Category: political challengers

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

The Media’s Job

debate, debates, candidates, media, illustration

Do nearly two-thirds of Americans want Libertarian Party presidential nominee and former two-term Republican governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson in the presidential debates?

Snopes.com, the hoax-busting website, investigated the truthiness of a widespread Internet meme making just that claim.

The verdict?

It’s true.

An August 25th Quinnipiac University poll showed 62 percent of likely voters saying yes, “Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, should be included in the presidential debates.” Among 18-to-34-year-olds, a whopping 82 percent felt Johnson deserved a podium.

Or perhaps more accurately, these voters want an opportunity to hear about all their choices, not just Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton —deliciously dubbed “the unloved presidential candidates” in the Quinnipiac news release. Which leads to the most important number in the survey: 68 percent felt they “haven’t heard enough” about Gov. Johnson to even form an opinion.

He still garnered 10 percent support overall and was the only candidate with a higher favorable* than unfavorable rating.

Voters are dissatisfied with the major party choices, so why limit the debate to just Trump and Clinton? Because the Commission on Presidential Debates is a crony organization, a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC and the RNC. With 68 percent of the public totally uninformed about Johnson, he’d have to win nearly a majority of everyone else to hit the 15 percent support required to get in the debates.

Where’s the Fourth Estate? Doesn’t the American voter deserve enough information about Johnson and Stein to form an opinion?

Or will they be broadcasting rigged debates?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* By the way, once again, the contest was closer when the polling included Libertarian Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. While head-to-head Mrs. Clinton bested Mr. Trump by a full 10 percentage points, 51-41, with Johnson and Stein included, Clinton’s advantage shrank to 45-38 percent, a seven point lead.

Printable PDF

debate, debates, candidates, media, illustration

 

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

Naked Came the Pickle

Donald Trump, statue, Hillary Clinton, pickles, illustration

Last week, Donald Trump’s enemies staged an “emperor has no clothes” gag in full view of the public. It was a caricature of Trump, and featured him fat, old, and nude . . . and gave us a full view of the pubic.

Titled “The Emperor Has No Balls,” it failed to qualify as highbrow.

Kristin Tate, author of Government Gone Wild, was one of many non-left commenters to take note of the double standard in plain sight: while media folk chuckled and even gloried in the short-lived art placements, their reaction to a similar graven image of Hillary Clinton would almost certainly have been viewed with horror and outrage.

This week, the real (non-effigy) Hillary proffered another stunt.

Facing rumors that she is not well, that her fall several years ago left her with a host of neurological and physical disabilities — rumors that focus on her weird leave of the stage at one of the Bernie debates, her strange, uncomfortable and borderline autistic bouts of laughter, her exaggerated motions, and much more — Mrs. Clinton went on Jimmy Kimmel Live to open a jar of pickles.

Considering the pickle she placed America in throughout the Middle East, perhaps there was a message here.

Whatever feat of strength this was supposed to amount to, Kristin Tate is having none of it. On Fox News’s RedEye, Ms. Tate insisted she heard no telltale “pop” that would indicate the unsealing of a sealed jar.

Somehow, this whole election season is symbolized in one lame stunt.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Donald Trump, statue, Hillary Clinton, pickles, illustration

 

Categories
Common Sense general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies political challengers responsibility too much government

United We Disagree

Ben Franklin, Donald Trump, disagreement, anger, fighting, politics

This election year? Anger and angst permeate the electorate.

We are united only in frustration. Which leads to some mutual distrust.

Not good.

Neither the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, nor the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, will receive my vote. But that doesn’t mean I don’t respect people who will vote for one or the other.

My father, whom I respected more than anyone else — and who passed away months ago — was a big Trump enthusiast. Not that he liked Trump’s demeanor; he didn’t. But he believed Trump was the only person who would shake up a completely corrupt Washington.

Some friends and loved ones simply have different political views or a different perspective on Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.

“We’ve got the fate of the U.S. in our hands,” wrote a longtime Common Sense email subscriber yesterday, irritated that I was treating Trump’s “sins” as on par with Hillary’s corruption. He asked to cancel his subscription.

What could I say? Well, that’s exactly what I said: “Sorry to see you go.” And I urged that we not “part ways.”

All’s well that ends well: He emailed back and “re-enlisted.” Not only did that make my day, but he illuminated the biggest danger in this crazy election: allowing ourselves to become divided.

Those of us who understand the gift of liberty, who demand honest government and free markets, must hang together or, as Ben Franklin quipped, “we will all hang separately.”

Disagree and debate, of course — but as friends and neighbors and fellow patriots we must realize that no matter who becomes the next president, the future of freedom in America will depend on us working together to hold them to account.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Ben Franklin, Donald Trump, disagreement, anger, fighting, politics

 

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