Lens of Liberty

After what I thought was an disgraceful debate run by Fox News Channel the other night, I was interested to see if CNN was able to do any better. I took some notes during the debate, paying attention to the topics discussed and how the questioning was distributed.

I counted these thirteen distinct questions asked by moderator John King, audience members, and submitted through the Internet

1. Character attacks, Newt’s ex-wife
2. Specific programs to reduce unemployment
3. Bain Capital
4. Returning veterans & Unemployment
5.  Obamacare Repeal possibility
6. Gingrich’s suggestion that Santorum drop out
7. Release of Tax Returns
8. Jobs. Apple given as example of a company moving manufacturing overseas
9. SOPA
10. If you could change one thing you’ve done in the campaign
11. Immigration
12. Abortion, specifically Newt’s ads about Romney
13. Make your case to SC (Closing statement)

I think they could have done without so many questions about campaign ads, tax returns, etc, but at least their weren’t any questions about contraception. Also seems odd that they didn’t squeeze in a question on foreign policy but, at least we heard what everyone thought about Newt asking Santorum to bow out.

Ron Paul received better treatment from John King tonight than he did from Bret Baier on Fox the other night, but he still seemed to go forgotten for long stretches of time. This was largely because the other candidates didn’t attack him by name, so he didn’t get involved in many of the back and forth that the others did. For example, the question about Obamacare was answered first by Mitt Romney followed by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. In his response Santorum questioned Romney and Gingrich’s ability to defeat Obamacare because of their past support for an individual mandate. This, of course, meant that they each has a chance to respond and so on. The result was that we were treated to Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Gingrich, before Dr. Ron Paul was given a chance to answer a question about health care.

The only person for whom the debate may have made a difference was Newt Gingrich.  His forceful response to the question about his ex-wife’s interview got a standing ovation from those attending the debate and going after the “liberal media” is always a hit with GOP voters.

Aside from that first question, which was just stupid, I thought tonight’s debate was less infuriating than Fox’s debacle, but there’s still too much focus on the he said\she said nonsense.

Tonight’s Fox News GOP debate from South Carolina was a frustrating thing to watch. Rep. Ron Paul, after being largely ignored for the first thirty five minutes, struggled to give a clear defense of his foreign policy. In front of a fairly hostile crowd, Paul stumbled through a question about the assassination of Osama bin Laden and the war in Afghanistan. Because foreign policy is the one are where he will struggle to win over GOP base voters, the Congressman needs to be clear and effective when discussing that issue. It just didn’t happen tonight.

Video of that segment:

h/t RonPaulFlix

I thought Rep. Paul gave a number of great answers on the effect of the drug war on minorities, cutting defense spending, and taxes, but the it’s the foreign policy issue that will keep many Republicans from supporting him. That’s the issue on which he needs to convince voters.

As the campaign for the GOP nomination moves from New Hampshire to South Carolina, Rep. Ron Paul has confounded the expectations of the mainstream punditry and likely many of his own supporters. Despite his continued success, there are several issues which continue to dog his campaign. The racist and homophobic statements made in newsletters that were published under his name have been a problem for Paul for almost two decades and he has yet to effectively deal with them. There is also the tendency of his campaign to draw support from unsavory fringe elements and then fail to disassociate himself from them.

I personally find it hard to believe that Ron Paul is a racist. Whatever may have been written in those newsletters, as disgusting as some of it may have been, I have never heard him say anything racist, nor does he support any policies which could be reasonably categorized as racist. If he isn’t a racist, how do we explain the offensive, racist things published under his name? There are really only two explanations. Either he is a grossly negligent manager or he is willing to tolerate racism from others if it advances his agenda. Neither is an admirable trait in someone seeking the Presidency. The latter is especially damning.

Paul’s tendency to look the other way when those supporting him or even speaking for him make hateful statements or propose repulsive policies is not a easy thing to overlook. It doesn’t comport with Paul’s espousal of a belief in individual liberty to ignore such vile rhetoric. You have to ask how it is that Ron Paul can take on the monetary elites, speak out against the military-industrial complex, often as a lone voice against powerful entrenched interests yet he never finds a way to denounce two-bit cranks who are too often drawn into his sphere. When making a decision to support any political candidate, let alone someone seeking the Presidency, these are not questions that can be easily dismissed, if at all. What must be asked is this; in this election, given the alternatives, are these fatal flaws?

What are the alternatives? Realistically, it’s Romney and Obama, but to my mind it doesn’t much matter, all the candidates represent the status quo. On the issues that matter, the issues that will define the direction of the country, they are nearly identical. Mitt Romney is a Republican Bill Clinton without the philandering. He has no real core beliefs that I can see, at least none that can’t be changed when expediency demands. President Obama has proven over the last three years that anything he claims to stand for is ephemeral. Neither man can be counted on to restrain the growth of the State, or to protect individual liberty.

Consider the parallel ironies of 2012 Presidential race. Obama was elected by those who were angry at the excesses of the Bush administration only to find that, in nearly every meaningful way, Obama continued Bush’s agenda. The base of the Republican Party who were so outraged by the bailouts of the banks and of Wall St and by the passage of Obamacare, has somehow managed to propel a Wall St insider who pioneered the individual mandate to a commanding lead for the GOP nomination. The absurdity is almost too great to be believed.

So, knowing that the two realistic alternatives represent the same doomed course, with more war, more debt, and more attacks on civil liberties; can one overlook Ron Paul’s flaws? I have turned this question over and over in my mind. I cannot simply dismiss these troubling tendencies; I cannot pretend they don’t exist or that they are merely a creation of the establishment out to destroy him. In order to support Ron Paul, you have to accept that these flaws are part of it. It must never be condoned or defended or excused, simply accepted.

I believe that Ron Paul will sincerely attempt to do what he proposes; restore individual liberty, devolve power from Washington, bring an end to the wars in the Middle-East. Actually implementing those things will be exceeding difficult, if not impossible given the makeup of Congress but at least the effort will be made, and that is a step in the right direction. Given the gravity of the problems we face, is there any choice but to live with Ron Paul’s flaws?

The newsletters are offensive, but are they more offensive than the thousands of deaths caused by the wars we are waging? I abhor the sickening bigotry of some fringe Ron Paul supporters, but is it worth giving up on our most basic liberties because of them?

When it is all said and done, after all the wrestling and soul searching, the only answer I can come up with is NO.

So somehow, Rick Santorum has managed to crawl his way back into the 2012 GOP Primary, Romney is doing pretty much what everyone expected, and Ron Paul, while doing much better than he did in 2008, is currently looking to finish third in an extremely close race in Iowa. I fear that the way this is shaping up, Ron Paul will continue to be marginalized by the mainstream media. Iowa was his shot.

On twitter tonight, Ron Paul supporters have taken to accusing CNN of faking technical problems in order to keep a soldier from expressing his support for Paul.

See the video for yourself. Can’t imagine that CNN was surprised by what this young man was going to say, if they were looking to silence him, why even interview him at all? Pointing out the media’s failure to cover Ron Paul is one thing, but this just comes across as paranoid and that isn’t helpful is you are trying to get people to support your candidate.

[UPDATE] Ron Paul asked the young man to speak to supporters tonight. As you can see below, CNN carried the entire speech.

A few weeks back I wrote that I thought #OWS had gotten all they could out of the camping-as-activism idea. I think the events of the past month have shown that to be correct. Krist Novoselic, formerly the bassist for Nirvana, made the same point on the Alyona Show (video below). At some point, your movement has to get beyond battling with local municipalities and the police and start,  you know, doing something.

I’m don’t know the full extent of Novoselic’s political work, he seems too devoted to the idea of  ”democracy”, but I think he’s correct with respect to the limits of occupying as means of creating political change.

Iowa Rep. Steve King responding to a question about Alabama’s immigration law:

In the world I grew up in, a police office would see somone on the street and say why are you here? What are you doing? Who are you? I don’t know who you are. Now we get to the point where the ACLU can take the position that law enforcement can’t do their job.

I guess this is what passes for small government conservatism today.

Video here via the Alyona Show.

While driving into work this morning I heard a local talk show host discussing the Herman Cain harassment allegations. The host made the comment (I’m paraphrasing from memory) that because the accuser received money to settle the charges of sexual harassment, she has zero credibility.

Move along, nothing to see here folks.

The logical gymnastics that the politically brainwashed will perform to avoid admitting that someone on their side of the aisle may not walk on water is simply astonishing. It’s possible that all three of the women currently accusing Cain are lying (anyone associated with Gloria Allred is immediately suspect) but surely the accusations must give even the most ardent Cain supporter a moments pause.

In the summer, my wife and I spend many Sunday afternoons with friends in the right field stands of Citizens Bank Park cheering for the Phillies. Our distance from home plate, about 400 ft, never stops us from booing umpires over the size of the strike zone. Similarly, NFL fans will inevitably judge every review of a close play in their team’s favor. It is all part of the fun of being a fan, believing that your team is always right, that every close call that goes against them is a conspiracy.

In politics its Team Red vs Team Blue . Cain is on Team Red, so all those fans are going to question the motives of the women coming forth with these allegations. Not many years ago, however, when it was someone from Team Blue being accused of inappropriate behavior, there was no such doubt from Team Red. Back then it was Team Blue who believed the whole thing was a Vast Team Red conspiracy. It’s all great fun, and cable news companies love the ratings, there’s only one problem.

Politics is not sports.

Unfortunately, that’s what we’ve built it into and politicians love it. It helps them obscure the fact that they’ve run the country into the ground. Debt, war, evaporating liberties, are all swept under the rug so that our team can win the big game on election day.

Joke’s on us though because in reality, there is only one team.

By now you’ve probably seen this story today, that the Department of Agriculture was planning to impose a fifteen cent tax on live Christmas trees in order to fund a program to promote the Christmas Tree industry.

I suspect most of the spin on this story will revolve around the tax (which apparently has been suspended), but the real outrage is the notion that the federal government should be involved in promoting Christmas trees, or any industry for that matter.

With the amount of debt we’ve been racking up, wars in half a dozen spots around the world, people protesting in the streets over crony capitalism (whether they know it or not), there are people in Washington with nothing better to do than dream up a program to save Christmas trees.

Ron Paul doesn’t sound quite so nuts when he talks about closing the Department of Agriculture, does he?

Whatever you think of the Occupy protesters, there is no excuse for this:

When terrorists employ this sort of tactic, attacking someone when they try to aid an injured person, we rightfully decry their inhumanity. Why do we excuse it when done by police? There has been very little violence from any of the protesters, so why do city officials insist on deploying heavily armed personnel to attack them?

Occupy Wall St continues to proves two things: Liberals don’t know shit about economics, and that we live in a police state.

-Adam Kokesh 11.10.26

Ok, so technically it was from yesterday’s edition of Adam vs The Man