundly disliked by millions of outsiders, but admired by hundreds of politicians and activists. What sets her apart?

She listens.

Well, that’s Ezra Klein’s take in “Understanding Hillary,” an almost-believable piece of apologetics courtesy of Vox.

He calls Hillary’s problem “The Gap,” though “Vast Chasm” is more like it.

There’s a huge difference between how the public sees her — “Polls show most Americans doubt her basic honesty” — and how her fellow insiders feel about her. “She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-staff,” Klein informs us, “and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.”

Klein emphasizes Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to talk naturally and listen carefully, when dealing one-on-one with insiders and constituents, and in small groups. “She gets things done,” he asserts, though I think what he really means is she moves her agenda forward. Actual accomplishments? Open to dispute.

On the crucial issue of trust, Klein buys into what Hillary is selling. She says people doubt her because she’s been so often attacked.

I don’t know about you, but I doubt her because . . . well, cattle futures, for starters. Her ridiculous “vast right-wing conspiracy” dodge to all those rich 1990s scandals: the blue dress, President Bill losing his law license, even the crony takeover of the White House travel office. Hillary has led the way more recently with the Benghazi “video” lie and her private server and email scandal. Plus, witness the ongoing conflict presented by the Clinton Foundation raking in millions from unsavory foreign sources..

Klein, on the other hand, argues that the media is against her.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Hillary Clinton, trust, lie, truthful, Ezra Klein, illustration, VOX

 

Categories
general freedom national politics & policies political challengers too much government U.S. Constitution

Is That a Constitution in Your Pocket?

Khizr Khan, Pakistan, Democrat, convention, Democratic, Donald Trump, illustration

“We were blessed to raise our three sons in a nation where they were free to be themselves and follow their dreams.”

Those eloquent words came from the lips of Khizr Khan, the Pakistani immigrant who spoke at the Democratic National Convention last week about losing his son, Capt. Humayun Khan, to a suicide bomber in Iraq.

Describing his family “as patriotic American Muslims with undivided loyalty to our country,” and charging that, “Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims.” Khan asked Donald J. Trump a great question: “Have you even read the U.S. Constitution?”

Then, reaching into his suit pocket, Khan pulled out a copy, adding, “I will gladly lend you my copy.”

Yesterday at Townhall, I declared Khan my Person of the Week. Not just because Mr. Khan is fond of handing out pocket-sized copies of the U.S. Constitution and told the New York Times that his “real hero” is Thomas Jefferson, but because he asked a great question.

Let’s ask all the candidates. That question, for sure, and three additional ones:

  1. Do you favor repealing parts of the First Amendment to allow incumbent congressmen to regulate their own campaigns and their opponents’ in regard to raising and spending money?
  2. In the Heller case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment provides individuals a “right to bear arms” — will you appoint justices who agree or disagree with Heller?
  3. As president, will you issue an executive order instructing all federal agencies and police agents to cease any use of civil asset forfeiture?

I’ve got more questions. I bet you do, too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Khizr Khan, Pakistan, Democrat, convention, Democratic, Donald Trump, illustration

 

Categories
Accountability political challengers responsibility term limits too much government

Who’s the Boss?

Paul Jacob, Gary Johnson, FreedomFest, 2016, Nevada, illustration

This week, Republicans have chosen Donald Trump to be their standard-bearer. Next week, Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate.

But the only candidate on your ballot to take the U.S. Term Limits pledge is Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. Last week, I rubbed elbows with the former two-term governor of New Mexico on a panel about term limits at FreedomFest in Las Vegas.

“I believe that if term limits were in effect that politicians would do the right thing as opposed to whatever it takes to get re-elected,” Johnson told the capacity crowd.

The U.S. Term Limits pledge is straightforward, a commitment to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to help push Congress and the states to propose and ratify the congressional term limits Americans have been voting for and demanding for quite some time.

U.S. Term Limits Executive Director Nick Tomboulides asked me what it says about our democracy that even with overwhelming public support for many decades, Congress has blocked this reform.

Noting that Congress is thoroughly despised by the public, I pointed out that only one incumbent congressman has been defeated for re-election so far this year. And that incumbent, Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), was under 23 felony indictments, including racketeering, for which he was later convicted.

I argued that term limitation “is a critical issue at the very core of governance. Are we the boss or are the politicians the boss? Today, I think we all have to be honest and admit the politicians are the boss.”

Adding, “And we have to do something about that.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

Printable PDF

Paul Jacob, Gary Johnson, FreedomFest, 2016, Nevada, illustration

 

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

Whose Coup?

Republican, convention, 2016, Donald Trump, illustration

Melania Trump’s beautifully adequate speech last night at the prime-time opening of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland clashed with the ugly chaos earlier.

Everyone knew the convention’s rules package would be a point of conflict. A wee bit of open democracy might have unified delegates. Instead, the rules were rushed through on a voice vote, immediately after which the chair ignored delegates loudly calling for points of order as well as demanding a roll-call vote on the package.

In the uproar that ensued, that convention chair, Arkansas Congressman Steve Womack, inexplicably left the stage unmanned.

“I’ve never seen the chair vacated like that,” said Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who had tried and failed to get recognized.

Morton Blackwell, a 32-year RNC member, complained the process was “crooked”; former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli used the word “disgusting.”

After what seemed an eternity, Womack appeared back on stage, again calling a voice vote, quickly ruling that the “Ayes” had it over the “Nays,” and then ignoring yet more delegates trying to be recognized.

He finally explained that not enough states had called for the roll call — three states had withdrawn their petition. No mention that the long delay had allowed Trump and RNC operatives to pressure enough delegates into withdrawing their petition.

This served as “a glimpse into the future of a Trump presidency,” suggested former New Hampshire Sen. Gordon Humphrey, adding that Trump supporters “act very much like fascists, shouting down the opposition, treating them roughly.”

Hyperbole? Sure. But yesterday’s events do indicate a lack respect for democratic process.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Republican, convention, 2016, Donald Trump, illustration

 

Categories
ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

MoveOn2Video

Robert Reich, Donald Trump, moveon.org

Donald Trump is MoveOn.org’s worst nightmare.

The decades-old “left-leaning” organization is still very much a live concern.

The group’s original mission was to urge then-President Bill Clinton’s censure, rather than his impeachment . . . and then “move on” to normal governmental business.

Over the years, the organization has backed “progressive” candidates, and promoted causes like campaign finance reform.

Trump annoys MoveOn folks doubly, I gather. Though he’s super-rich, he parlayed social media to leverage major media to gain billions in free coverage — which is precisely what MoveOn attempts to do.

Trump also sports a tongue that flouts all past decorum, thus making Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal itself seem . . . almost . . . quaint.

Oh, and this: Trump seems to stand for everything MoveOn supporters are against. That is, if you can figure what, precisely, Trump stands for on most issues.

Robert Reich wrote an email, the other day, reveling in his role as a video propagandist for the organization for over a year, but fearing that isn’t enough to defeat Trump. So, he explains, “instead of just producing an online video every few weeks, MoveOn’s gearing up to produce one practically every day.” He writes to pitch for money.

MoveOn’s videos may be very effective — at getting progressive types to hate Trump all the more, and to vote against him.

Less certain is their reach. Can the new professional videographers preach beyond the eager choir?

Oh, and it’s worth noting that this is precisely the kind of thing campaign finance reform is designed to squelch.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Robert Reich, Donald Trump, moveon.org

 

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall nannyism national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government

A Private Party

Donald Trump, delegates, unbound, convention, crime, vote

Virginia delegate Beau Correll won’t cast his first ballot vote at the Republican National Convention for Donald Trump, and won’t go to jail, either.

As discussed last Thursday, at issue is a state statute requiring* delegates to vote for the plurality winner of the party’s primary. On the Republican side, that’s Mr. Trump. Yesterday, Federal Judge Robert Payne ruled the law unconstitutional, no law at all, because it violates Correll’s First Amendment rights to speak and associate politically.

“In sum, where the State attempts to interfere with a political party’s internal governance and operation,” the federal judge wrote, “the party is entirely free to ‘cancel out [the State’s] effort’ (Def. Resp. 28) even though the state has expended financial and administrative resources in a primary.”

Love ’em or hate ’em, political parties are private associations, properly protected by the First Amendment.

But is it fair to hold primary elections, at taxpayers’ expense, and then ignore the votes of so many people?

Easy answer: NO.

Sure, Judge Payne correctly struck this statute, but it doesn’t follow that states must foot the bill for party primaries and national conventions or provide legal preference. Up to now, incumbent politicians have quietly legislated a relationship of too-friendly collusion between government and the major parties.

It’s time for citizens to look at initiatives to mandate separation of political party and state.

More immediately, the implications for the coming GOP convention in Cleveland are obvious and far-reaching. “The Court’s decision,” as Correll’s attorney David Rivkin summarized, “follows more than 40 years of precedent in firmly rejecting Donald Trump’s legal opinion that delegates are obligated by law to vote for him.”

The delegates are free.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Penalty for non-compliance? One year in prison.

Printable PDF

Donald Trump, delegates, unbound, convention, crime, vote

 

Original photo credit: Gage Skidmore on Flickr

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

Delegates Imprisoned

Republican, convention, delegates, unbound,

Can you go to jail for voting for the wrong person?

We may find out today, in a federal court in Richmond, Virginia. Judge Robert Payne will hear motions in the case of Correll v. Herring. Attorney General Mark Herring is being sued in his official capacity by Beau Correll, a Republican delegate who refuses to vote for Donald Trump.

Correll is the named plaintiff in this class action challenge to a Virginia statute that binds delegates attending presidential nominating conventions to vote for the plurality winner of their state party primary, which was Mr. Trump.

The penalty for not tallying for Trump? As much as a year behind bars. And a fine.

Correll’s attorney, David Rivkin with Baker & Hostetler, has asked the judge to issue an injunction blocking enforcement of the statute against Correll and all other Virginia delegates. The ruling wouldn’t affect delegates beyond Virginia, yet the implication would be obvious: state laws binding party delegates to vote according to the primary results are unconstitutional.

Trump supporters aren’t taking this lawsuit lightly; several have moved to intervene — on the side of the AG. They’re right to be concerned: a delegate revolt to dump Trump has been brewing for weeks. And the legal precedents are all on the side of political parties controlling their own nominating process, leaving state governments no legitimate role.

It’s long past time to break the crony connections between government and the two major political parties.

Let’s stop all taxpayer subsidies for party primaries and conventions. But let’s also recognize that the delegates meeting in convention should be free to do . . . well, whatever they choose. After all, it’s their party.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

BIG PICTURE: Why the case really matters!

With the results of Correll vs. Herring, we may also find out if the Republican and Democratic (and Libertarian and Green) Parties are private organizations, with First Amendment protection for their freedom to associate without government interference. Nothing could be more heavy-handed than threatening delegates with incarceration if they vote their conscience — or even follow the state party’s rules, which call for delegates to be awarded proportionately rather than winner-take-all as Virginia’s statute requires.

Printable PDF

Republican, convention, delegates, unbound,