Professional Jealousy

Because Glenn Beck had the foresight to get out in front of an anti-government movement that does not fall neatly along left-right lines, movement conservatives are lashing out at him:

Beck added that McCain would be worse than Obama:

"I think John McCain would have been worse — [laughs] How about this? I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama. How’s that?"

Beck’s opinion elicited a fierce and angry response from right-wing radio host Mark Levin yesterday. “To say [McCain] would be worse is mindless, mindless, incoherent as a matter of fact,” Levin said on his radio show. He then suggested Beck is playing politics: “I don’t know who people are playing to. I don’t know why they’re playing to certain people.”

Levin never mentions Beck by name (he refers to Beck as “the 5 pm’er” because Beck’s show airs at 5 pm on Fox News). He concluded with this final dig at Beck:

"I think there’s enormous confusion and positioning and pandering. It may be entertaining, but from my perspective, it’s not. It’s pathetic."

Levin's right, to an extent. Beck has no coherent worldview, and his de facto leadership of the Ron Paul movement - which he came to very suddenly after expressing contempt for it - is nothing short of opportunistic. And it's killing his competition - Joe Scarborough, Peter Wehner, The American Spectator, even Rush Limbaugh. They're jealous of his attention, his opinion leadership. The fact that the knives came out after the TIME cover story is not coincidental.

But there's something a little more interesting at work. While Beck is a mess from an intellectual standpoint, and his bashing of Republicans is little more than cover, at least a part of the movement he's positioned himself at the front of doesn't have a worldview that falls into any ideological box. Sure, corporate forces aligned with the movement GOP are trying to co-opt it and steer it to business-friendly ends, and the protest audience is as variegated as any would be on the left. But there's an element in there that is not easily defined:

In one important sense, the "tea party" movement is similar to the Obama campaign for "change": it stays sufficiently vague and unspecific to enable everyone to read into what they want, so that people with fundamentally irreconcilable views believe they're part of the same movement.

But all that said, there are some identifiable -- and plainly valid -- underlying causes to these protests that are neither Republican nor Democratic, or even left or right. That's when conventional political language ceases to be useful.

Is opposition to the Wall Street bailout (supported by both parties' establishments) left or right? How about the view that Washington is inherently corrupt and beholden to the richest corporate interests and banks which, through lobbyist influence and vast financial contributions, own and control our political system? Is hostility towards Beltway elites liberal or conservative? Is opposition to the Surveillance State and endless expansions of federal police powers a view of liberals (who vehemently opposed such measures during the Bush era but now sometimes support or at least tolerate them) or conservatives (some of whom -- the Ron Paul faction -- objected just as vigorously, and naturally oppose such things regardless of who is in power as transgressions of the proper limits of government)? Liberals during the Bush era continuously complained about the doubling of the national debt, a central concern of many of these "tea party" protesters. Is the belief that Washington politicians are destroying the economic security of the middle class, while the rich grow richer, a liberal or conservative view? Opposition to endless wars and bankruptcy-inducing imperial policy generally finds as much expression among certain quarters on the Right as it does on the Left.

I don't think, in the end, that it's supposed to make sense. Politics has a tribal component and is waged much like sports fans wage their battles against one another. There will always be a sizable audience for a polemicist, whether viewed as partisan or non-partisan, especially when his or her attacks always seem to fall on the Democratic occupant of the White House. But I think Beck's unpredictability, as well as his reaches into the depths of wingnuttery - wait until the Christian conservatives figure out Beck chose to be a Mormon - frighten the establishment in the GOP. They tolerate him when he's whipping up a frenzy against Obama, but he could just as easily call to break up the banks - whatever he thinks will make him a ratings point - and suddenly the clean ideological lines break down.

Now, if there was a coherent Democratic Party which would argue for the virtues of government and its role as a protector of individual liberty, equality of opportunity and the common good, the ideologies of the parties would be a little cleaner, and the DC establishment wouldn't be such an inviting target. In a way, Democrats have brought this on themselves. They invented a Glenn Beck by failing to make the case for government themselves. And as a result, distrust of government is rising.

Beck's Changing Rhetoric

Mitt Romney went to the Values Voters Summit and slammed the bailouts this weekend, after offering them support not just at the time, but at the Conservative Political Action Conference back in February.

So what. Mitt Romney flip-flopped on an issue? Call the Guinness people, I think he's actually set the record now.

No, the real interesting trip down memory lane today is that Glenn Beck favored the bailouts a year ago, when TARP was being debated in Congress:

But these are anything but normal times. I thought about it an awful lot this weekend, and while it takes everything in me to say this, I think the bailout is the right thing do.

The “REAL STORY” is the $700 billion that you’re hearing about now is not only, I believe, necessary, it is also not nearly enough, and all of the weasels in Washington know it.

Now THAT is an interesting reversal. Before his appearance on Fox News and in everyone's hearts, Beck ran a Morning Zoo-type radio show and had an unremarkable stint on CNN Headline News. He certainly hadn't latched on to any wave of discontent with federal spending or libertarian economic theories. He repeatedly called Ron Paul "a crackpot on so many issues" and prefaced every discussion of him by saying "I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything--not by a long shot." Here's Beck calling Ron Paul supporters terrorists:



"It's really not the way I would go, tying in my movement with a historical terrorist attack, especially in post-9/11 America."

This is the guy who put together a rally on September the 12th.

Beck saw a movement stirring on the furthest reaches of the right and got out in front of it. Before that he was pretty firmly behind his President in bailing out the top banks.

The difference is that now, the political energy on the right is with the teabaggers, and it makes sense to Beck to capitalize on that energy. But he has nothing approaching a coherent worldview. Whatever gets the most eyeballs.

I really hope that libertarians take a look at the guy who has appointed himself the public face of their movement.

...Here's a Paul supporter video that has the very clips of Beck supporting the bailout:



... This is amusing, Beck claimed on his show today that he hated Bush for those bailouts which he initially supported. I think this shows that the truth about his changing stories is coming out and he's trying to pre-empt the criticism.

Auditing the Fed Coming To Pass?

I got a hold of some video of that infamous Barney Frank town hall meeting, where he asked the Larouchie holding the Obama-as-Hitler sign, "On what planet do you spend most of your time." Turns out that a not-nearly-as-crazy questioner asked Frank about HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve, which has bailed out the banks for hundreds of billions of dollars under a virtual cover of secrecy. Frank said he supported the audit and promised to pass it by October. He also vowed to curtail the kind of lending power that allowed the Fed to float $80 billion dollars to AIG, and said that the Consumer Financial Protection Agency would curtail the Fed's power by taking the consumer protection elements of their mandate away from them.



There are now at least 282 co-sponsors to audit the Fed, on a bipartisan basis, mostly because people just want these world-historical interventions in the economy to come with some transparency. Frank, who talked about this effort to the Boston Globe the other day, appears sincere in meeting this goal. The economic powers in the Obama Administration really don't want any part of this, saying that "You want to keep politics out of monetary policy," but this isn't really about politics but about giving the public a sense of what they're paying for on a daily basis. The Federal Reserve just lost a lawsuit that will require more disclosure about the emergency deals they have cut. If Barney Frank and Ron Paul are getting together on this, I think the tide is turning.

Duly Noted

Ron Paul's son, who is considering a Senate run in Kentucky, is named Rand.

Bring On The Privateers

Ron Paul has a supa-awsom plan to stop piracy off the Somalian coast - Hessians! Fuckin' Rambo armed to the teeth Hessians!

A little-known congressional power could help the federal government keep the Somali pirates in check — and possibly do it for a discount price.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and a growing number of national security experts are calling on Congress to consider using letters of marque and reprisal, a power written into the Constitution that allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe.

Used heavily during the Revolution and the War of 1812, letters of marque serve as official warrants from the government, allowing privateers to seize or destroy enemies, their loot and their vessels in exchange for bounty money.

The letters also require would-be thrill seekers to post a bond promising to abide by international rules of war.

We're supposed to dangle money as a kind of X Prize to get mercenaries to do the work of the foreign policy apparatus? Because private military contractors in Iraq worked out so well? And isn't Ron Paul the guy who doesn't want the federal treasury spending one penny?

Aha, but he has a cunning plan. You see, the privateers would get to keep the treasure they get from the pirates. That sweet, sweet treasure.

But privateering was essentially government licensed piracy. Say, we're at war with the French. Congress gives me a letter of marque and then I have the US government's permission to go out and capture French ships on the high seas. I then bring the French ship back to a 'prize court' and if everything's in order, it's mine and I get to sell it [...]

Now, there are a few problems with this. But here's the big one. Are you going to fit out a a group of small armed warships in order to vie for the chance of bringing in and being able to sell off some inflatable motor boats piloted by a few Somali 'pirates'? Maybe you could even sell one of their outboard motors on Craiglist?

Now, this think tank conservative from the Competitive Enterprise Institute recognizes that the pirates have no treasure, and they would have to be subsidized with bountys (which I'm sure would result in a very competitive bidding process). But he thinks it's a snappy idea anyway!

“If we have 100 American wanna-be Rambos patrolling the seas, it’s probably a good way of getting the job done,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow and security expert Eli Lehrer. “Right now we have a Navy designed mostly to fight other navies. The weapons we have are all excellent, but they may not be the best ones to fight these kinds of pirates. The only cost under letters of marque would be some sort of bounty for the pirates.”

This is the same type of corporate lobbyist trying desperately to get Robert Gates to keep the military budget bloated and focused on massive weaponry, even though the challenges of the 21st-century are increasingly failed states and pirates.

Conservative logic is so convoluted it makes my head hurt. But I gather that Ron Paul actually believes this stuff. He thinks the "free market" has a better chance of stopping pirates than actually addressing the root causes of piracy.

Remember, he got more votes than Rudy Giuliani, and he kicked off this tea party movement.

CA Campaign Update: CA-04, CA-45, CA-46, AD-78

A few odds and ends:

• CA-04: Tom McClintock is bringing out the big guns to help his cash-strapped campaign - Ron Paul is all in!

Paul, the libertarian-Republican congressman from Texas who raised more than $34 million for his presidential race, sent out an e-mail last week urging his massive donor base to contribute to McClintock.

"Tom McClintock is one of the most promising warriors in the fight against big government we have seen in a long time, and the special interests and big bankers know it. ... You have stood with me as....

...I campaigned for the Presidency to return our federal government to its proper role. Will you help me bring a reliable ally to Congress?"

This brings up some interesting questions. Does Tom McClintock think we should withdraw from Iraq and dozens of other military bases around the world? Does he believe in abolishing the Federal Reserve? The coinage of free silver?

They do have one thing in common, however - white supremacist supporters.

• CA-45: New voter registration statistics have not been released by the Secretary of State's office, but I think they will show good news for Democrats across the state. One statistic that is measurable is the early voting number, and in CA-45, it's good news for Julie Bornstein.

Democrats have significantly narrowed the early voting gap in the 45th Congressional District, an encouraging sign for challenger Julie Bornstein in her battle to unseat Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (R-Palm Springs), according to Bornstein campaign manager Walter Ludwig.

In both 2004 and 2006, registered Republicans accounted for about 54 percent of early voters, compared with just 34 percent for Democrats. Mack, now a four-term incumbent, cruised to re-election both years by more than 20 points.

This year, early voting is much more evenly split. The latest numbers from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters show that registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by just five percent among early voters.

It's like the entire Republican machine all collapsed at once. They used to be MASTERS at getting absentee votes out. This year, there's either no such effort, or it's being matched by Democrats. CA-45 is under the radar, but these numbers suggest that it shouldn't be.

• CA-46: At the Great Orange Satan, Devilstower has a great piece that could start a new meme about Debbie Cook - the anti-Palin.

Suppose there was a candidate who was as bright and as capable as Sarah Palin is confused and incompetent.

Someone who had a record of working with environmental groups, and who had a real understanding of the threat posed by our dependence on fossil fuels. Someone with a degree in earth science and the long experience to make the claim of being a genuine energy expert.

Someone who not only knew science, but also had a law degree, and was a graduate of the leadership program at the Kennedy School of Government. Someone who has held positions of honor in state and national commissions. Someone who was well respected for both her intellect and her passion.

Suppose there was a candidate who had been mayor of, not a tiny town, but a medium-sized city. And suppose she took that position as a Democrat in the midst of a heavily Republican district.

Suppose there was someone who was everything that Sarah Palin is not.

Fortunately for us, there's Debbie Cook.

Read the whole thing. And help Debbie if you can.

• AD-78: Bill Cavala, who worked the last close race in this district, took a peek at some new registration numbers which show a real advantage for Marty Block:

This year the new registration ‘close’ figures show the Democrats with 101, 131 registrants, an increase of about 4100 from the last Presidential year. DTS registrations are 49,855, an increase of about 5800 from 2004. Most remarkably, however, Republican registration has fallen by almost 8000 – from 82,615 four years ago to 74,700 today.

This means the net change is Dems up 4100 and Reps down 8000 or 12,100 in favor of the Democrat over 2004.

Forget the increase in DTS registrations – which vote more Democratic than Republican in San Diego. Starting out down 12,000 in a seat where they won by 2000 with an incumbent – it’s open this year – puts the Republican candidate squarely behind the 8 ball.

Just one of the many Assembly races where this is so.

Paul Army!!

So at that press conference yesterday, Ron Paul urged his supporters to back third-party candidates. Most of them joined him onstage, except for Bob Barr, who then turned around and asked Paul to be his running mate.

Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr, the former Georgia congressman, rejected comparisons to Cynthia McKinney on Wednesday and made a bid for Ron Paul’s undivided support.

Paul, who this year sought the GOP presidential nomination, told reporters at a Washington press conference that the two-party system is broken. He urged Americans to vote for one of the third-party candidates running, including McKinney, who is also a former member of Congress from Georgia [...]

McKinney, the Green Party nominee for president, appeared with Paul at the National Press Club, as did independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin.

Barr, who served in the U.S. House as a Republican from Cobb County, was scheduled to be there, too, but changed his mind.

“Bob had a press conference right after that one,” said campaign spokesman Andrew Davis. “He didn’t want to dilute his message by being on the same stage as people like Cynthia McKinney, who is completely opposite of what a Libertarian is." [...]

Barr sent Paul a letter Tuesday asking him to be his vice presidential nominee. Barr already has a running mate, Wayne Root of Las Vegas. Root said in the letter he would step aside for Paul.

How much of a sad sack is Wayne Root?

I don't think that Paul will realistically join Bob Barr's ticket. But he unquestionably has a strong contingent of supporters, most of them from the paleoconservative Republican side of the aisle, who are receptive to his messages, and who I believe will end up voting third party. And as we know, he's on the ballot for President in Montana, where he could grab as much as 5-7% IMO.

Most amusing about this is that the McCain campaign called begging for his support, and Paul stiff-armed them. I didn't hear him say that Obama was looking for an endorsement. This news definitely hurts McCain on the margins, but that might be all that is needed to sink him.

3 Electoral Votes Down?

I'm going to hold off on posting heavily about polling while we're still in the RNC bounce stage. It was unique that the Democratic convention happened so close to the Republican one (a mistake for the Dems, although I'm not sure how much control they had over it), and historically these bounces go down. The state polls look relatively the same, outside of a few in the South, which could be outliers or suggestions that this is where the Palin pick is playing best, among members of the conservative tribe.

However, there is a very significant development in the Presidential race up in Montana. If Ron Paul is on the ballot I don't think John McCain can win that state. Seriously. That's 5% he can't afford to lose up there. Paul BEAT McCain in the Republican caucuses in this state.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, runner-up in Montana’s Republican presidential caucus last winter, will appear on Montana’s November ballot as the presidential nominee of the Constitution Party of Montana, it announced Monday.

Joining Paul on Montana’s presidential ballot are: Bob Barr, Libertarian Party; John McCain, Republican Party; Ralph Nader, independent; and Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Secretary of State Brad Johnson said.

David Hart of Kalispell, who ran Paul’s campaign in Montana, predicted that Paul’s candidacy would hurt the other four candidates on the state’s presidential ballot, particularly McCain.

“Here in Montana, I think it’s pretty much sealed the deal that McCain will not win Montana,” Hart said. “If he doesn’t win, Ron Paul will probably be blamed for it. They only need to look in the mirror and blame themselves for nominating someone who doesn’t represent true Republican values and causes like Paul.”

That sounds like a guy who is going to actually get out the vote for Paul in addition to just getting him on the ballot, if only to send a message. A constitutionalist and libertarian like Paul is likely to play very well in Montana.

In addition, Paul has a news conference scheduled for tomorrow in Washington about his "intentions for the fall." I have no idea what that's all about, but I certainly don't think it's an endorsement of McCain.

This is actually pretty big news. Unsurprisingly, it's been covered almost nowhere.

The GOP Restoration Starts Today... Snicker

So with Hurricane Gustav thankfully rerouting away from New Orleans and with the damage more minimal than expected, the Republicans will try to fire up their red meat machine in force tonight to make up for lost time. Of course, the looming hurricane didn't stop them from partying with the band "Hookers & Blow" last night.

The problem is there's another hurricane in the Gulf that could hit Florida and Georgia on Thursday, and with the GOP already on record as refraining from attacks in the midst of a natural disaster, they are constrained and in a box here. So it's kind of a hybrid convention instead of the expected full-fledged assault on Barack Obama. They had to shuffle the schedule, and tonight Unca Fred Thompson and Droopy Dog Lieberman are on tap, along with President Bush. They couldn't even dodge that bullet of having Bush associated with McCain at the convention; literally everything he says tonight can be made into 30-second TV commercials. And the behind the scenes stuff is delicious:

Almost certainly, Bush had to cancel his planned speech while Gustav loomed. But the sources say he didn't like the idea and felt pushed. Bush is described by sources as "furious" at McCain for being deprived of his last appearance before his party, which nominated him twice, as a sitting president. He believes he is being treated disrespectfully.

Shuttering the convention for a night was probably inevitable given the hurricane, but to provide a cover-up for scratching Bush and Cheney it became absolutely necessary. But once the hurricane passed, Bush asserted his primacy as president and forced his way back on the schedule to deliver a satellite speech to the convention.

McCain is desperately seeking ways to pivot from Bush, whose in-person appearance on the first night of the convention threatened to obliterate his message as a "maverick" and "reformer." Even though McCain himself would not be onstage, Bush and Cheney would have dominated the opening and underlined continuity between their administration and McCain. The cancellation of the first night of the convention is a small price to pay for their absence.

McCain's campaign is perfectly aware of the mortal danger of Bush's embrace. He has needed the president to rally the Republican base. But once he has the nomination his imperative is to project himself as an antidote to what has gone wrong with Republicanism.

This is the reason for putting Lieberman on the same night as Bush, to somehow show that McCain's Republican Party is even crazier than Bush on foreign affairs moderate and post-partisan. So much so that Lieberman has previously praised Obama to the hills, which won't be repeated tonight.

The Republicans wanted a week of sustained attacks on their opponent. But they got a muddled convention filled with distractions over hurricane on the ground and Hurricane Sarah Palin and Hurricane Bush's Ego. Not to mention that there's a 10,000-strong contingent of Ron Paul supporters having a bigger and more interesting convention right next door, which is starting to get some media attention.

There's no room at the Xcel Energy Center for maverick Ron Paul, so his acolytes have packed their cars, hitched rides on "Ronvoys" and will pitch tents at Ronstock '08 in defiance of next week's GOP convention in St. Paul, Minn.

Almost 9,800 tickets had been sold for the Rally for the Republic, being held in Minneapolis, which seeks to bring together activists who are anti-war, anti-government regulation, anti-immigration, anti-taxes, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-outsourcing, pro-individual liberty, pro-civil liberties and pro-Paul.

The Ronvoys — fleets of buses and vans carrying Paul's loyalists — were to begin arriving Saturday. A few rally-goers planned to walk from Green Bay, Wis., and join up with Paul for the final miles of their Walk4Freedom. Other attendees are driving, carpooling or flying in for the convention alternative.

The McCain camp blocked Paul from speaking on the convention floor despite his getting more votes than Giuliani or Thompson in the primaries. He's expecting 18,000 at his own rally today.

The Paul movement is the only real one in St. Paul today. The conservative movement is flailing.

Unity 08?

Bloomberg on the ballot in Virginia would be an interesting phenomenon. He apparently has enough signatures (with Ron Paul as VP!), but it's an independent effort and he could apparently ask to be removed.

If he isn't, I have to think this helps Obama, particularly with Ron Paul conservatives who may otherwise drift to McCain.

Barr!

Great piece on Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr, who's sick of the GOP Establishment and running on a platform of limited government. Barr has a built-in audience with the Ron Paul crowd, and if he taps into them he can cause a stir. I don't agree with him on a bunch of issues, but there are points of convergence on civil liberties, making us strange bedfellows. Bob Barr, of course, is strange bedfellows with the Bob Barr from Congress:

And some of its own members are asking how they ended up with Mr. Barr, who at the Libertarian Party convention in Denver last month squeaked by with the nomination only after six raucous rounds of votes.

“There certainly are still those,” Mr. Barr said, switching to the third person, “that may view Bob Barr as somewhat of a Johnny-come-lately.”

While libertarian philosophy generally bows to the rights of the individual — and against government intervention — Representative Barr voted for the USA Patriot Act; voted to authorize the war in Iraq in 2002; led the impeachment charge against President Bill Clinton in 1998; and introduced the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

So there's, you know, that. If Paul were running in this space, with his more consistent record, he'd get 5%. I don't know about Barr.

Also, Chris Dodd Is Considering Suspending His Preisdential Bid

Back when I was producing, I did an interview with Steve Grogan, formerly of the New England Patriots, and the talk turned to the 1986 Super Bowl, when Chicago crushed the Pats 46-10. He recounted a story about Raymond Berry, the deadpan coach of the Patriots. The last two points of the Super Bowl came on a safety, when Henry Waechter sacked Grogan in the end zone. Grogan came off the field and approached Berry, saying "If you want me to keep throwing the ball, Coach, I'll do it, just tell me the game plan."

"No," said Berry, "just run out the clock. I think that last safety clinched it."

Grogan stared at him for a second in a bit of disbelief, then noticed Berry cracking a knowing smile.

That's what I thought of when I read the story that Ron Paul has decided to end his Presidential campaign. I guess those last 45 primaries clinched it.

Where Do I Get My Credential For The Ron Paul Convention?

Continuing on the "McCain can't nail down the base" discussion, Ron Paul is vowing to run a shadow convention in Minneapolis.

Maverick GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has booked an arena in Minneapolis for a "mini-convention" that could steal some of John McCain's thunder just days before he accepts the Republican nomination.

A Paul campaign aide said the Texas congressman hopes to pack about 11,000 supporters into the Williams Arena at the University of Minnesota on Sept. 2, which coincides with the second day of the Republican National Convention at the Xcel Energy Center in neighboring St. Paul.

It'd be hilarious if the Paul event became the libertarian anti-government Woodstock and outdrew the RNC. Believe me, they're depressed, it could happen.

This particular event won't hurt McCain one bit because Ron Paul, no matter how many people he attracts to his message, is deeply unserious and the media will not cover him.

But I'd be willing to go! Gimme a credential!

Bob Barr

I suppose I should say something about Bob Barr's run for the White House. It's quixotic, of course, but it's nice to see such windmill-tilting designed to attract Republicans than Democrats. I don't share a whole lot in common on fiscal issues with a libertarian like Barr, but I do believe he's been on the right side of a number of civil liberties issues over the last few years and could capture some of that Ron Paul magic, which is a non-trivial amount of Republican votes, as Josh Marshall has said. In races out West like New Mexico and Montana and Alaska and Colorado, where his brand of libertarianism will play, that number of votes could actually be determinative.

Dana Milbank wrote a story on Barr's National Press Club kickoff event yesterday, and clearly there's enough difference with John McSame's policies for Barr to make a spirited effort in this race.

"What's your problem with McCain?" one of the reporters asked after Barr's announcement speech.

Barr turned to his campaign manager, former Ross Perot adviser Russ Verney. "How long do we have here, Russ?"

Time enough, evidently.

Barr took issue with McCain's Iran policy. "I'm not going to go around making up songs about such a serious matter as going to war with a sovereign nation, as Senator McCain did," the former congressman said, tut-tutting McCain's "Barbara Ann/Bomb Iran" episode.

He quarreled with McCain's Iraq policy. "These troops need to be brought home," he offered.

He ridiculed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which, he said, means McCain "cannot ever lay legitimate claim, at least with a straight face, to . . . being labeled as a conservative."

He put down McCain's plan to do away with pet-project earmarks, claiming it "would make barely a drop in the bucket with regard to the national debt, the deficit."

And he disparaged McCain's fiscal policy, saying "there are some legitimate questions that have been raised over whether Senator McCain is simply a Johnny-come-lately to the modest tax cuts."

I don't agree with Barr on all of that, but I agree on far more than I might expect (particularly the earmark thing, why can't more politicians say that? It's supposedly in their interest to hang on to earmarks, after all). And that strain of conservatism that agrees with all of this is more robust that anyone might expect. These Ron Paul acolytes are still fighting to take over the GOP convention - it's like 1968 only nobody is paying any attention to it. These people are looking to embarrass Senator McCain on the national stage and impact the party platform - they're not going to run back to him in November. One choice word from Paul and they'd all get on the Bob Barr train. This bears watching.

Annals Of Average-Looking CG Campaign Commercials

This is pretty awesome. I think it's a promo for "Call of Duty IV: Give the Wacked-Out Libertarians a Shot!"

Also, didn't Ron Paul already drop out of the race? Why is anyone donating money to air this thing in Philly?

This Post Is Great News For Rudy Giuliani

This really is the greatest comparison ever.

A comparison of votes received and state delegates awarded between Rep. Ron Paul and Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Remember which one was labeled the "fringe candidate" from the start:

Iowa
Ron Paul 11,817 10%
Rudy Giuliani 4,097 4%

Wyoming
Ron Paul 0 state delegates 0%
Rudy Giuliani 0 state delegates 0%

New Hampshire
Rudy Giuliani 20,395 9%
Ron Paul 18,303 8%

Michigan
Ron Paul 54,434 6%
Rudy Giuliani 24,706 3%

Nevada
Ron Paul 6,077 state delegates 14%
Rudy Giuliani 1,907 state delegates 4%

South Carolina (93% in)
Ron Paul 15,235 4%
Rudy Giuliani 8,518 2%
Total votes through six early states:

Ron Paul 99,789 votes
Rudy Giuliani 57,716 votes

You start to wonder why Duncan Hunter is the one dropping out.

UPDATE: Yes, I was wondering what the hell this meant, too.

When corruption ruled, he challenged it. When welfare failed, he changed it. When crime thrived, he fought it. When government broke, he fixed it. And when the world wavered. And history hesitated. He never did. Rudy Giuliani. Leadership. When it matters most.

Not only is Rudy saying that he showed better leadership than history, but he's somehow saying that time stopped on September 11. Once again, anyone who isn't a Presidential candidate might be committed to at least serious therapy for saying this kind of stuff, if not an institution.

Ron Paul: The Newsletters

I'm not a James Kirchick fan, but I remember getting one of these racist and homophobic Ron Paul mailers back when I was in college, and the reporting here is very thorough. For his part, Paul claims that he only wrote the parts of the mailers that weren't racist. Oh, OK.

When you can't even win the antiwar vote in the GOP from John "million years in Iraq" McCain, you have message problems. And maybe because this kind of ugliness has seeped in.

Portrait of a Meltdown

When people into politics attack other people into politics:





See my comments from over the weekend.

Like In Brewster's Millions

As for the Republican side, I am more and more convinced every day that None Of The Above is poised for a landslide victory. As you know, I've been following the GOP race fairly closely at one of my other haunts, The Right's Field, and the sense you get when you pay attention is that Republican voters are sick to their stomachs from each and every one of them. That's why they simply can't decide which maroon to keep for the next year.

Dig beneath the surface of the raucous Republican presidential race and you will find even deeper turmoil: Four in 10 GOP voters have switched candidates in the past month alone, and nearly two-thirds say they may change their minds again.

This explains the meteoric rise of Mike Huckabee, and may just as much explain his fall once Republicans got a look at him (I've seen polls today showing Romney back in front). Every candidate in this GOP race has been at a high when voters didn't know crap about them, followed by a gradual decline. Therefore, the ultimate Republican candidate this cycle would be a jar of air. "Looks good from here; is it pro-life?"

I mean, as much as Drop Dead Fred Thompson revealed his own sexism in reacting to the situation in Pakistan, Huckabee made 1999-era George Bush look like Juan Cole.

This morning on MSNBC, Huckabee said that Musharraf was unable to control Pakistan’s “eastern borders” with Afghanistan:

What we’ve seen happen is that in the Musharraf government, he has told us that he really does not have enough control of those eastern borders near Afghanistan to be able go after the terrorists. But on the other hand, he doesn’t want us going in because it violates his sovereignty.

Note to Huckabee: Pakistan shares its “eastern border” with India, not Afghanistan [...]

Also yesterday, Huckabee addressed Bhutto’s death after “[striding] out to the strains of ‘Right Now’ by Van Halen.” He said the U.S. should weigh the impact Bhutto’s death would have on Pakistan’s “continued” martial law. But President Pervez Musharraf formally lifted the emergency rule in Pakistan on December 15th, nearly two weeks ago.

And when they asked a senior Huckabee aide about this (translation: some guy in Arkansas who had a clean enough suit), he admitted that his candidate had "no foreign policy credentials".

Mike Huckabee: No Foreign Policy Credentials. For America.

And I am not buying the Rudy Giuliani "don't win anything and become the nominee" strategy, or the John "I Am Legend" McCain comeback, or Mitt "My father guest-rapped on Planet Rock with Afrika Baambaataa" Romney, or the lot of them. In fact, they'd all better watch out or the guy diametrically opposed to their foreign policy beliefs might sneak in an grab a bunch of delegates.

Ron Paul -- Rival campaigns are beginning to nervously speculate that Paul will finish in the top three on January 3. Paul broke double digits in at least two polls for the first time this week and he seems particularly strong in areas of the state where the media has less of an impact on political deliberations -- especially in rural northwest and southern Iowa. Check out a Ron Paul supporters' websites and you'll see detailed discussions about caucus rules and strategy. The Paulites are more ready for caucus night than most observers realize.

Really, if you just quietly put the name "N.Oftheabove" onto the primary ballot all over the place, threw up a couple posts at Redstate saying how "This guy's a true conservative. And he hates Muslims," I'm thinking he could pull off the victory.

UPDATE: This is why all the GOP candidates are bringing the negative attacks, and I'm sure the whisper campaigns we haven't heard about are even worse. By the way, can we stop with the CW talking point that "Iowans don't like negative attacks"? Wasn't this one of only three states to switch parties in 2004, going for George W. Bush and one of the nastiest campaigns in recent memory, Swift Boaters and all?

Ron Paul and the Foreign Policy Disconnect

At the risk of inciting a riot in the comments and eliciting a lot of responses with multiple exclamation points in them, I'm going to write a post about Ron Paul. For some reason, you have to take up sides on Ron Paul to remain a member in good standing in the liberal blogosphere. You either stress only the good side, and love what he brings to the national debate, touching on subjects like imperialism and civil liberties and executive power which ought to get a wider hearing in public, or you stress only the bad side, rightly pointing out his overt racism and anti-Semitism, and believing it was Abe Lincoln's fault that Southern states started seceding from the Union and firing on federal garrisons, etc. Josh Marshall gave a rare balanced take today, which was more concerned with trying to understand the phenomenon.

A while back I was peppered for a few days by emailers pointing me toward an article detailing Paul's alleged history of anti-Israel politics and slurs and goading me to 'disavow' him. I told these good souls that I found it hard to disavow him since I hadn't avowed him in the first place. And the response I got was that it was a matter of all the liberals and Democrats who were on the Ron Paul bandwagon.

But who are these people? The Democrats and liberals who are on the Ron Paul bandwagon?

And this is what I mean: the alternative Ron Paul universe, supporters and critics, all living in a some sort of bubble, alternative reality, in which Paul is a key driver in our national politics, notwithstanding the fact that he barely registers in the polls and does not seem to have moved the needle one notch the GOP nomination contest in terms of shifting the terms of the debate toward his views on foreign policy.

I think it's pretty clear, actually. We're involved in a war with no end in sight, which both parties have had the opportunity to end and have failed. Nobody on either side of the political aisle is speaking with any kind of clarity about ending the Iraq war other than Ron Paul, and about the Washington consensus on foreign policy in general. Dennis Kucinich is to a certain extent, but his effort to ape the Paul money-bomb ended up with maybe a hundred grand or so. Ron Paul has a clear message that is a part of American history, one of isolationism. And he critiques American foreign policy in a way that is never done in public discussion.

That's why his Meet The Press appearance is almost a cultural artifact, an example of how wedded to the institutional narratives and consensus opinions the modern Beltway media has become, and how baffled they are by any differing opinion. Tim Russert was attacking Paul, sometimes giving up all pretense of neutrality, but he did so in his same narrow fashion, and when the subject turned to Paul challenging the core arguments of foreign policy and imperialism, Russert had to ignore them for a lack of knowing what else to do.

MR. RUSSERT: Let's talk about some of the ways you recommend. "I'd start bringing our troops home, not only from the Middle East but from Korea, Japan and Europe and save enough money to slash the deficit."

How much money would that save?

REP. PAUL: To operate our total foreign policy, when you add up everything, there's been a good study on this, it's nearly a trillion dollars a year. So I would think if you brought our troops home, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars. It's, you know, it's six months or one year or two year, but you can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman over the world. We should have the foreign policy that George Bush ran on. You know, no nation building, no policing of the world, a humble foreign policy. We don't need to be starting wars. That's my argument.

MR. RUSSERT: How many troops do we have overseas right now?

REP. PAUL: I don't know the exact number, but more than we need. We don't need any.

MR. RUSSERT: It's 572,000. And you'd bring them all home?

REP. PAUL: As quickly as possible. We--they will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany, troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn't make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I've been in high school?

He tried to "nail" Paul because he didn't know that exact number of American troops overseas (and by the way, neither would Russert if it wasn't on the TelePrompTer), but by saying it out loud, he almost made Paul's argument for him. What reason is there for over a half-million Americans to patrol the rest of the world, in 140-plus countries? Shouldn't the public have the ability to question the wisdom of that policy? Shouldn't at least someone with the Presidential platform give a dissenting viewpoint?

Matt Stoller had a great post about these "untouchable symptoms" that ought to be up for mainstream debate. Here are two of them that relate to the nexus of the excitement Ron Paul has been generating:

Subject: End American empire
Factoid: As of 1998, America had troops stationed in 144 countries around the world.

There are any number of ways to talk about this issue, from disparities of foreign aid to complaints about the IMF to the war in Iraq to the CIA and blowback. The bottom line is that America has troops everywhere in the world, it's expensive, the way it is done now is a bad idea, and we need to bring them home and return to being a republic. That or we need to figure out how to be a responsible international power again and get rid of the Blackwater-style military we are building and the gunrunning vigilante CIA-style Cold War and post-Cold War nonsense.

Subject: End the war economy:
Factoid: Money for Iraq keeps passing in 'emergency' legislation to avoid being subject to budget rules.

For some reason, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans argue that they are fiscally responsible while ignoring their votes to spend 700-800B a year on war. Libertarian charlatans like energy expert Amory Lovins think that the corporate sector and the military sector are legitimate parts of the state, but that other spending is wasteful. The whole notion of the military not being a part of the overall government is crazy, and reflective of a huge, corrupt, and Soviet-style misallocation of capital through secret budgets and fear.

Until some progressive takes to a big platform and makes these same arguments in a coherent way, there will always be room for an isolationist paleocon like Ron Paul to make it for them. Yet it can certainly be folded into a progressive foreign policy critique, one that recognizes the virtue of diplomatic relations, one that understands how comforting the afflicted and surging against global poverty is far more effective than sitting men with guns all over the world. Edwards and Obama have done this to an extent, but Ron Paul has opened the Overton Window on this enough for them to be much bolder.