Our Inept LNC

The National Libertarian Party issued a statement about the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, and made the interesting argument that the best thing we can do is get divided government.

Not once did it tout its' own candidate, Gary Johnson.

Look carefully. You won't see the words 'Gary' or 'Johnson', not together or in any form, in the entire press release.

Supreme Court Obamacare Decision Highlights Why a President Romney Would be More Dangerous than President Obama

A President Mitt Romney would not undo ObamaCare. He’d make it permanent.

The Supreme Court Ruling on ObamaCare does not matter. It will make little difference to America in the short run, and no difference in the long run.

Why? Because almost all elected Republicans and Democrats are Big Government politicians – in all things – including health care. After this Supreme Court decision, they will get back to work expanding government involvement in all things – especially health care.

One thing could make things worse. Electing Republican Mitt Romney President.

Why?

Republicans fiercely oppose, and often defeat Democratic Party attempts to massively expand government involvement in Health Care – such as HillaryCare.

But Democrats usually vote for Republican Party legislation to massively expand government’s role in Health Care.

Republican President George Bush’s $1.1 Trillion Government Prescription Drug Program was voted into law by Republicans and Democrats.

Republican Governor Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts state government expansion into Massachusetts health care – RomneyCare – was voted into law by both Republicans and Democrats. With virtually no resistance.

A Republican-controlled House of Representatives and US Senate would oppose Democratic President Barack Obama’s health care proposals.

But a Republican majority House of Representatives and US Senate would support and vote for a Republican President Mitt Romney’s Big Government health care proposals. And most Democrats in the House and Senate would, too.

What Republican Governor Romney did to Massachusetts’ health care, a Republican President Romney would do to America’s health care.

A President Mitt Romney would not undo ObamaCare. He’d make it permanent.

A first-term President Mitt Romney would be far more dangerous to small business, the private sector, and taxpayers than a lame-duck President Obama – no matter what the Supreme Court decided.

###

Hey dummies! Don't call for the status quo. We have a candidate!!! What say you promote him? Hell- mention him, even?!

Update: I brought this to the attention of an LNC member via email, in a very cordial exchange. I'm sure it helped that I left out the 'inept' adjective. The wind-up is that the press releases are the domain of Executive Director Carla Howell. The LNC Chair has some input on them, but the LNC members themselves do not. To the credit of the LNC, they are being mindful not to be micromanagers of the ED. At the same time, a political party MUST, MUST, MUST promote its candidates. I was told this would be a topic for discussion within the LNC. I hope that takes place soon.

Two Things That Go Miserably Together

Yuck. If you dislike heat and running, there's nothing quite like hitting it at 8am when it's only 80 degrees outside.

On the upside, even while feeling like I would suffocate, I got my mile down to 8:35. It's getting to be time to stretch it to two-mile runs.

Face Palm On Ruling

No, the face palm didn't happen because the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. I expected that. It isn't even that Chief Justice Roberts - the Bush nominee - wrote the majority opinion. I'm not a Bush apologist, so that doesn't sting me. It's that Mitt Romney's fundraising got a major boost in the wake of the decision. From ABC:

In the hours after the Supreme Court ruling, Romney aides were quick to tout a spike in fundraising. According to the campaign, more than $300,000 rolled into the Romney Victory Fund within the first 90 minutes after the ruling. A spokeswoman said the money was raised "organically" and not through a specific fundraising plea.

The staggering ignorance of that caused the face palm. Ok, sure, Republicans are pissed at the ruling. But to support Romney? The architect of Romneycare?

Listen, Republicans. When liberals say that you guys are stupid, and I get evidence like this, I'm joining the choir in alto basso.

Here's part of Gary Johnson's statement on the ruling:

“Whether the Court chooses to call the individual mandate a tax or anything else, allowing it to stand is a truly disturbing decision. The idea that government can require an individual to buy something simply because that individual exists and breathes in America is an incredible blow to the bedrock principles of freedom and liberty. It must be repealed, and Congress needs to get about doing so today."

 Romney may make some noises about how wrong the decision was, but he doesn't have a leg to stand on. I only hope that people who oppose the ruling look at the track records, not just the rhetoric of the moment, and back the candidate who has been consistent in opposition. I can hope, right?

Update: It's now $4.6 million worth of stoopid over at the Romney camp. It makes me want to puke in my soup.

An Encouraging Conflict

I love it when events emerge that brings a group of people to the point of challenging long-held, knee-jerk beliefs.

To this end, I've been watching the growing movement regarding food. While it certainly spans the political spectrum, I'm watching how it affects the left in particular, for the left tends to automatically demand regulation and zoning, insisting on limits on producer freedom in the name of safety and health.

But now people are wanting raw milk. Now they are wanting to grow food in the front yard instead of lawns. Now they want to have some chickens in their suburban backyards. They want these things often in the name of health, wanting to avoid the hormones often put into animals, or the pesticides in food. Or, they want to eliminate transportation and make food more green. Regulations and zoning are thwarting these desires in many areas.

For instance, selling raw milk in Indiana is illegal. If you want it, you can invest in 'cow shares', break the law, or go without. A Detroit area woman's story about facing jail for starting a garden in her front yard was big news last year.

Keeping chickens is coming into vogue. Zoning permits it in Indy, but not in Fishers where I live.

In speaking with local gardeners I am friends with in Fishers, several would like to raise chickens and/or garden in the front yard. They know the zoning is against them. In all likelihood, some will just break the law, while others will shrug with some disappointment and not raise the chickens or put rows of heirloom tomatoes out front. Eggs to all of your neighbors is an excellent form of 'hush money', I hear told.

My interest lies in seeing if those who want to be the law-abiding folks will press for elimination of zoning, changes to zoning, or variances. My hope is for elimination of zoning. I find that nothing tops talking with your neighbors with simple conversations to find if what you want to do would upset them. Now, we apply for permits, and don't talk to the neighbors. I prefer the former. These are the people you have to live with, not some plan reviewer in the Town building.

I suspect that we'll see tweaks in zoning, for the most part. My mother-in-law lives in uber-liberal Cleveland Heights, Ohio and was delighted at the their zoning changes, which cover everything from the food items to production of solar or wind energy on the home property. I'd accept this as a step in the right direction, but would prefer to see zoning eliminated, my home is my castle, screw the nanny state, and all.