Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

May 29, 2007

Another great Libertarian song

Long Haired Country Boy by the Charlie Daniels Band:

"Cus I ain't asking nobody for nothing,
it I can't get it on my own,
if you don't like the way I'm living,
you just leave this Long Haired Country Boy alone."

Posted by NormSingleton at 09:07 PM | Comments (0)

What's in a name?

Monica Goodling's appearance before the House Judiciary Committee last week inspired the blog Political Arithmetic to dig out the figures showing a dramatic drop in the popularity of the name Monica in the late nineties when, as you might recall, another Monica was in the DC spotlight. I wonder if there was a corresponding drop in parents naming their children "Richard" after Watergate, and if the phenomenon extends beyond politics. For example, will recent events cause a drop in the number of girls named Lindsey, Brittney, or Paris?

Posted by NormSingleton at 08:44 PM | Comments (0)

May 26, 2007

Why do libertarians eat their own?

No, I'm not talking about whacko's like Eric Dondero. He's been discredited for so long that he's irrelevant and believes in limited government to about the same extent as does Hillary Clinton.

I'm talking instead about important libertarian organizations like the Cato Institute which seems to have a problem giving Ron Paul a fair shake. (Check out the May 4 podcast by Michael Tanner and his comments here, and to a lesser extent, the May 16 podcast here in which David Boaz implies that Paul's candidacy has "imploded."

I'm not saying that any organization or think tank that leans libertarian has to embrace everything Ron Paul has to say, but the fact is that if anyone at Cato really cares about the size and scope of government, their first priority needs to be preventing war in Iran and getting our troops out of Iraq, and soon.

Ron Paul is the only conservative candidate that also opposes the war and supports the limited government version Cato espouses. The rest of the Republican candidates (Giuliani in particular) haven't got a clue about the interplay between constant war and the growth of government.

Hopefully the folks at Cato will recognize that right now foreign policy is the most important battle being waged by libertarians at the moment. Only time will tell.

Posted by PaulGessing at 05:37 PM | Comments (0)

May 25, 2007

Did Rudy "Win"?

Frequent commenter Erid Dondero writes a letter to TFL suggesting that Rudy Giuliani "won" the last debate.

On some levels, it's hard to disagree. Watching the tape, certainly Giuliani got the most enthusiastic response from the crowd. But was it grandstanding by the Hero of 9/11? And has Dr. Paul used this event to begin a dialog about our nation's overall foreign policy?

Yes, of course to both questions.

Personally, I'd like to see Dr. Paul make his points more crisply, but, fundamentally, he has been effective in recasting the Iraq War in a more meaningful context. I'd like to see him clearly state that of course 9/11's perpetrators were a vicious, despicable act, one that should be stopped. Hunting down bin Laden and al Qaeda to thwart future 9/11s is well within the bounds of national defense. The US should do so...vigorously.

But that's not what Iraq is all about. It was, quite simply, an overreaction, yet another poke at a hornet's nest that is the Middle East. The concept of "blowback" is vital to understanding the world stage, IMO, and Dr. Paul is educating the once pro-peace (more or less) GOP faithful on this point.

Someone's got to speak the truth, and we should be pleased that Dr. Paul is giving it his best shot.

-Robert Capozzi

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 07:14 AM | Comments (0)

May 22, 2007

Fly in the Ointment?

Thus far, few seem enthusiastic about the "leading" R or D presidential candidates. All of them have major flaws for both their party's base and general electorate.

We seem to live in post-traumatic times, when the nation -- while still prosperous -- does not know what it stands for. The Iraq quagmire, once sold as a cakewalk, feels more and more like Vietnam revisited.

Few pols speak their minds, opting for poll-driven calibration for debating points that amount to nothing. Nothing changes, not even trends. Our politics are Balkanized.

So this development seems especially interesting. Hagel/Bloomberg or Bloomberg/Hagel has the potential to schism the moribund GOP especially. Real, well-spoken pros with a lot of cash makes the Perot phenomenon seem like the opening act for a major shift.

It could be that today's dull political landscape is merely the eye of the storm.

Stay tuned.

- Robert Capozzi

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 11:55 AM | Comments (0)

May 17, 2007

Stepping In It

I agree with my colleague, Paul Gessing, that Dr. Paul's point about "blowback" helps to explain a lot of the motivation for the 9/11 attacks.

However, given the nature of these debates, I'd suggest Dr. Paul stay on message more. He careens around, and leaves himself vulnerable to Giuliani's obvious misrepresentation. The point, IMO, is:

1) Iraq was a mistake.
2) Afghanistan, suppressing al Qaeda, and finding bin Laden should be the government's focus. We've taken our eye off the ball.
3) The CIA, the 9/11 Commission and others repeatedly confirm that US foreign policy has "blowback." The US's interventionist ways have made us less safe, not more, by engendering hostility in the Islamic world. We should not let 9/11 go unresponded to, but we do need to ask some very basic questions about the US role in the world. We need to stop the extremists -- forcefully -- but we need to be measured and mature about that.

Or something.

-Robert Capozzi

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 07:47 AM | Comments (1)

May 16, 2007

Ron Paul-Giuliani Exchange on War

This video that I mentioned in my blog posting of yesterday is a treasure. So rarely are the points Dr. Paul makes ever placed before the public.

Posted by PaulGessing at 12:17 PM | Comments (0)

May 15, 2007

Ron Paul Stands Up for Reality in Republican Debate

Just watched part of the Republican debate and saw the rather intense discussion of US foreign policy. I simply do not understand how Giuliani and the rest of the Republican contenders -- not to mention much of the audience -- believe that the US can do whatever it wants overseas with zero impact or "blowback." Ron Paul is exactly correct when he asks how we'd react if China set up military bases on US soil or in the Gulf of Mexico. Given the xenophobia displayed by most of the Republicans in the field, I doubt they'd be too keen on any other country weilding that kind of influence here.

Did US foreign policies "cause 9/11?" The terrorists didn't attack New Zealand or Switzerland, did they? Sure, they may have happened anyway, but with the level of anger towards us throughout the Middle East over our perpetual meddling in their affairs, isn't it time we tried something different?

Posted by PaulGessing at 10:55 PM | Comments (1)

May 14, 2007

Ron Paul's Goldwater Moment

Justin Raimondo has an excellent column discussing the influence Ron Paul's principled ideas will have in the campaign for President. The fact is that no matter who ultimately prevails in the election, the Republican Party must embrace a more modest foreign policy, fiscal restraint, and respect for the Constitution.

The Bush years have transformed the Party into the political party that is dedicated to making government bigger. Libertarians are starting to vote for Democrats more often simply because they are not Republicans and absent Ron Paul, there is very little to appeal to libertarians among the Republicans.

Posted by PaulGessing at 12:39 AM | Comments (0)

May 08, 2007

The Inflation Tax

While I'm not terribly concerned about inflation and the Federal Reserve in the short run, those who are may find this amusing:

http://www.theuniverseas.com/inflate2.html

-Robert Capozzi

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 09:16 AM | Comments (0)

May 07, 2007

Ron Paul Revolution

A group of Ron Paul fans in Arizona started putting up Ron Paul Revolution signs. The signs are showing up across the country, popping up in unlikely places such as at John McCain's official announcement of his candidacy. The folks behind the Ron Paul Revolution have no official connection to the campaign, and are not getting paid for their efforts. They are liberty-loving Americans who want to help get the word out about the only true peace-and-freedom Presidential candidate.

One problem the mainstream media has in covering Dr. Paul is they are used to modern campaigns spending millions on pollsters, consultants, and "grassroots organizers" to create the illusion that have an army of passionate supporters. Thus, the media simply cannot comprehend that Dr. Paul's success on the Internet is not driven by DC-based consultants but by people responding to Dr. Paul's principled libertarian message.

Posted by NormSingleton at 10:21 PM | Comments (1)

New Media and Mike Gravel

With Ron Paul and Mike Gravel having each won their first debates, it will be interesting to see how they sustain their initial momentum. Despite campaign finance laws that make things ever more difficult for "outsiders", the internet continues to become a bigger factor in political campaigns. So far, Gravel has built on his early success. Thank goodness for the internet!

Posted by PaulGessing at 09:34 PM | Comments (0)

The GOP's Rodney Dangerfield

It is widely-acknowledged that Ron Paul won the first Republican debate. To be fair, it would have been hard for Dr. Paul not to win. All he had to say was "I was against the Iraq War from the very beginning" and watch the rest of the field stumble all over themselves trying to explain why they not only supported the war at the beginning, but continue to support this failed intervention.

That said, Chuck Muth -- a libertarian-leaning conservative -- explains why the rest of the Republican field should pay close attention to what Dr. Paul is saying about bringing the GOP back to its small-government roots.

Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, basing your ideas on principles is a welcome change from current politics as usual.

Posted by PaulGessing at 12:54 PM | Comments (0)

May 02, 2007

Latest Bush Concept: Loyalty Day!

Leave it up to the Bush Administration which has done more to overstep the Constitution and drive average Americans to a deep and abiding suspicion of government than any in memory (even Nixon) to come up with a concept like "Loyalty Day."

Setting aside the specifics of such a day, I find it quite appropriate that the day we are to have expressed our loyalty to the state is May 1 or Mayday in the rest of the world is the most important day of the year for socialists and a day that for decades was a favorite of the Soviet Union. Stalin would have loved "Loyalty Day."

Hopefully future "Loyalty Days" will not have to be celebrated with any loyalty oaths or salutes.

Posted by PaulGessing at 08:08 PM | Comments (0)

Strange Bedfellows

Here's a hoot: Semi-libertarian conservative columnist Bruce Bartlett is calling for right-wingers to support Hillary.

Bartlett's been around longer than I, but his logic escapes me. A former aide to Jack Kemp, Bartlett suggests that the GOP will lose the White House, no matter what. That may well be appropriate karmic payback for 8 painful years of Bush/Cheney, but it seems hardly a fait accompli. As an independent observer, it appears to me that all the top GOP candidates have more gravitas than all the top D candidates. And, if Fred Thompson gets in the race, I suspect he would crush any Democrat, even Al Gore.

(Of course, I'd prefer TFL columnist Ron Paul to catch fire, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.)

Where Bartlett perplexes me is this notion that no GOP can win, so support a D. I suppose if one gets pleasure from voting like handicapping horses, that's one thing. But, if Bartlett's still a Republican, he should probably support one, UNLESS none sufficiently reflect his values. It appears NONE of the Democrats do it for him, so he seems to have an odd methodology:

1) Figure out which party is likely to win.
2) Then figure out which candidate in that party he finds least objectionable.

It takes all kinds, but I find this thinking tortured.

I still maintain that Hillary is almost completely unelectable. Her baggage is made of titanium, filled with lead. If she were to get nominated and win, we definitely could do worse than how her husband ran the Oval Office. My sense, however, is she's far more interested in economic intervention than Bill was. Recently, she suggested "taking" some of ExxonMobiil's profits.

For me, 'nuff said.

-Robert Capozzi

Posted by RobertCapozzi at 11:15 AM | Comments (0)

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



supportus.png

If you enjoy our site or our print publication, please consider making a contribution today!


SIMPLE AD ERROR VIEW COUNT NOT UPDATED
Advertisement


Return to the Free Liberal Homepage


Subscribe to our list:


About the Free Liberal
The Free Liberal is an independent journal of transpartisan thought.

The views expressed herein are those of the writers individually and not necessarily those of the Free Liberal, the Center for Liberty and Community, or its board of directors.