I'm not in Denver today, but I am keeping a close eye on the Libertarian convention, as a nominee for President will emerge. Here are my main interests in a nominee:
1. Carry no baggage. I was cheering Ron Paul until his ties to racist garbage were revealed. At that point, Paul became something worse than a poor ambassador for liberty. He tarnished the very idea, because people associated Paul as liberty itself. We can't have that in the Libertarian nominee.
2. Be a real communicator. Michael Badnarik won the 2004 nomination on the strength of one performance at the Libertarian convention in Atlanta, sweeping many delegates off their feet. We soon learned that one speech does not a communicator make, as Badnarik was not covered by the media, and worse, he opted to sit at "the kiddie table" of debates- the forums for the excluded minor party candidates. Our nominee cannot be one who self-marginalizes by accepting exclusion. Our nominee must make America take notice. Most of our candidates are not capable of that, frankly.
3. Focus on real campaigning issues. I love the Constitution, but the American public neither knows about it nor cares. Our nominee has to get over this, and get to topics of substance that the public does care about. In my opinion, a winning trio is Iraq, our financial crisis/jobs, and health care. I don't want a nominee who is talking to me. You already have me. I hope our delegates have this wisdom, for once.
Overall, Bob Barr is my #1 choice, because he can fulfill #2 & 3 better than any of our candidates. However, he does have baggage, both ideological and in act, and running as the most conservative, "I'm more Republican than the Republicans" candidate in a year where the Republican brand is the greatest possible albatross is a very bad idea. Barr needs to change his tactics.
Mike Gravel is the other big name, and I have to say that I was impressed with his fire and his clarity when speaking at the Indiana Libertarian convention recently. Unfortunately, Gravel does have some baggage, in the sad image of being a doddering old man. I'm sure that's why he came out to Indy with such spunk. I don't see Libertarians nominating him, though, as the Democratic Party is such a pariah within the LP because of Dems' positions on all things economic, and Gravel will be met with great suspicion accordingly. Gravel is my #2 choice, though.
Mary Ruwart is a favorite of many Libertarians, because of her ability to communicate ideas, but her baggage is so overwhelming that she would make Ron Paul's racist connections look very welcome by comparison. I think most people who read regularly know that I would support almost any Libertarian candidate come November. Not this one. The media will never give her a chance to talk about anything but her stupid, foolish comments about child pornography. She can't pull a Ron Paul on them and say she didn't know they were written. They're in her book, "Short Answers to Tough Questions".
Apart from that, I find that the remaining candidates are all very similar. Sure, they differ on this issue or that, but what they have in common is this: They aren't raising big money. They don't sweep you off your feet. They haven't gotten any noteworthy positive media attention, no matter how long they've been at it. They are run-of-the-mill candidates for the Libertarian nomination. If any of them win, we are guaranteed continued obscurity in a year when the nation needs liberty more than ever.
I am looking forward to a phone call tomorrow that could have me very busy again with work in Illinois, as I was at this time last year.
It would be a blessing. As the work pace has gradually been slowing, I find myself getting embroiled more in things political, and it's all bad news. It takes time that seems productive but isn't. It raises the blood pressure. On the other hand, last year I barely blogged, and I rarely visited political sites, news sites, or other blogs. It was really good. Ignorance can be bliss.
I'd spent years of my life promoting liberty, and just don't feel it matters. Spent the time developing radio programs that weren't noticed until they stopped airing. Spent time running for office where the public didn't care about the office being sought. Stood up in defense of people who wouldn't show up for me in my time of need. Try to engage people in a variety of forums, and mainly take slings and arrows? For what? Some imaginary notion that it might make a difference, if I only believe fervently that the seed becomes a tree, maybe a big one years after I die? Call me shallow, but I need some gratification. Now. It isn't pity I'm after. No, I want to see results. If politics can't deliver because there isn't, gulp, a market for liberty, then give me business.
I spent last year trying fully to make money, and I did, and it was damn satisfying. Really made me feel like the volunteer boosterism for liberty was the act of wasting a lot of time. Work hard in business- get the results in Net 30 Days. I really like that. Producing for people who are delighted with my work? That gets me up at 5:30 and to bed at Midnight, grinding furiously in between. Happily. Excitedly.
So, it will be good to immerse in a heavy workload again. Soon. I cannot wait to take the call.
Here's the dilemma: You feel the coronations are in place, for Obama and McCain, but Clinton hangs around despite the surest signs it's over: No, not the announcement of the nomination. The pronouncement of (say with reverence and awe) Tim Russert! And still, you have to report on something.
What to do... Talk about policy? Nah. The public doesn't care about policy. Not really. Let's make references that signal how cool I am!
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has graduated from the Mike Kole School of Journalism. He has compared Hillary Clinton's campaign to a cadaver by referencing Monty Python sketches! Not once, but twice!
Today's article, referencing the Black Knight scene from the Holy Grail film. May 14 article, referencing the Dead Parrot sketch from the Flying Circus TV series.
Not talking Triple Crown or Belmont here. Talking Bob Barr as presumptive Libertarian nominee, and a current Rasmussen poll. Mainly, I'm pleasantly surprised to see Barr poll so highly, despite name recognition being his greatest liability in terms of the poll. From Rasmussen:
A separate survey found slightly different results when third-party candidates were mentioned by name. In a four-way race, Obama earns 42% of the vote, McCain 38%, Bob Barr 6% and Ralph Nader 4%. Given those options, 11% were undecided. Barr and Nader were mentioned as candidates of the Libertarian Party and the Green Party respectively.
Barr picked up 7% of the Republican vote, 5% of the Democratic vote, and 5% of the unaffiliated vote. participants (sic) to choose between Barack Obama, John McCain and some other candidate.
and
Most voters don’t know enough about Barr to have an opinion of him. Twenty-five percent (25%) have a favorable opinion of Nader while 54% have an unfavorable.
To poll 6% without most voters knowing about you suggests favorable waters for any Libertarian candidate. Barr's going to have to work hard to create a favorable impression. Look at Nader's unfavorables. Ouch. Don't want to join him there.
The Congress was hearing about the "problem" of higher gas prices (see yesterday's post), so they pushed subsidies at farmers to produce corn so that it might be sold to producer of ethanol, who are also subsidized.
Ah, the unintended consequences. As usual. So, what happens? Farmers have an incentive to dedicate some larger percentage of their land towards the production of corn. They'll get a greater subsidy check, and they'll have a greater market to sell to besides. In the meantime, less of every other crop is grown that might have been planted on those fields, and less corn is available to feed animals, to make oil
Ethanol producers rely on a 51-cents-a-gallon ethanol tax credit to make slim profits. Slashing the credit by even 6 cents could put their operating margins in the red or close to it, said Chris Hurt, an agricultural economist at Purdue University.
A new farm bill, passed last week by both houses of Congress, would cut the credit to 45 cents. Ethanol, which in the United States is mostly made from corn, is a federal subsidy program that in some ways is proving to be "too successful," said Hurt.
The federal subsidies and record-high prices for oil set off a "gold rush" by ethanol producers who've built so much plant capacity that it's on track to far exceed the federal mandate for fuel use of 15 billion gallons of ethanol production by 2015, Hurt said.
The open plants alone will gobble up a fourth of the nation's corn harvest this year, he said. Congress must now wrestle with the question: "Have we let that go too far?" Hurt said. On the other hand, he said, "How can we as a country say, 'We want less fuel?' or say, 'Tough luck to ethanol producers' " after spending years encouraging them to build plants.
Yes, it looks like Pandora's Box, alright. But there's a truism of economics that goes, "Anything you subsidize you will get more of," so the over-production of ethanol plants should come as no surprise, and the corn subsidy program being 'too successful' should be anything but a surprise.
Notice that without the subsidies, the ethanol plants wouldn't even be built, because they are unprofitable? The entire profit comes from the subsidies- which is to say, from us taxpayers.
One extremely insightful Star reader commented nicely, concisely:
There is no problem so bad that the goverment can't make it worse.
This is why I believe in a laissez-faire approach to the economy. If there was a real market for ethanol, rather than the artificial one created by subsidy incentive, the market would have lept into the breach seeking profits in making ethanol. Now we have a losing industry pumped up beyond projected 'need', needlessly driving up the cost of all food products- which are themselves generally already subsidized to some degree or other.
I don't want the Congress meddling in the economy, and certainly not in something as important as food. We may drive 30,000 miles/year as I do, or we may walk everywhere we go needing no fule- but we all have to eat. If high fuel prices hurt the poor and cause them to not drive, what do high food prices cause for the poor?
Congress 'let it go too far' by being involved at all. Leave the market alone and it will do a better job than a Congress that resembles one driving on ice: If you get off course, the worst thing you can do is to jerk the wheel to compensate. You throw the thing further off course in the other direction.
But, we want our government to DO SOMETHING. Alas, you got what you asked for.
Being that regular unleaded gas is now at $4/gallon, or near enough to it, the price of gas is the issue dujour, I thought I should run the real-life numbers on my own driving, to see what real-life financial impact it has on me. I drive a lot, so the impact should be great.
The last two years, I've averaged a bit over 30,000 miles/year. I drive a Toyota Corolla, with a five-speed stick. It averages 36 mph, so I stretch the dollar well. In fact, I've slowed down a lot recently, in an effort to improve the mph, but I'll calculate to averages I've actually logged.
So, more or less, I consumed 833.33 gallons of gas in the past two years.
At an average of $3/gallon last year, I spent $2,500.
At an average of $4/gallon this year, I'll spend $3,333.33.
I'm spending $833.33 more this year, or $16.02 a week.
$16 a week? Big deal!
Keep in mind that I drive 30,000 miles a year- for business. Most people drive a whole lot less than me. Before I was doing the kind of work that demanded I drive my own vehicle, I would average a little less than 15,000 miles/year. If that were still true for me, I'd be spending an extra $8/week.
So, why is this such a prominent issue? Is it because the gas stations are the only retailers stupid enough to continue to post their prices on large signs?
The gas stations really do themselves a disservice with the price signs. I remember growing up in the 70s, when all manner of retailers posted their prices in their windows or on signs. The only ones who consistently do it today are grocers and the gas stations. They make themselves a lightning rod unnecessarily. But maybe they're doing us an even greater disservice. We're bitching about something that really isn't that big a problem, at the expense of examining some bigger issues.
Our "electable" presidential candidates are talking up this issue, and I'm really not hearing enough about restoring the dollar, cutting the deficit without raising taxes, and the solution for our involvement in Iraq.
I'll never forget the experience of driving through Silicon Valley in 1998. Upon entering the area from the north, the highway driver was greeted by signs proclaiming the presence of HP, Intel, and a host of computer and tech company billboards. It was actually an exhilerating experience. The billboards let you know you were in the midst of something exciting and on the cutting edge.
Contrast that with the attitudes of billboards in Indianapolis. From an Indy Star report:
Norman Pace, land-use chairman for the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations, said he had waited eight years for the signs' demise. Thursday, he drove from his Warren Township home to the north split, the junction of I-70 and I-65 on the north side of Downtown, to watch the sign be dismantled.
"It was an eyesore blocking our city's beautiful skyscape," Pace said. "It detracted from the quality of life here. We don't want to look like one of these cities that are filled with billboards."
Pace and other billboard opponents call the signs "litter on a stick."
No, you sure wouldn't want Indy to resemble a vibrant place like Silicon Valley. So much better to make it look like the kind of place not worth advertising to.
Interestingly, the cityscapes are often decried as a kind of litter that hides the natural beauty of the environs. I realize that in such places there are mountains, hills, molehills or any other kind of terrain. The point is, eyesores, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
More importantly, freedom of speech suffers. I looked at the First Amendment, and while nowhere does it say "except for billboards", it also says "Congress shall make no law". Is this cause for celebration among the state's rights crowd? Maybe I'll get an explanation here.
In the meantime, we can add a new entry into the list of restrictions on freedom of speech at wikipedia, which is an interesting read. A line in the wikipedia description of freedom of speech is exactly as I have it:
The United StatesFirst Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary.
Commercial speech is still speech. So, was it necessary to remove the billboards? I'd love for Indianapolis to have to make the case to a higher court. To bad Pinnacle, the billboard company, won't be suing. From the Star:
Pinnacle has gone out of business, and an attorney for the company said that happened because the company lost the revenue the signs would have generated.
This action was begun under the Peterson Administration. Too bad Mayor Ballard hasn't done anything to reverse course here.
Indianapolis- killing speech, killing businesses. There's a motto for a billboard at the city limits.
Ame and I are originally from Cleveland, and we return there to visit relatives. One thing I will be sure we don't do is spend money in Cleveland for several years to come.
Cleveland is one of those cities that uses traffic enforcement cameras as a revenue generator. Ame passed the cameras on Chester & E 71st, an unsavory area if there ever was one, going 52mph in a 35-zone. The pictures were provided on the "Notice of Liability", and they show that nobody was in the area, and nobody was in harms way due to Ame's rate of speed.
Where is everybody? Oh yeah- they've fled the authoritarian nanny hell that is Cleveland.
This may rankle some of my absolutist pro-rule of law friends, but this is bullshit. The purpose for traffic law is to ensure the public safety. If nobody is made unsafe by the passage of traffic, what is the point of enforcing the law? Cameras are blind to circumstance. Police officers use discretion, and it's highly unlikely that an officer on the street would have pulled her over for this infraction. Obviously, this is mere revenue generation.
So, OK Cleveland. You get your $100 fine. What you won't get from me is a visit to the West Side Market for a few years. Nor will I eat in any restaurant in the city for a few years. You got $100 out of us now, but will not get $1,000 or so, thanks to the ill-will generated by this crap. Enjoy.
It will be a happy day when someone gives the camera's poles the 'Cool Hand Luke' treatment.
The former Georgia Congressman is seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination for President. Barr made his announcement today. He's already viewed as the presumptive nominee in some media quarters. From the LA Times report:
Expected to win the nomination of the Libertarian Party when it holds its convention in Denver over the Memorial Day weekend, Barr, 59, criticized Republican John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, for not being a true conservative.
"There's not a great deal of substance there in terms of a commitment to cutting the size of government," Barr said He said no one who had authored the McCain-Feingold campaign reforms that cap individual donations could call himself a conservative, "at least with a straight face."
Here's what sets Barr, or any other Libertarian candidate apart from the other three- sound fiscal policy:
Saying both the Republican and Democratic Parties have "bought into a system of running a charity called the United States of America," Barr blasted programs that use public funds to educate the children of illegal immigrants and maintain foreign military bases "that have no more efficacy in the 21st century."
"The federal government needs to get away from the notion that simply because we have all this money in the Treasury -- or we can borrow more money -- that we can provide all these services," he said. "That is not responsible government."
Strategically, I like that Barr knows what to say in response to the "Nader Effect" that worries some confused small government folks:
Barr confirmed that he was asked by McCain supporters not to run for fear he would pull votes from the GOP, but he defended his decision by saying that "American voters deserve better than simply the lesser of two evils."
Arguing that in recent election cycles, the losing candidates "blame somebody else," Barr said, "At the end of the day if I do succeed, it is not my intent to blame Sen. McCain or Sen. (Barack) Obama. I hope they would return the favor." If McCain loses to Obama, the Illinois senator, Barr said, it will be because his message or his candidacy doesn't resonate. "Each of us has the future in our own hands," he said, adding that his voters "are not likely to fall in the category of being enthusiastic about voting for John McCain, if such exists."
Fact is, there will only be one small government candidate available to voters in November- the Libertarian. McCain, Clinton, and Obama all believe in using the power of government. They merely have different recipients of the largesse. Besides, just as Dr. Eric Schansberg took votes from Democrat Baron Hill and not Republican Mike Sodrel in the 2006 race for Indiana's 9th District House race, Barr or any other Libertarian candidate stands to see more votes come from otherwise Democratic voters. Republicans know it to be true:
But Christopher Barron, a Republican political consultant, thinks it is equally plausible that Barr could hurt Obama.
"I think Bob Barr's candidacy could impact the race -- but I don't know at this point which candidate he is likely to help or hurt," he said. "If Barr's candidacy is fueled by the same people who supported Ron Paul -- college students, antiwar advocates and hard-core libertarians -- then I think it is unlikely to hurt Sen. McCain in any significant way because these are not the type of voters McCain is reaching out to. I could actually envision a scenario under which Barr's candidacy actually helps McCain by siphoning off some of the enthusiasm among college voters and antiwar advocates for Obama."
Barr's website is up and running, and is already miles better than any other LP presidential candidate's.
Best of all, Barr is a great choice for getting the libertarian message out. He doesn't carry the racist baggage Ron Paul alienated so many with. He's reformed his thinking on big government positions he used to hold.
This is a good day. I'm satisfied that if Barr is nominated, the Libertarian Party will have a candidate to be very proud of.
Social and political observations, plus Libertarian policy solutions.
About Me
Name: Mike Kole
Location: Fishers, Indiana, United States
I was the Libertarian Party of Indiana's 2006 candidate for Secretary of State. While I didn't win, I did secure continued automatic ballot access for LPIN through 2010. No petitioning! I'm done being a candidate for a good while, and instead focusing on my family and my work.
.jpg)
