Libertarians and conservatives find themselves at odds when it comes to questions of social policy and morality. More and more I've found myself to fall squarely in the libertarian camp--perhaps to the chagrin of the conservatives I grew up with.
To me, the issue of the government's role in enforcing moral codes, should be a no-brainer to anyone who claims to believe in limited government: keep the government out. Alas, that is not what conservatives have consistently said. Rather, the Mike Huckabee GOP types are generally happy to allow the government into virtually any corner of their lives--so long as that intrusion is consistent with their own moral principles.
The obvious problem is once you draw the line in the sand for allowing the government in, you don't always get to decide the moral principles at issue--whoever wields the power you gave them gets to make that call.
There's a great example now occurring in California to demonstrate what I mean. For many years, conservatives have supported zoning laws restricting where adult-oriented businesses, bars, or other businesses with which they agree may operate. This intrusion into property rights is wholly based on moral principles, on the theory that the others in the neighborhood shouldn't be forced to live, work, or play near businesses they find morally repugnant.
So take that theory to Berkeley, California where the activists are attempting to get a measure on the ballot that would restrict the location of military recruiting offices--a type of business many residents of Berkeley find morally repugnant.
Any conservatives opposing this measure yet supporting restrictions on the location of pornographic businesses are quite frankly hypocrits--though I don't expect that to stop them.
Hat Tip to Volokh Conspiracy where I first read about this issue.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Rights vs. Power -- How did we get this far?
One of the good things that comes out of a Presidential election season and the interminable debates, speeches, spin-doctors, and overactive pundits and columnists is this sort of national time of introspection. We sort of graze the surface of a question I wish everyone would take a little more seriously: What is the proper role of government in our society?
America is not actually a true democracy (and it's a pet peeve of mine when so many in power refer to it as such); we are a constitutional republic in which we elect representatives to govern rather than directly governing ourselves (which would be democracy). The importance of this fact here is that this means the United States Constitution is the source for answering the question I've posed.
The founders deliberately chose the words of our Constitution to set forth limits on government power--the document is not one setting forth the rights the government deigns to provide us with, in fact quite the opposite. We don't look to the Constitution to find out what our rights our, we look to it to learn the limitations on government power.
This question of power vs. rights is so incredibly important, and yet utterly misunderstood today. How many times, when talking about the "right" to do X or Y, have you heard someone say, "but where do the words of the Constitution give you that right? I don't see it in the Constitution!" (this last part spoken triumphantly usually).
What hogwash! I don't need a document to give me my rights, they are mine already, endowed by my Creator.
People today seem so ... suspicious and skeptical of this concept of natural rights. As though it's somehow arrogant to proclaim that I have these rights regardless whether some government bureaucrat has given them to me.
On the flip side, however, it seems no one ever asks the opposing question about government power--where in the Constitution does the government find the authority to exercise that power to that extent or in that manner? It's as though, as a nation, we have wholly bought into the notion that the government knows best and if a group of lawmakers proclaim some new limitation on our rights, we just go along as though the mere fact that lawmakers passed the legislation validates their actions.
My great hope is that one day we'll see two things: first a revival of citizen participation so that the public actually pays attention to what legislators do--and punishes those lawmakers who take action contrary to the Constitution's limits on their power. Second, that we'd have some Judges who are more interested in actually upholding the limits found in the Constitution (you know, the thing that is their sworn duty) instead of always so pathetically looking for every possible way to avoid having to make a real decision.
America is not actually a true democracy (and it's a pet peeve of mine when so many in power refer to it as such); we are a constitutional republic in which we elect representatives to govern rather than directly governing ourselves (which would be democracy). The importance of this fact here is that this means the United States Constitution is the source for answering the question I've posed.
The founders deliberately chose the words of our Constitution to set forth limits on government power--the document is not one setting forth the rights the government deigns to provide us with, in fact quite the opposite. We don't look to the Constitution to find out what our rights our, we look to it to learn the limitations on government power.
This question of power vs. rights is so incredibly important, and yet utterly misunderstood today. How many times, when talking about the "right" to do X or Y, have you heard someone say, "but where do the words of the Constitution give you that right? I don't see it in the Constitution!" (this last part spoken triumphantly usually).
What hogwash! I don't need a document to give me my rights, they are mine already, endowed by my Creator.
People today seem so ... suspicious and skeptical of this concept of natural rights. As though it's somehow arrogant to proclaim that I have these rights regardless whether some government bureaucrat has given them to me.
On the flip side, however, it seems no one ever asks the opposing question about government power--where in the Constitution does the government find the authority to exercise that power to that extent or in that manner? It's as though, as a nation, we have wholly bought into the notion that the government knows best and if a group of lawmakers proclaim some new limitation on our rights, we just go along as though the mere fact that lawmakers passed the legislation validates their actions.
My great hope is that one day we'll see two things: first a revival of citizen participation so that the public actually pays attention to what legislators do--and punishes those lawmakers who take action contrary to the Constitution's limits on their power. Second, that we'd have some Judges who are more interested in actually upholding the limits found in the Constitution (you know, the thing that is their sworn duty) instead of always so pathetically looking for every possible way to avoid having to make a real decision.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
IT'S A GIRL!!!!
I am SOOOO EXCITED!!! for my brother, Frank, and his wife, Kristin. They are expecting their first child this June and found out yesterday it's a girl. You can read more about it here.
Getting in Shape, Step 1: loving the pain (sort of)
I mentioned in an earlier post our desire as a family to get into shape this year. That of course means losing weight, but it's also more than that. At the end of the day, our goal is to be healthy. So real exercise is a key component of our new commitment to getting in shape ... and thus we must also be prepared to love the pain that inevitably follows.
We had our first good experience in that regard yesterday when we participated in the Cave Creek Luminaria Run, in Cave Creek, AZ. John and his brother Clay participated in the 4-mile run and I did the 2-mile walk.
John and I have been exercising recently--John with neighborhood runs of 3 and 4 miles, in addition to weight training; me with elliptical training and two nights a week aerobics at church. Unfortunately, these did not prepare either of us for the actual course, which involved a number of excruciatingly painful hills.
Today, as we limped into church and hobbled around the house, though, we're proud that we both finished and did so beating our goal times. Makes it just a tiny bit easier to love that pain.
We had our first good experience in that regard yesterday when we participated in the Cave Creek Luminaria Run, in Cave Creek, AZ. John and his brother Clay participated in the 4-mile run and I did the 2-mile walk.
John and I have been exercising recently--John with neighborhood runs of 3 and 4 miles, in addition to weight training; me with elliptical training and two nights a week aerobics at church. Unfortunately, these did not prepare either of us for the actual course, which involved a number of excruciatingly painful hills.
Today, as we limped into church and hobbled around the house, though, we're proud that we both finished and did so beating our goal times. Makes it just a tiny bit easier to love that pain.
Friday, January 25, 2008
By John: Making our schools safer.
An article (hat tip to my brother Clay) on azstarnet.com (here) published today mentions the two conservative AZ legislators sponsoring a bill to allow students and teachers to carry firearms on community college and state university campuses. It’s your normal ‘conservatives are for it, liberals are against it’ article. A couple of things got my ire up though. First the quote by Representative Jack Brown D-St. Johns. “…having more people armed “causes more problems than it solves.”” How can you make a statement, as if it were fact, that’s absolutely false?!? When a public official makes a statement like this there should be a way to hold them accountable. The other idiotic quote was on the sidebar, where the paper interviewed high-school officials about being armed. Terry Downey, associate superintendent of Catalina Foothills School District said this: “I couldn’t even imagine an instance where a teacher would need a gun.” She’s got a point! Why imagine when you can see it happen on the news! Can she imagine sitting quietly at her desk while her students are being murdered?!?! Having gun free zones is the same as having seatbelt free zones; the government is ordering your children to be less safe. Kudos to Sen. Karen Johnson and Rep. Russell Pearce for at least trying to make our schools safer.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
A Flashback for Fun
One of the hats I wear is the President of the Federalist Society's Phoenix Lawyers Chapter. We host debates and panel discussions regarding legal issues throughout the year, and once a year gather as a large group in Washington D.C. for the annual convention every November.
and shortly thereafter pretty choked up. It's an amazing experience to stand in the room with these revolutionary documents, and to really appreciate what our founders fought for when they embarked on this great experiment.
Most of the time I love living in Arizona, but I occasionally do miss the east coast and its amazing explosion of color in fall. We just had to get a classic shot of Niki on a city bench. It helps, of course, that Niki is so photogenic, but I was pretty pleased with this arty shot.
Finally, one of the funnier experiences that week was late one night -- I think after the a reception with limited "real food" -- when Niki and I realized we were starving. We went to this great neighborhood pizza place and made the unfortunate mistake of ordering before we took the time to investigate exactly how big one piece of pizza would be. As you can see, our idea to share three pieces turned into a really funny picture!
This year, I had an incredible time for two reasons: 1) my good friend Niki attended with me, and 2) it was the 25th Anniversary Convention and a HUGE celebration. So I thought I'd backtrack a bit and share some of the fun from this past November.
The first major event was the annual banquet, held this year at Washington's Union Station. The Banquet featured an opening address by President Bush, as well as comments from Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, Ted Olson, and numerous other Federalist Society superstars. Quite amazing! And of course we had a lot of fun dressing up.
Niki and I also took some time out from Convention activities for a 
very important errand: a trip to the National Archives to view original copies of our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and other founding documents.
very important errand: a trip to the National Archives to view original copies of our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and other founding documents. On the left is a picture of me standing in line to see the Constitution. I'll be completely honest, I was giddy in this picture
We also took pictures outside the beautiful Archives building, and on the right, I am in front of a statue with one of my favorite quotes: "What is past is prologue" inscribed in front.
Most of the time I love living in Arizona, but I occasionally do miss the east coast and its amazing explosion of color in fall. We just had to get a classic shot of Niki on a city bench. It helps, of course, that Niki is so photogenic, but I was pretty pleased with this arty shot.Finally, one of the funnier experiences that week was late one night -- I think after the a reception with limited "real food" -- when Niki and I realized we were starving. We went to this great neighborhood pizza place and made the unfortunate mistake of ordering before we took the time to investigate exactly how big one piece of pizza would be. As you can see, our idea to share three pieces turned into a really funny picture!Other highlights of the Convention included remarks from Justice Thomas regarding his book, and the annual Barbara K. Olson lecture, this year featuring Chief Justice Roberts.
It was truely an amazing and once in a lifetime experience!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Getting Motivated
I love my job. Really. My job is all about suing government bureaucrats who are trampling individual rights--can it get any better than that?
All great things about the job aside, I've still allowed myself in recent months to fall into a bit of an uninspired work funk. Which is why I think a couple of encounters in the past week meant so much to me, and I thank God for sending me a bit of inspiration.
Last Friday, my aunt and uncle (Randy and Cindy) came to Phoenix for a visit. Actually, they had a trip from Las Cruces to Tucson planned, and incorporated a detour through Phoenix to visit us (kind of humbling, that's a heck of a detour!). The visit started with a tour of our house and, importantly, of our yard. You see, Randy and Cindy are horticulturists with years of experience with landscaping and, well, plants of all kinds. John and I love our little compound with it's cozy backyard, but we have no real idea what all the vegetation is (okay, so we figured out the lemon tree when it burst forth with about 1,000 lemons).
I don't know how much time we spent going through stuff in the backyard, but the thing that stuck with us the most is how much Randy and Cindy both just totally love this stuff. As they considered various plants to give advice on pruning and so forth, both just had the most fun gleam in their eyes--they both seemed to really enjoy the process of figuring out the different plants, how they could best be maximized for our enjoyment, and what ideas we could incorporate in the future.
As John put it, in ten minutes talking about our lemon tree, Randy taught us so very many things we weren't even aware we didn't know, and more importantly made us excited about learning more as we continue working with our yard.
Such an inspiration to really live out loving your career.
This lesson continued Monday and Tuesday this week when I had the chance to join a colleague, Clark Neily, in Austin, TX for a hearing in a case we are working together. Clark is sort of a super attorney in my office. I think our site says he has a "black belt in litigation" and how true is that. I work with a group of people that are just...amazing, really. Beyond what you could imagine for a group of lawyers, that is for sure. And I'm sure this story would apply to many of them, but this week I really saw in Clark the same thing we saw in Randy and Cindy: a passionate enjoyment for his work that makes the inconveniences and difficulties of life trivial.
In a matter of weeks, Clark had four MAJOR cases with very significant activity: next week is a trial in one case so he has had to work trial prep; on Tuesday in Austin, he had hearings in two separate additional cases, and he had to argue both; finally, he is part of a three-man team currently briefing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. To say Clark is busy is like suggesting that the temperature in Hell is above average.
Yet throughout our time in Austin, I never saw Clark act burdened or over-stressed. Rather, he took time out of a very limited schedule to enjoy a long dinner with clients--answering questions, getting to know them better--and after the hearing to answer any and all questions from other interior designers who attended the hearing.
All of this because Clark not only loves his job, he LOVES his job--he revels in the opportunities we have as IJ attorneys to really make a difference in the world. And he does not let anything get in the way of that passion.
These experiences have both inspired and shamed me. Inspired me toward the public interest attorney I want to be, and shamed me that I haven't worked harder to get there already. Most of all, I know deep down that so much of motivation is about deciding to get motivated--and not waiting around for something to happen.
So here's to getting motivated in 2008!
All great things about the job aside, I've still allowed myself in recent months to fall into a bit of an uninspired work funk. Which is why I think a couple of encounters in the past week meant so much to me, and I thank God for sending me a bit of inspiration.
Last Friday, my aunt and uncle (Randy and Cindy) came to Phoenix for a visit. Actually, they had a trip from Las Cruces to Tucson planned, and incorporated a detour through Phoenix to visit us (kind of humbling, that's a heck of a detour!). The visit started with a tour of our house and, importantly, of our yard. You see, Randy and Cindy are horticulturists with years of experience with landscaping and, well, plants of all kinds. John and I love our little compound with it's cozy backyard, but we have no real idea what all the vegetation is (okay, so we figured out the lemon tree when it burst forth with about 1,000 lemons).
I don't know how much time we spent going through stuff in the backyard, but the thing that stuck with us the most is how much Randy and Cindy both just totally love this stuff. As they considered various plants to give advice on pruning and so forth, both just had the most fun gleam in their eyes--they both seemed to really enjoy the process of figuring out the different plants, how they could best be maximized for our enjoyment, and what ideas we could incorporate in the future.
As John put it, in ten minutes talking about our lemon tree, Randy taught us so very many things we weren't even aware we didn't know, and more importantly made us excited about learning more as we continue working with our yard.
Such an inspiration to really live out loving your career.
This lesson continued Monday and Tuesday this week when I had the chance to join a colleague, Clark Neily, in Austin, TX for a hearing in a case we are working together. Clark is sort of a super attorney in my office. I think our site says he has a "black belt in litigation" and how true is that. I work with a group of people that are just...amazing, really. Beyond what you could imagine for a group of lawyers, that is for sure. And I'm sure this story would apply to many of them, but this week I really saw in Clark the same thing we saw in Randy and Cindy: a passionate enjoyment for his work that makes the inconveniences and difficulties of life trivial.
In a matter of weeks, Clark had four MAJOR cases with very significant activity: next week is a trial in one case so he has had to work trial prep; on Tuesday in Austin, he had hearings in two separate additional cases, and he had to argue both; finally, he is part of a three-man team currently briefing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. To say Clark is busy is like suggesting that the temperature in Hell is above average.
Yet throughout our time in Austin, I never saw Clark act burdened or over-stressed. Rather, he took time out of a very limited schedule to enjoy a long dinner with clients--answering questions, getting to know them better--and after the hearing to answer any and all questions from other interior designers who attended the hearing.
All of this because Clark not only loves his job, he LOVES his job--he revels in the opportunities we have as IJ attorneys to really make a difference in the world. And he does not let anything get in the way of that passion.
These experiences have both inspired and shamed me. Inspired me toward the public interest attorney I want to be, and shamed me that I haven't worked harder to get there already. Most of all, I know deep down that so much of motivation is about deciding to get motivated--and not waiting around for something to happen.
So here's to getting motivated in 2008!
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Family Time
Yesterday was a classic and fun Perkins family day. We spent the morning watching my nephew Logan and niece Kaitlyn play flag football. They are part of an NFL sponsored league; right now Logan (coached by dad Cole) plays with the Colts and Kaitlyn with the Buccaneers.
It's always fun for me to watch John with any kids, but particularly Kaitlyn and Logan who just love their Uncle John. The feeling is mutual, of course, and John always loves to spend special time with each of them.
Yesterday he spent some time catching up on all the important things in Kaitlyn's life before the inevitable wrestling match with Logan. 
Family time wouldn't be complete without baby Emily, Clay and Jenny's little one.
Especially fun is watching Clay "airplane" Emily up and down the side of the playing field when she gets a bit restless.
Definitely a great Perkins family day!
Friday, January 11, 2008
Campaign briefing
I promised a while ago to post about other candidates, having been pretty open about my concerns with Huckabee. I've decided to go ahead and give the very short version of my concerns with the major GOP candidates. Any of them sparking interest I may get more in depth with later on.
John McCain: I don't trust the main, that's point number one. He has not proved a reliable conservative or libertarian vote in Congress and I don't believe he is really principled. Further, everyone I know that has worked with him on Capitol Hill has a story about his volatile temper. When McCain is upset, the story goes, his nastiness is legendary and the staff is forced to keep apology notes on hand at all times. Don't want this guy with "the button" nearby when he gets a little cranky.
Beyond these issues, is the biggest--it's got his name on it: McCain-Feingold, one of the worst pieces of legislation in history for paring back First Amendment rights. Worst, he passed this incumbent-protection act to "get money out of politics" only after his wife's family money got him elected. Of course.
Mitt Romney: Mr. Romney does have more business experience, a good thing, but his record as Governor is pretty dang liberal on a normal scale. We are told he was simply having to work with a very liberal state legislature and did the best he could. Most pundits predict the next President will face the same kind of Congress, so I'm looking for someone like a Gary Johnson who, in the face of an overwhelming Dem majority in the state legislature still set records for number of bills he vetoed, and took a hard line on key fiscal issues.
Candidly, Mr. Romney's Mormanism also scares me a little. The Romney family--from all I've heard, but have not personally verified--is not just involved in the Mormon church, they are heavily involved and invested in the leadership of the church. That scares me.
Fred Thompson: Candidly I haven't spent a great deal of time researching Fred Thompson, and I know some people I really respect that support him. Because he was instrumental in helping pass McCain-Feingold, he's off my list as an anti-First Amendment candidate. (I've heard he's changed his position here, but never seen anything to substantiate that).
NOTE: Thompson doesn't appear in my poll because for some reason that button didn't appear (I did include it originally). I can't edit it now, but apparently not a big deal since I've never heard from a Thompson supporter about it.
Rudy Giuliani: Basically I just don't trust that Rudy has a conservative or libertarian philosophy. Reason has a long story detailing his history that did not give me more comfort with him. Further, this quote scares the heck out of me: "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it." 1994 speech by then-Mayor Giuliani.
John McCain: I don't trust the main, that's point number one. He has not proved a reliable conservative or libertarian vote in Congress and I don't believe he is really principled. Further, everyone I know that has worked with him on Capitol Hill has a story about his volatile temper. When McCain is upset, the story goes, his nastiness is legendary and the staff is forced to keep apology notes on hand at all times. Don't want this guy with "the button" nearby when he gets a little cranky.
Beyond these issues, is the biggest--it's got his name on it: McCain-Feingold, one of the worst pieces of legislation in history for paring back First Amendment rights. Worst, he passed this incumbent-protection act to "get money out of politics" only after his wife's family money got him elected. Of course.
Mitt Romney: Mr. Romney does have more business experience, a good thing, but his record as Governor is pretty dang liberal on a normal scale. We are told he was simply having to work with a very liberal state legislature and did the best he could. Most pundits predict the next President will face the same kind of Congress, so I'm looking for someone like a Gary Johnson who, in the face of an overwhelming Dem majority in the state legislature still set records for number of bills he vetoed, and took a hard line on key fiscal issues.
Candidly, Mr. Romney's Mormanism also scares me a little. The Romney family--from all I've heard, but have not personally verified--is not just involved in the Mormon church, they are heavily involved and invested in the leadership of the church. That scares me.
Fred Thompson: Candidly I haven't spent a great deal of time researching Fred Thompson, and I know some people I really respect that support him. Because he was instrumental in helping pass McCain-Feingold, he's off my list as an anti-First Amendment candidate. (I've heard he's changed his position here, but never seen anything to substantiate that).
NOTE: Thompson doesn't appear in my poll because for some reason that button didn't appear (I did include it originally). I can't edit it now, but apparently not a big deal since I've never heard from a Thompson supporter about it.
Rudy Giuliani: Basically I just don't trust that Rudy has a conservative or libertarian philosophy. Reason has a long story detailing his history that did not give me more comfort with him. Further, this quote scares the heck out of me: "Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it." 1994 speech by then-Mayor Giuliani.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Scary story for today
WorldNetDaily has a story today (hat tip Radley Balko at Reason) that scares the living daylights out of me. Essentially, an 11-year-old boy fell while horsing around with his sister and bonked his head pretty good. His family determined he was fine, but a neighbor called paramedics anyway, and things spiraled from there. Ultimately, a magistrate ordered the Sheriff to go and get the boy, and the Sheriff certainly complied:
It's one thing to disagree with someone's political or governing philosophy. It's quite another to use it as a justification for this kind of insanity.
So why the lack of deference to the family's judgment? Apparently their politics weren't quite right:Nearly a dozen members of a police SWAT team in western Colorado punched a hole in the front door and invaded a family's home with guns drawn, demanding that an 11-year-old boy who had had an accidental fall accompany them to the hospital, on the order of Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak.
The boy's parents and siblings were thrown to the floor at gunpoint and the parents were handcuffed in the weekend assault, and the boy's father told WND it was all because a paramedic was upset the family preferred to care for their son themselves.
The sheriff said the decision to use SWAT team force was justified because the father was a "self-proclaimed constitutionalist" and had made threats and "comments" over the years.
However, the sheriff declined to provide a single instance of the father's illegal behavior. "I can't tell you specifically," he said.
It's one thing to disagree with someone's political or governing philosophy. It's quite another to use it as a justification for this kind of insanity.
A bit of a downer
For those who haven't seen it yet, The New Republic posted what many are calling a devastating article about Ron Paul today. To sum up, beginning in 1978 and for about 15 years or more a newsletter went out under Ron Paul's name and multiple issues of the newsletter contained incendiary statements that were anti-black, anti-gay, or anti-Israel as well as paranoid conspiracy theories.
As I understand it, these statements came up in a previous campaign for Congress, at which time Dr. Paul repudiated them, claiming that although the newsletters bore his name he did not draft or even read the content most of the time. He did "accept moral responsibility" for allowing these to be published with his name at this earlier time.
Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't believe Dr. Paul himself wrote or ascribes to the statements made. The problem as I see it is twofold. First, clearly he knew these issues were out there and could have taken pre-emptive action to explain and innoculate against the impact of an article like TNR's. Not only didn't he do that, but after the article posted today the campaign initially failed to respond and Dr. Paul's comments to a friendly face at Reason were less than helpful. He has since issued a short, formal public statement, and I suppose time will tell whether that is sufficient.
Second, and of more concern to me, assuming I'm correct and Dr. Paul doesn't espouse any of these views from his newsletters, what does it say about his judgment that he let them be posted in his name--not just once or twice but apparently with at least some regularity over a span of more than a decade?
The thing that excited me most about Dr. Paul's candidacy was that he was inspiring so many people--in particular young people--to care about the issues I personally hold so dear in the policy realm: personal responsibility, individual liberty, and dedication to these principles in our Constitution. He has engaged a whole new generation in discussing what is the proper role for the government.
My hope now is that whatever happens with this story it does not derail the excitement over these issues, that others continue to fight for them.
Anyone interested in this issue, I suggest you check out the Hit and Run blog page at Reason.com for various posts.
As I understand it, these statements came up in a previous campaign for Congress, at which time Dr. Paul repudiated them, claiming that although the newsletters bore his name he did not draft or even read the content most of the time. He did "accept moral responsibility" for allowing these to be published with his name at this earlier time.
Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't believe Dr. Paul himself wrote or ascribes to the statements made. The problem as I see it is twofold. First, clearly he knew these issues were out there and could have taken pre-emptive action to explain and innoculate against the impact of an article like TNR's. Not only didn't he do that, but after the article posted today the campaign initially failed to respond and Dr. Paul's comments to a friendly face at Reason were less than helpful. He has since issued a short, formal public statement, and I suppose time will tell whether that is sufficient.
Second, and of more concern to me, assuming I'm correct and Dr. Paul doesn't espouse any of these views from his newsletters, what does it say about his judgment that he let them be posted in his name--not just once or twice but apparently with at least some regularity over a span of more than a decade?
The thing that excited me most about Dr. Paul's candidacy was that he was inspiring so many people--in particular young people--to care about the issues I personally hold so dear in the policy realm: personal responsibility, individual liberty, and dedication to these principles in our Constitution. He has engaged a whole new generation in discussing what is the proper role for the government.
My hope now is that whatever happens with this story it does not derail the excitement over these issues, that others continue to fight for them.
Anyone interested in this issue, I suggest you check out the Hit and Run blog page at Reason.com for various posts.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Huckabee: the man for the religious left
I didn't say it, David Sanders did at OpinionJournal.com. Good piece.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Caucusing Craziness
So I've been glued to the Reason blog and Politico website to track the Iowans silliness. I have to admit I'm disappointed. I harbored a deep hope that the pollsters were missing a significant undercurrent of Ron Paul support. Clearly that was not the case.
On the bright side, he's still holding relatively strong with just under 10%. That's a pretty darn good showing for such a non-mainstream, relatively unknown still candidate.
Other good news is that Thompson made a good showing as well. I'll take time later to talk about my problems with him (primarily his anti-First Amendment stance on campaign "reform" laws). Having said that, he's better than most others on general philosophy of government.
Interesting news is that Romney got spanked. He spent $300 million in Iowa (okay, that's hyperbole, it was more like $7 million--still a great deal more than the others) and came a pretty distant second. We'll have to watch closely how, if at all, this affects his NH operation.
Which brings us to the bad news: the relative number of Iowans swallowing the Huckabee line. Very disappointing. The thing is, it seems the majority of his support is just on the singular basis that he used to be a preacher. Yet so few of these supporters actually look into what he believes about the issues he would have to decide as President. THAT is a major disappointment.
One final plus side: it actually was fun to spend a few minutes watching C-SPAN live at the caucuses where there were all these people excited to be a part of the process. We have a pretty amazing country and system--disappointment in the candidate field of this particular year aside, we should be at least a little excited to participate in the process of choosing our government.
Go figure, a libertarian-leaning GOPer who's a political system optimist during the 2008 election season.
On the bright side, he's still holding relatively strong with just under 10%. That's a pretty darn good showing for such a non-mainstream, relatively unknown still candidate.
Other good news is that Thompson made a good showing as well. I'll take time later to talk about my problems with him (primarily his anti-First Amendment stance on campaign "reform" laws). Having said that, he's better than most others on general philosophy of government.
Interesting news is that Romney got spanked. He spent $300 million in Iowa (okay, that's hyperbole, it was more like $7 million--still a great deal more than the others) and came a pretty distant second. We'll have to watch closely how, if at all, this affects his NH operation.
Which brings us to the bad news: the relative number of Iowans swallowing the Huckabee line. Very disappointing. The thing is, it seems the majority of his support is just on the singular basis that he used to be a preacher. Yet so few of these supporters actually look into what he believes about the issues he would have to decide as President. THAT is a major disappointment.
One final plus side: it actually was fun to spend a few minutes watching C-SPAN live at the caucuses where there were all these people excited to be a part of the process. We have a pretty amazing country and system--disappointment in the candidate field of this particular year aside, we should be at least a little excited to participate in the process of choosing our government.
Go figure, a libertarian-leaning GOPer who's a political system optimist during the 2008 election season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)