Blame Mourdock

As the US Senate race in Indiana was coming down to the wire with Republican Richard Mourdock and Democrat Joe Donnelly polling withing a point or two of each other, Mourdock generally trailing, Republicans were gearing up to blame Libertarian Andy Horning for 'stealing votes', due to his polling 7%, well over the margin of victory.

My standard post would be to point out that A) nobody owns the votes but the voters, so the 'stolen vote' line is so much BS, B) Republicans claim to believe in competition, so hey buddy, how about out-competing for the votes? C) there are people who will vote for Horning because Donnelly is too conservative a Democrat for them, especially on issues like civil liberties and foreign policy; the conventional wisdom that there are only right-libertarians is flat-out wrong.

No need for the standard post, despite the righteousness of it. No, as the country has already learned, Richard Mourdock and the Republicans need only blame Richard Mourdock. Even Fox News couldn't hide from it:

Top Republicans were slow to embrace tea party-backed Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock after he ousted a longtime GOP senator from office. Though he eventually won their support -- and money -- Mourdock could see both fade after telling a live television audience that when a woman becomes pregnant during a rape, "that's something God intended." 

Mourdock, who's been locked in one of the country's most expensive and closely watched Senate races, was asked during the final minutes of a debate Tuesday night whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said.

Mourdock became the second GOP Senate candidate to find himself on the defensive over comments about rape and pregnancy. Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin said in August that women's bodies have ways of preventing pregnancy in cases of what he called "legitimate rape." Since his comment, Akin has repeatedly apologized but has refused to leave his race despite calls to do so by leaders of his own party, from GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on down. 

Mourdock is toast. Pro-Democrat PACs hopped on his words within a couple of hours, tying Mourdock to Mitt Romney.



Republicans had a chance to reclaim the Senate, but threw it away with their absurd statements on abortion. Can't blame that on anyone but themselves.

I expect the Lugar Republicans to be running for the hills. Abdul Hakim Shabazz had previously, accurately, laid out a 4-case scenario for Lugar Republicans. I would reduce it now to three options: 1. Vote for Donnelly; 2. vote for Horning; 3. don't vote in this race; because #4- hold your nose and vote for Mourdock- is probably not going to happen very much now.

Late Report, Libertarian Convention, Part 2

While I was excited about Johnson's win as nominee for President, I was crushed by Mark Rutherford loss in the election for LNC Chair.

You may recall that I previously endorsed Rutherford. Mark was great for the LPIN, teaching candidates to focus on issues of greatest importance to the voters, not self, first; and of relevance to the office which you seek. He also tried to shape the LPIN's Central Committee to mirror boards of successful civic or public institutions, such as hospital boards of directors. This is important, because Libertarian Party boards tend to focus on the finest points of policy rather than creating a top-notch organization. In my opinion, the LNC has often been the most guilty of all Libertarian Party organizations of this wheel spinning.

After all- the point of a political party is to get people elected towards moving policy in your direction, or to do other things, such as lobbying or issue advocacy that moves policy in your direction.

Internal debate for correctness achieves none of this.

So, on all these considerations, the 2012 LNC elections were a complete wipe-out. It was bad to lose, but bitter because the losses were so narrow.

Several votes were taken, and it was weird. At the end of it all, Rutherford lost to Geoff Neale by 7 votes.

Many thanks to Doug Masson, who followed my Facebook live blogging and summarized here. Also see Reason Hit & Run blog, here and here, with vote totals.

My lasting disappointment is with Geoff Neale's track record and what that portends. When Neale was previously Chair (2002-2004), the LP lost membership and his reputation was that of being stand-offish and uncommunicative. He was remarkably later elected LNC Treasurer (2006) and resigned a year afterwards. As was pointed out to me, a Treasurer of an organization doesn't resign. It's a malfeasance to do so, because it sticks the organization in a perilous position- especially as a political party, where one mistake on a filing can result in the organization being taken down.

And, even at this election, he threw another former Treasurer, Bill Redpath, under the bus, blaming him for the problem that led to his resignation. I thought that pretty well foreshadowed that nothing has changed with Neale- stand-offish, divisive, unable to own up to human shortcomings. In sum, a loser.

Rob Place sat next to me during much of the convention and he remarked in his wry way, "Remember how I was saying the worst case scenario was that Hinkle beat Rutherford? This is ten times worse than that. I wish we could have had yesterday's worst case scenario back." I couldn't have agreed more.

As regards Indiana, fortunately, we have a strong party and will survive and thrive despite the anticipated non-assistance and self-inflicted wounds the next two years will bring. Other state affiliates won't be so lucky.

Fortunately, Gary Johnson has won big elections before, and he has Ron Neilson, his campaign chair from both of Johnson's gubernatorial wins, on board as his chair once again. They will build a strong and potent team without the LNC. 

In one way, the clean sweep of the LNC might be a blessing. The past two years were marked by charges of an 'evil cabal' of Wayne Root, Mark Rutherford, Alicia Mattson, Aaron Starr, and others on the LNC sabotaging Chair Mark Hinkle. While I saw it as Hinkle being a weak Chair and failing to make the case on items to win over the LNC members, the 'evil cabal' charges had an impact on Rutherford's chances. (Remarkably, Wayne Root, the focus of so much antipathy by those who dislike the pragmatic voices in the LNC, was re-elected. The only one of the so-called 'cabal'.) Anyhow, the 'cabal' and the pragmatics are out, and the radicals are in. Divisiveness should not be an issue. That will be a relief.

At the end of the day, if Neale and the radicals fail to accomplish anything in the next two years, they won't be able to blame anyone but themselves. Given the track record, I expect failure once again. I hope that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results at last comes to fruition, but I won't be holding my breath.

Late Report, Libertarian Party Convention

It's been nearly two weeks since the Libertarian Party's national convention concluded. I probably would have blogged within the hour had Mark Rutherford been elected, as I would have been excited beyond measure. Alas.

First, the good news.

Gary Johnson was made the LP's nominee for President of the United States on the 1st ballot, overwhelmingly. This was very satisfying, as he has a proven executive record as Governor of New Mexico. Johnson was a Republican then, but he governed as a libertarian. What does that mean? He actually used the veto pen. From wikipedia:

As governor, Johnson followed a strict small government approach. According to former New Mexico Republican National Committee member Mickey D. Barnett, "Any time someone approached him about legislation for some purpose, his first response always was to ask if government should be involved in that to begin with."^[25] He vetoed 200 of 424 bills in his first six months in office – a national record of 48% of all legislation – and used the line-item veto on most remaining bills.^[2]

<sup>The usual saw is that a libertarian would end up with the area of governance sinking into the earth's core. Two of his vetoes were over-ridden. The rest held up. Curiously, New Mexico was not swallowed into the abyss. I guess the vetoed bills weren't really that important after all. Johnson was re-elected, and left the state with a surplus.

Johnson doesn't shy away from controversial issues, but nor does he lead with them. He is personable and energetic. I love his comebacks on the drug issues, being that he doesn't even consume caffeine or alcohol, and has been an ironman triathlete. If he gets into the debates, he will fare very well.</sup>

^{Me & Gary Johnson, after his nomination. I'm holding his obligatory 'book written by candidate for president', and wearing my delegate credentials.}

^{(Part 2 will pick up with the election for LNC Chair)}

More Podcasts Posted

Been ripping out the podcasts of late, ahead of the trip out west.

This Podcast Could Be Your Life #19: Part 2 of my interview with Andrew Lee, and a radio clip from June 1991. Andrew & I talk about ideologically driven radio vs market-driven, and podcasting & new media.

This Podcast Could Be Your Life #20: Pre-LP Convention spiels, endorsement of Mark Rutherford for LNC Chair, explaining my role as Floor Whip for Rutherford, audio clip of Gary Johnson speaking at 2002 Convention in Indianapolis

Click here to find the entire archive.

All Hail The Marxist Libertarians!

The Libertarian party always seems to be taking one step forward, then either one step back, or perhaps sideways. The latest insider battle leaves me shaking my head.

There is a minimum charge of $94 to attend the business meeting of the Libertarian Party's National Convention.

Maybe Karl Marx has simply won. TANSTAAFL is an acronym for the phrase attributed to Robert Heinlein, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". This was adapted very early in the Libertarian Party's life as a slogan. The radicals have been arguing that the LP has been moving away from principle and core beliefs in order to accommodate those weak on core philosophy. Ok, radicals- Are you lining up for your free lunch? Who really is moving away from principle? If you can't live it in something as minor as a $94 floor fee, why can you be trusted to lead a political party by principles, or bigger yet, be elected to office and abide by those principles?

These things cost money to put on, so who should pay for it other than the people who attend? I mean, should the LNC be redistributing wealth? From each according to his ability to pay, to each according to their need?

The crazy thing is, the ones screaming about this measly sum are the so-called radical Libertarians. These are the folks who demand litmus test purity... and they don't measure up themselves.

Yes sir- should be an interesting time in Vegas!

Strike At The Root

I was floored with comments made by Wayne Root, a member of the Libertarian National Committee. From Reason Hit & Run:

Wayne Root, who ran as Bob Barr's VP candidiate with the Libertarian Party in 2008, currently a member of the Libertarian National Committee that runs the Party, exhibits a lack of dedication to the LP by saying this on a Bill Cunningham podcast, right in the first couple of minutes:

I think the important thing now is to make sure Obama is not elected,and that means in my mind, I would love for a libertarian like Gary Johnson the two term governor of New Mexico would actually get elected President, but I think we all know that’s not going to happen so therefore it’s got to be Romney there is no choice.

I can accept wide ranges of policy thought within the libertarian camp. I cannot tolerate a Libertarian Party leader who recommends voting for a candidate who is not a Libertarian Party candidate.

I'm no fan of witch hunts. Root was once a Republican. I was once a Democrat. A great many people come to the Libertarian Party from either of the two old parties, and that itself is not a problem. It's a great thing! What is a problem is when a party leader doesn't understand his fiduciary duty to his organization. In the last year especially, Root's commentaries have struck me as being increasingly too pro-GOP. I can get being anti-Obama, since Obama is in the White House and sets policy tone. But the response for a Libertarian Party leader should always, always, ALWAYS be to offer libertarian policy solutions, and Libertarian candidates, as the alternative.

Mitt Romney? I mean- please. It could be forgiven if it were Ron Paul he was touting.

I'm very concerned for the Chair vote in the Las Vegas convention. I strongly support Mark Rutherford, but things I'm hearing from Libertarians across the US suggest that the association with Root is going to kill his chances to be Chair. This would be most unfortunate. Under Mark's guidance, the Indiana LP has developed marvelously, and I think the same could happen nationally if we were elected Chair. See my recent comments in support of Rutherford for Chair.

I am a delegate to the national convention. I will be voting against Root for any LNC leadership.

In the meantime, I call for Wayne Root to resign from the LNC immediately. He just doesn't understand his position on the LNC.

Thoughts On Charlie White

I have many, many thoughts on the Charlie White saga, so I may use multiple posts to put it all across. Some of my insights come from being a Fishers resident (White was on the Fishers Town Council), a former Hamilton County political boss (I chaired the Libertarian Party, I believe he is still chair of the Republicans... he was chair at least during the times of my tenure), and a former candidate for Secretary of State (White had been elected Secretary of State prior to being stripped of office).

The main thing that has bothered me about this case is that I absolutely detest this kind of ticky tack law. I have long maintained that the real purpose of these laws is as a 'gotcha' device. This case fairly well shows how that works.

But I also know it from other cases. Interestingly, Charlie White was able to remain on the ballot, despite the world knowing about the case prior to the election. Libertarian candidates who have the most minute, meaningless errors on their paperwork routinely get bounced from the ballot summarily. In 2006, while I was running for Secretary of State, and handful of Libertarians from around the state got bounced from the ballot because the Elections Division decided to enforce a technicality that hadn't been enforced before, and that our party was unaware of statewide. Too bad, no mercy for us. Bam! Gone. I called a press conference, and a couple of reporters turned up. I stood behind the would-be candidates, shouted from the Statehouse steps, and the item wasn't even reported.

So, it bothers me about the haphazard enforcement and standards. I mean, just today, by some miracle, it was found that Rick Santorum does have enough signatures to be on the ballot after all. He was 8 short before, and now, voila! he has enough. If a Libertarian is short? Rules are rules! Fire and brimstone!

Just days after the 2006 removal of 11 Libertarian candidates, 10 Fort Wayne Republicans had signature issues. Ha- issues. They fired their executive director for FORGING signatures on their forms. It's kind of interesting to look back on what I had to say:

The Libertarian Party just had eleven candidates withheld from the ballot for failing to meet a technicality. Well! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. These ten or so Republican candidates need to disappear from the ballot immediately if the law is the law, and the Elections Division is providing consistent outcomes.

Now personally, I think the booting of candidates is a great disservice to the people of our state, but the bar has been set. I think a better outcome would be that the eleven Libertarian candidates would be certified, and a fine levied against the Libertarian Party for missing the technicality, and everyone there moves on.

In the case of the Republicans, the best outcome might be that the ten or so candidates are put on the ballot, and the Executive Director might face some jail time, if in fact he committed perjury when forging the signatures of candidates.

Jail? From Indiana Code:

IC 3-14-1-13
Filing fraudulent reports
Sec. 13. A person who knowingly files a report required by IC 3-9 that is fraudulent commits a Class D felony.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.10.

All of the State's campaign forms specify at the bottom of the first page:

A person who knowingly files a fraudulent report commits a Class D felony (IC 3-14-1-13).

Felons go to jail. Pretty simple.

Republicans and Democrats wrote this law. Republicans and Democrats should therefore be the standard bearer and the exemplars in how to do this correctly, and how to bear the consequences when this is done fraudulently- if there is to be integrity in our elections.

Nobody went to jail there. White isn't going to jail, but had the felonies hung on him, and faces a year's in-house detention. (Yes, the funny joke there is, "Which house? His ex-wife's?")

And yet, I still find White's case lamentable. Not only do I want every Libertarian on the ballot. I want every candidate on the ballot. If one loses an election, I want it to be because the voters decided, not a bureaucrat in the Elections Office decided it, or because they couldn't be on the ballot thanks to a legislature bent on political self-preservation.

But, the rules are the rules. I and other Libertarians may well detest the laws, but we comply. You have to pick your battles. Do you want to be on the ballot? Then you have to follow the rules. Make a case against the rules, but comply. Get elected and change the rules. We speak out about the rules all the time. I'll note that I never heard Charlie White once speak out against the rules. Nor did I ever hear him speak out in support of a candidate bounced from the ballot. He was a County Chair and a candidate for Secretary of State, which were all good avenues for speaking up about the rules. Never a peep. I guess he accepted the rules, right up until they ensnared him.

At the end of the day, here's what I would like to see happen:

1. It's just paperwork. At the very least, let's eliminate felonies for candidate filings. I'd like to see the most minimal paperwork requirements possible. Yes, we have to know who we're putting on the ballot. Yes, we need to know that this candidate is eligible to run, and lives in the jurisdiction for the office sought (White may have been out of his Town Council district, but he still lived in the state while seeking statewide office.)

2. Broaden ballot access. The Republicans got the scare of their lives, looking at the prospect of losing ballot access with the possibility of White being declared ineligible to be a candidate, with ballot access tied solely to the Secretary of State race. Let's broaden the access rules by tying the result to any statewide candidate in a four-year cycle, at the very least. I would also like to see the threshold lowered to the 1994 standard: 0.5%, The 2% requirement is keeping other 3rd parties off the ballot, especially the Greens.

More later.

Mark Rutherford For LNC Chair!

I am very excited about Mark Rutherford's announcement that he is seeking the Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. Mark is currently the Vice Chair of the LNC, and was Chair of the Libertarian Party of Indiana for seven years. Link to Rutherford's LNC Chair website.



I lived in Ohio until 2002, and wasn't terribly involved with the Libertarian Party there. They lacked ballot access, so they had very few candidates, and the leadership there was not very focused on getting the ballot access, ensuring that they were more of a supper club than a real political party.

The contrast in Indiana was significant. With Rutherford as Chair, the LPIN ran candidates at every level, across the state in 2002. It employed an Executive Director (Brad Klopfenstein) who carried out a range of tasks, from recruiting and assisting candidates to lobbying at the Statehouse. Indianapolis hosted the LP's national convention, landed here by Rutherford, Klopfenstein, and the leadership of the LPIN's Central Committee. I was very impressed, and when I moved here, I got very involved very quickly, assisting Andy Horning's campaign for US House the week I arrived. Rebecca Sink-Burris ran for Secretary of State in 2002, securing continued ballot access. I did the same in 2006.

So, I am very excited. I have no doubt that Rutherford can do on a national level for the Libertarian Party what he did here on the state level. That means, I would expect direction towards vastly improved professionalism and standards, and more effective branding of the party.

I am looking forward to this year's national convention in Las Vegas, where I will be proud to cast a vote for Mark Rutherford for LNC Chair.

Post The Candidates

The Libertarian National Committee is struggling with an issue right now, and I just don't get it. The issue? Should the LNC list all of the candidates for President on its website or not? Here are reasons the LNC lists for not listing all:

Examples of reasons not to list presidential candidates:

• To screen out candidates who are not dedicated to advancing our libertarian agenda, or who actually oppose it.
• To exclude individuals who appear to be disingenuously using the LP.
• To disqualify candidates who are running for the nomination of more than one party.
• To avoid publicizing candidates whose presentation is viewed by most Libertarians as embarrassing or inappropriate for a presidential candidate and who could reflect badly on the party.

I was a bit startled by this. The latter point is exactly what some Ds & Rs say about any Libertarian or 3rd party candidates, if substituting 'voters' for 'Libertarians', and 'country' (or 'city', 'state', etc.) for 'party'.

In my opinion, these things are up to the delegates to decide.

Just to see what others do, I looked at the RNC website. (I didn't bother looking at the DNC, because we all know President Obama is running for re-election.) But the Republicans do not list any of the presidential candidates. My guess? It's probably because of Ron Paul, whom they don't want to give equal space to. I'm going to further guess that some LNC members feel the same way about some of its' candidates.

In the online poll, only 8% of members thought that none of the candidates should be listed. The greatest response (23%) said to list them all without qualification.

That was my first reaction. After all, the purpose of a political party is to elect people to office. Why hide the candidates under a bushel basket?

Beyond that, the LNC's website already lists presidential candidates! There's a fat disclaimer there from the LNC, so what's the problem?

Having looked at the websites of the seven candidates posted, I didn't see anything crazy or alarming. So, I'd love some disclosure from the LNC. Just what is it that has generated such worry? And, don't you have bigger things to focus on?

Will The Real Republican Party Please Stand Up?

Most readers know me as a political partisan, a 'capital L' Libertarian. While I love the Libertarian Party, I love liberty more, and really couldn't care less which party gets the job of moving policy in a liberty direction done.

I've found it interesting over the years, that liberals and conservatives alike tend to try to push me to the Republican party. Why liberals concede that the Democratic Party is not the home for one who loves liberty is beyond me. But, another topic for another day.

Today is the day of the Iowa caucuses for the Republican Party. Today is the day we find out if, in Iowa, the Republican Party will embrace liberty in the form of Ron Paul, or if it will embrace one of the various authoritarian strains of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney.

Many leaders in the Indiana Republican Party, at various levels, have tried to get me into their tent. My belief is that they really just want to plow me under, to disappear me within their organization- as they have done over the years with several former Libertarians. Can't name a one elected to anything as a Liberty Caucus Republican in Indiana.

The rationale, I'm endlessly told, is that more can be done by working within the Republican Party. Bigger stage, better chance of electability, etc. But I've never seen proof that liberty has been embraced by Indiana Republicans. Lip service? Oh, yes. Acts? No sir or ma'am.

There is truth to the rationale, though. Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988, and barely made a noise on the national level. Running in 2008, he won over a dedicated national following, and here in 2012, he is on the cusp of actually winning Iowa today. If he does win, this causes me to take serious notice- for the implications for his campaign, and for the place of liberty in the Republican Party, as well as the place of the Libertarian Party.

As I said, I don't really care which party carries the pro-liberty candidates. I will back them. If Ron Paul is winning caucuses and the primary elections, I have to be with him as far as he runs. The longer he is viable, the longer the message of liberty is in the media and on people's minds, and if he wins the GOP nomination, he could become president of the United States. I can't ignore that.

So, my first glance will be towards the vote totals. My second will be to the reaction of the Republican leadership in Iowa and nationally. They already hinted that they would ignore Iowa's results if Ron Paul wins.

Now, my Republican friends. If I'm supposed to seriously consider a move to the Republican Party, you just have to show me better faith than that. Ron Paul has been treated like garbage by GOP leadership for roughly the last 5 years. Is this any way to lure people to your party?

So, I'm watching to see what the real Republican Party looks like. Go, Ron Paul!

Republicans, Defenders of Economic Liberty

The Indianapolis City-County Council saw a change in its makeup last night, as voters elected enough Democrats to give that party a new majority on the Council. Three at-large seats shifted from Republicans to Democrats. There were 4 Libertarian candidates, 3 of which gained a total greater than the margin of victory for the three Democrats over the next three Republicans.

In the wake of this, I was treated to usual blathering about how Libertarians 'steal votes' from Republicans, and - get this - caused Democrats to win control.

First fallacy there is that anyone 'steals votes' from anyone. No party owns the votes. The Voters own the votes, and they decide to whom they shall cast them. So, if today you are one of those folks disappointed at Democrats taking control of the City County Council, go kick the ass of one or three of the Republicans. They failed to adequately compete.

Second fallacy is that the Libertarian voter would cast for Republicans by default, if only the Libertarians were off the ballot. Well, it is argued, Libertarians and Republicans sound alike on economic issues.

Oh, I beg your pardon while I call bullshit! Ok, conceded- the two may sound the same. Rhetoric is meaningless to me. Actions matter. So, less than 24 hours after winning re-election, Republican Mayor Ballard announced his plan for getting the light rail boondoggle going. From the Indy Star:

Only hours after clinching his re-election as Indianapolis mayor, Greg Ballard went to the Statehouse to kick off his next campaign: Landing a mass transit system for central Indiana.

Ballard, a Republican, met at 11:30 a.m. today with Speaker of the House Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, and Senate Appropriations Chairman Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, to discuss his top priority in the legislative session that begins Jan. 4.

"Certainly coming into the session we want to try to figure out a way to enhance mass transit in the city of Indianapolis and the region," Ballard said.

The Republican defender of economic liberty has this as his top legislative priority.

Egad. 'Republican defender of economic liberty'? I just threw up in my mouth a little.

So, I don't really want to hear it about the city, region, state, or country being screwed over by Libertarians, essentially causing Democrats to be elected. I fail to see the difference on anything apart from scale- and that's only occasionally. Ballard has bought in 100%.

During the campaign both Ballard and his Democratic opponent, Melina Kennedy, said they support the concept of transit but insisted they needed more details before championing the Indy Connect proposal by the Central Indiana Task Force for increased IndyGo bus service and rail lines to the suburbs.

The biggest stumbling block: Cost. The task force's proposal was estimated to cost about $2.4 billion, evenly split between local government and federal funds.

So, what's the difference? I don't see any. I see two halves of the same one. So, I have no sympathy whatsoever.

Libertarian Takes On Occupy Wall Street

I've previously mentioned the common ground I believe libertarians can hold with left and right alike on Occupy Wall Street. Mainly, the bailouts to financial institutions were not just. If we just keep it right there, we can get along. If we start shading it, the coalition that would be falls apart- fast.

I really like what Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle had to say about OWS and crony capitalism, in a recent press statement:

"It's true that 99% of Americans do not enjoy the special benefits of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is very different from real capitalism. In crony capitalism, government hands out special favors and protections to politically well-connected businesses.

"The TARP bailouts, Solyndra, and the military-industrial complex are all facets of crony capitalism.

"Libertarians love free markets and hate crony capitalism.

"Unfortunately, hypocritical Republican politicians have taught a lot of Americans to think that 'free markets' means freedom for government and big business to engage in crony capitalism.

"That's not what free markets are. A free market is where the government leaves businesses alone, does not attempt to pick winners and losers, does not stifle competition, does not hand out corporate welfare, and does not absolve businesses of liability for their actions. Most of our economy today does not resemble a free market at all.

I would be interested in seeing an OWS reaction to this statement. Can people on the left agree and draw the distinction between actual capitalism and crony capitalism? Can the left agree that corruption is dependent upon crony capitalism, or do they actually like crony capitalism- so long as the winners chosen are ones they favor, such as green business?

For that matter, can the right see the same distinctions? Can they shed crony capitalism when the chosen winners are military suppliers?

Doug Masson has some similar ponderings today:

It’s always seemed to me that the corporate form should be anathema to Libertarians. It’s a government construct that exists for the purpose of evading personal responsibility.

I quite agree. It's interesting to see some libertarians and folks on the right who love all things business, and should equally cherish self-responsibility, overlook the latter in embracing corporations, merely because corporations are business entities. Business in and of itself is not the same thing as free enterprise.

We all have blind spots. These are the days when it would be a great idea to self-examine and find those blind spots, and acknowledge them. We end up with shitty solutions when we're full of shit.

Ed Coleman's Big Weekend

Ed Coleman is an Indianapolis City-County Councilman. He won election four years ago as a Republican running at-large, but before long, he grew very disenchanted with the Republican Party and the dictatorial leadership on the Council that wanted him to vote contrary to his principles and conscience, and toe the line. So, he defected to the Libertarian Party.

Ed is now running for re-election, as a Libertarian candidate, but this time running only for his district. The difference is gigantic, as an at-large candidate has to appeal to the entire city's voters, while a district candidate can focus attention within the boundaries.

This weekend, the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) made a significant contribution to Ed's campaign: $50,000. From the Libertarian Party of Indiana:

The Libertarian National Committee has voted to make a significant contribution to Re-election of Indianapolis City-County Councilor Ed Coleman. The LNC will contribute $50,000 to the highest ranking Libertarian official in the United States seeking to stay on the Council. Coleman was elected in 2007 to office as a Republican to an At-Large seat on the council, and switched after his punishment by the party for standing on libertarian principles.

“This is not just a game-changer for my race, but also for the entire Libertarian Party,” said Councilor Ed Coleman. “We hope this serves as a signal to all elected Republicans and Democrats that standing on principle doesn’t mean campaigning alone. The party of principle will work to help elect and re-elect Libertarians to make true change in the political arena. I would like to thank the LNC for recognizing this opportunity, and stepping up to keep the libertarian message moving forward.”

Coleman will use the additional funds to increase the footprint of his campaign. This is the most money that the national party has donated to a single candidate for their race.

“I am thrilled to see the LNC donate to the re-election of Ed,” said Sam Goldstein, Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Indiana. “I truly believe that this will become a watershed moment for the Libertarian Party in Indianapolis, Indiana, and on the national stage. Our party has made a statement that we are fully committed to electing and re-electing Libertarians to partisan office.”

This is a watershed moment of the second kind for me. The first goes back a few years to Andy Horning's run for US House in Indiana's 7th District, as a Republican.

Horning had been the face of the LPIN for many years, having run for Indy Mayor, Governor, and the same House seat as a Libertarian candidate before deciding that he'd had enough single digit returns, and he'd throw in with the GOP. His defection was a tough blow to take at the time. I thought the LP was in real trouble. If he won his race, the signal would be sent to any small-l libertarian: Run as a Republican. It's the way to win. I like Andy, and would have been thrilled it he had won, so I can't say 'Fortunately, he lost'. What I can say is, fortunately the GOP bungled that. They promised him support and didn't give it. They didn't give him money, didn't give him staffing, didn't work behind the scenes for him. Nothing. So that's what every small-l libertarian in Indiana learned. DON'T DRINK THE REPUBLICAN KOOL-AID!

Now this weekend stands in contrast. Ed Coleman wasn't promised a thing by the LNC. He wasn't promised anything by the LPIN or by then-County Chair Tim Maguire. If anything, Libertarian leadership warned Ed prior to jumping ship that life would be getting harder for him. But, when the moment of truth arrived, the LNC recognized the political landscape for what it is. Ed Coleman is the highest ranking elected Libertarian in the USA. So, the LNC put big money in his accounts.

Win or lose, the LNC sent a very different signal to small-l libertarians. Run as a Republican, you get the Andy Horning (or Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, etc) treatment. Run as a Libertarian, and you'll get serious backing.

This is a big deal for me. For years and years, I have been a part of an intra-party struggle to push the LNC towards being a serious, election-focused party. Since its inception, there had been elements with this attitude, but larger elements more interested in the endless fine point arguments that aren't ever going to get anyone elected.

Now it's up to Ed Coleman to do something with that money. In addition to the $50,000 from the LNC, he apparently earned another $15,000. While $65k is nothing for a national or statewide race, for City-County Council, it makes Ed one of the best-heeled candidates from any party. So, he has options before him: TV ads? Radio? Social networking? A little of everything?

Best wishes to Ed and his campaign team! What they do next could lead to something historic, both short term and long!

When Your Candidate Fails To Deliver

I’m a partisan Libertarian, as you know. Although I frequently state my ‘glass half empty’ case, fact is, whenever a major change takes place affecting an executive or legislative branches of government, there are things I can be hopeful of, depending on the offices affected, and the party of those taking power.

When Obama was sworn in, there were many things I was hopeful for, especially because he was campaigning about them. These included:

• Withdrawl from Iraq
• End to borrow-and-spend
• Closing of Gitmo
• End to policy of ‘indefinite detention’

There were others, but these were the big ones. On all counts, I have been disappointed with the President.

This has been the way of modern politics for me, regardless of the party in charge. There are things I can be hopeful for, especially in light of the rhetoric that got people elected, but promises aren’t kept, or impressions aren’t matched with actions.

Prior to the election of Obama, I spent several years blogging about the failure of the Republicans to deliver on the things I was hopeful for on the domestic front. Smaller government is the rhetoric of the Republican Party, but when Bush was President and his party controlled Congress, borrow-and-spend became a way of life. Bush didn’t veto a single bill coming from the Republican Congress. Departments were added, not cut.

So, what to do? Well, I am a partisan Libertarian. I’m not going to go voting for Republicans, hoping for smaller government. I have a recent track record that tells me I’m not going to get what I want. I’m not going to vote for Democrats, hoping for expanded civil liberties or an end to war. I have a recent track record there too that tells me I’m not going to get what I want. I’m going to vote Libertarian.

Sure, Libertarians haven’t been winning elections. So what? What kind of fool gives his vote to someone he can reliably determine won’t deliver? Not this one. Voting is about selecting candidates that best represent your views, not about picking winners. After all, winning is pretty hollow if you don't get the policy you wanted.

So, what about those who aren’t partisan Libertarians? What about those who are disaffected Democrats or Republicans- people who love their party, or hate the other party, and aren’t willing to go 3^rd party? I think the best thing they can do is make a statement at the Primary Elections. Vote for the candidate who best represents your views, regardless of their ‘electability’. If you continue to vote for a candidate that doesn’t deliver what you want, you have told them they never will have to. After all, they have what they want- your vote!

What if nobody challenges Obama in the Primary? Well, Democrats who want an end to wars and restoration of civil liberties are going to be out of luck, in the same way Republican fiscal conservatives were when nobody challenged Bush. They better start bending Dennis Kucinich’s ear now, and start funding him.

Failing that, vote for the Libertarian or Green Party candidate, or some other that represents your views. The only truly wasted vote is for the candidate who has given you good evidence that he won’t deliver what you want on the issues that matter most to you.

Sad News - David Nolan, R.I.P.

Libertarians across the country were saddened to learn that a co-founder of the Libertarian Party, David Nolan, had died suddenly Saturday night. The Libertarian Party was actually formed in Nolan's living room. There are many articles in response. Here's a small sampling:

Libertarian Party's blog

The Advocates For Smaller Government blog

Tucson Citizen

Freedom's Phoenix

Independent Political Report - the comments are loaded with tributes

David Nolan was on the current Libertarian National Committee, and just recently ran for US Senate against John McCain. He invented the "Nolan Chart", a later version of which is now used by the Advocates For Smaller Government, which we all use for outreach at events.

Greg Noland administers 'The World's Smallest Political Quiz', which incorporates 'The Nolan Chart". Photo from recent Good Earth Festival in Atlanta, IN.

David was apparently driving to an event to support the Advocates. He had created a fundraising event for his upcoming birthday - Tuesday - asking Facebook friends to support the Advocates as a birthday wish. Link to the page to donate in David's memory.

I had the opportunity to meet with David at several LP national conventions. My lasting impressions of him are of his calm demeanor at the microphone during heated platform arguments, as the voice of reason, but as one deeply respected by each of the various factions within the party. The room always got respectfully quieter when David Nolan began to speak.

Unofficial Returns

Unfortunately, I did not win in my bid for County Council. That's okay- I'll take stock in the positives:

I enjoyed going door-to-door to talk issues with my neighbors. I know that more people have an understanding of what a Libertarian would do in office if elected, and dispelled some misnomers.

We found where some of our supporters are. I am hopeful this will result in more people active with the Libertarian Party.

The support of friends was tremendous! Many, many thanks to friends who braved the cold to pass out palm cards on election day, including Jim Hurst, Mark Kolovrat, Craig Witt, Lars & Pami Noldan, and Matt Mulder.

The unofficial returns have me getting 6.9% of the votes, with the Democrat getting 24.8%, and the Republican 68.3%. This was the first time this Council seat had a three-way race. It was unchallenged in 2006 with the Republican unopposed, and in 2002 Libertarian Gregg Puls got 11%, but there wasn't a Democrat in the race. Now we know where the baselines are for this area.

The best Libertarian showing in a three-way County Council race was in 2002, when Terry Baker got 8% in the district that includes Noblesville.

The turnout was really low. Just 44% of registered Hamilton County voters appeared at the polls. That's disappointing, but consistent. 4 years ago, the turnout was also just 44%. It just goes to show that even though there is more media buzz and more commercials on TV, the result isn't necessarily translating into more voters.

More later on the Libertarian numbers for Hamilton County and across Indiana. Very encouraging!!!

Ready To Vote!

I'm up early and ready to vote. I hope you will be voting too! The votes we cast are crucial in getting policies that will grow our economies, or our governments. In my Fishers precinct I will be voting for:

Rebecca Sink-Burris, US Senate

Chard Reid, US House of Representatives, District 5

Mike Wherry, Indiana Secretary of State

Eric Knipe, Indiana Auditor

Mike Kole, Hamilton County Council, District 2

The rest will largely be a lot of blanks. Why? I won't vote for a candidate who doesn't represent my views in a high percentage. I don't expect 100% agreement. I know that isn't possible. But nor will I vote for someone I agree with less than half of the time, just because they are 'the lesser of two evils'. The lesser of two evils? Now that's a wasted vote!

Ballot Discrimination In North Dakota

I was infuriated at seeing this item in the news. From the Forum of Fargo-Moorhead:

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Al Jaeger that was filed by three Libertarian candidates for the North Dakota Legislature who sought placement on the November ballot.

Richard Ames of Wahpeton, along with Grand Forks residents Thommy Passa and Anthony Stewart, argued that North Dakota’s ballot access requirements are unconstitutional because they require candidates to get a minimum number of primary election votes, even if they run unopposed.

It isn't a partisan outrage. If these were Socialist candidates, I'd feel the same way. I detest the judge's reasoning:

In an order issued today, District Court Judge Ralph R. Erickson wrote that states can require candidates to demonstrate a certain degree of support in a primary election.

Primary elections serve as a mechanism to “winnow out and reject all but serious candidates,” and ballot requirements allow states to avoid voter confusion, overcrowded ballots and frivolous candidates, Erickson wrote.

He concluded that North Dakota’s ballot requirements for the general election are “non-discriminatory and serve a compelling state interest.”

That's bullcrap. What exactly does an 'overcrowded ballot' look like? And, what is a frivolous candidate? That's for the voters to decide!

We have to work hard to make sure Mike Wherry gets his votes here in Indiana so that the Libertarian Party can maintain its ballot access for four more years. It isn't safe to leave the matter in the hands of judges, as this example in North Dakota shows, and as we're aware affected the Libertarian Party in Ohio for several years.

(h/t: Patriot Paul)

Conventions & Platforms

I've always been a little flat on the Libertarian Party's national platform. It doesn't function like a party platform should, but rather as a manifesto. That's ok for a new party, but not one that is trying to let the country know, "We're an established party, and here is what we will do as a focused effort to improve the country. Now, vote for us on the strength of this".

I believe that at each national convention of the LP, we should be adopting 3-5 planks that represent our solutions to the major issues of the day. If I could wave my magic wand, the platform going into 2010 elections would look like this:

1. No more bailouts. Nobody is 'too big to fail'. If you make bad decisions, they won't be subsidized by the rest of the country.
2. No more stimulus spending. Deficit spending is a placebo, and doesn't generate genuine wealth. It drains the country of tomorrow's wealth.
3. Fix the health care problems caused by government intervention. Eliminate the federal mandates that generate inefficiency and needlessly drive up costs.
4. End the wars. Pull out of Iraq & Afghanistan immediately. Stop trying to be the world's police officer. It doesn't work.
5. Restore civil liberties. Repeal the Patriot Act and all other laws that direct law enforcement to spy on American citizens.

For my part, as a County Chair, I will be directing the Libertarian Party of Hamilton County towards having a platform that does just this sort of thing- presents the issues and solution we will run on locally for 2010.

Doing this does not represent an abdication of the full range of policy solutions libertarians have for the myriad issues we could address. Rather, it prioritizes the response to the most pressing issues affecting the greatest number of citizens.

I'll have info on the LP of Hamilton County's convention posted shortly.

Update: A correction has been made to replace the word 'panacea' with 'placebo'. Thanks to Todd for the Websterian QC action!

My Take On Recent Elections

There was a lot of predictable spin on the recent elections that follows partisan lines. The race that most interested me was NY-23, where a Democrat ultimately won in a district that had elected Republicans for more than 100 years.

This happened because the Republicans nominated a fairly liberal candidate for US House, and in response, Doug Hoffman ran on the Conservative Party ticket. The liberal Republican dropped out of the race, the Conservative nearly made up the ground, but ultimately lost.

Some are saying that this is proof that a third-party candidacy is folly, and that reform needs to happen within the major parties.

I'll point out again that the GOP leadership nominated the liberal Republican.

The GOP leadership, virtually anywhere, has been so interested in targeting moderate and independent voters that the result is the appearance of not standing for anything at all. That's where they don't get it. There is a morass of wandering disaffected voters looking for a home, that requires a party to stand for something.

Obviously, the fear of third parties in general is keeping these folks in limbo, because the Libertarian Party has ever been for smaller budgets, less spending, less taxes, more economic growth, and higher employment... and this is what the people seem to want. From CNN's polling:

The number of Americans who say the economy is their top issue is on the rise, according to a new national poll.

Forty-seven percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday morning say the economy is the most important issue facing the country today. That's up 6 points from August.

Health care, at 17 percent, remains second on the list. But the issue is down a few points from August, indicating that the furor caused by the late summer town hall meetings may be fading somewhat on the minds of most Americans.

This tells me a lot. There's the Democratic leadership, working hard on something that the public doesn't regard as the top issue. Neither the Bush stimulus nor the Obama stimulus convince the public that their solution is working. Here are the Libertarians, offering a result that the people are clamoring for, yet not reaching the people.

My opinion is that right now, the Libertarian Party needs to become a single-issue party, focused solely on the economy. It isn't just that CNN article that makes me think this way. This has been the top issue for about a year now. The old leadership is discredited. The new leadership is losing people. This is an opportunity for the Libertarians, provided they eliminate distractions.

What say you?