I think there is one, and I think it's to be found by reading between the lines of this piece by Daniel Greenfield at FrontPageMag.
Most of the piece is nonsense on stilts, of course, but its central point -- that Donald Trump's candidacy has put paid to any libertarian influence in the Republican Party -- is, if true, worthy of celebration.
Greenfield's position, in a nutshell (paraphrased to accentuate the truthiness lamp he hides under a bushel when using his own words):
"Those mean old libertarians were more trouble than they were worth. Sure, they made for a good fig leaf to hide the Republican Party's authoritarian big-government essence, but dammit, they kept trying to make the GOP actually be libertarian. Good riddance to them, thanks to Trump. Now we can stop pretending to favor smaller government, more freedom, less regulation, etc., and just be our big, bad, ugly, fascist selves. 'MURKA!"
If he's right, I think that's a good thing. And if Trump is responsible, libertarians owe him our thanks.
There have always been libertarians who fall for the "libertarian Republican" guff, but the last two presidential cycles really drained lots of libertarian energy into that cesspool thanks to lots of activists falling for Ron Paul's doomed and pointless candidacies.
Coming into 2016 it looked like Rand Paul might have the same effect. Fortunately, he went out of his way to shed any libertarian cachet he might have been counting on before the cycle really got going. Libertarians were abandoning the Party of Big Government (R-Label Edition) even before Trump announced.
But I can buy the notion that Trump really sealed the deal. Thanks to Trump, we are virtually guaranteed that in next year's presidential election, neither major party will put up a candidate who even bothers to pretend he or she doesn't hate our freedoms.
Whether or not the Libertarian Party can bring itself to exploit that gift by offering a real alternative is another question entirely. But hey, we can always hope, right?
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 02, 2015
Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Election 2016 Handicapping: Bush v. Paul?
They're the front-runners for the GOP's presidential nomination at 13% each, according to a new CNN/ORC poll [hat tip -- Politico, via #sayfie].
What's changed:
- Chris Christie is sinking (he's down to 9%). I predicted this, of course, but it's not like that's a prophetic feat of note. There's only room for one "party establishment" candidate. "BridgeGate" was a chest wound in Christie's presidential aspirations; Bush indicating real interest is the equivalent of La Cosa Nostra sending around a guy to put a .22 in the back of his nascent campaign's head.
- Mike Huckabee, who led the GOP primary polls as recently as a month ago, is fading as the campaigns start to actually crank up -- maybe not officially, but they're burning gasoline and shoe leather and not bothering to keep their intentions secret.
- Paul Ryan is still hanging in there right behind Paul and Bush, but that won't last. No sitting US Representative has been elected to the White House since Garfield, and "I was second fiddle to your last big sacrificial lamb" is not a bankable qualification.
If nothing changes -- and at 2 1/2 years out, all kinds of things can change -- we're probably looking at a Bush/Paul race. If that's the case, it's my considered opinion that Paul's odds are even longer than those his dad faced. The party establishment has had two election cycles to shore up its weak spots against insurgency from the Pauls' direction. State and local party organizations will be locked down tight, the big checkbooks will come out for Bush and the GOP establishment would rather throw the election (if it's not already a lost cause regardless of candidate) than put a loose cannon on the Oval Deck.
What's changed:
- Chris Christie is sinking (he's down to 9%). I predicted this, of course, but it's not like that's a prophetic feat of note. There's only room for one "party establishment" candidate. "BridgeGate" was a chest wound in Christie's presidential aspirations; Bush indicating real interest is the equivalent of La Cosa Nostra sending around a guy to put a .22 in the back of his nascent campaign's head.
- Mike Huckabee, who led the GOP primary polls as recently as a month ago, is fading as the campaigns start to actually crank up -- maybe not officially, but they're burning gasoline and shoe leather and not bothering to keep their intentions secret.
- Paul Ryan is still hanging in there right behind Paul and Bush, but that won't last. No sitting US Representative has been elected to the White House since Garfield, and "I was second fiddle to your last big sacrificial lamb" is not a bankable qualification.
If nothing changes -- and at 2 1/2 years out, all kinds of things can change -- we're probably looking at a Bush/Paul race. If that's the case, it's my considered opinion that Paul's odds are even longer than those his dad faced. The party establishment has had two election cycles to shore up its weak spots against insurgency from the Pauls' direction. State and local party organizations will be locked down tight, the big checkbooks will come out for Bush and the GOP establishment would rather throw the election (if it's not already a lost cause regardless of candidate) than put a loose cannon on the Oval Deck.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Election 2016 Handicapping: Miscellany
Jeb Bush says he's "thinking about it." And I doubt he'd publicly say that if he wasn't leaning toward "yes."
How does that affect the race?
Well, Bush leaning toward "yes" and Bridgegate probably combine to doom Chris Christie's prospects. At the very least it closes some big checkbooks until Bush makes up his mind ... and if it is "yes," those checks will be written to him rather than to Christie. There's only room for one "moderate governor" in the field, and the Bush family hasn't put two of its own in the White House already by being weak fundraisers.
The RealClearPolitics polling average has Bush in a pack of 4 at the top, all clustered within two points of each other: Mike Huckabee followed by Rand Paul followed by Bush followed by Christie.
I don't think Huckabee will throw in. I could be wrong, but for the moment I'm going to assume he'd rather just keep on making good money as a talking head than spend another year plus riding around flyover country in a bus that smells like a locker room, kissing hands and shaking babies again.
Could it come down to Bush versus Paul for the GOP nomination? Yes, it could (and I think Bush would win such a two-way contest).
Of course there's a large rear end of the pack from which some other contender might pull away. And someone new and unexpected might show up on the field. I mean, we're two years out here.
But even two years out, there's another polling average that has to have Republican strategists and possible Republican candidates worried: Even with Democrats in the midterm doldrums, even with ObamaCare dragging its namesake administration down, even with congressional Republicans bringing up Benghazi as often as most people sneeze, Hillary Clinton boasts a lead of 9% or so on any of them.
How does that affect the race?
Well, Bush leaning toward "yes" and Bridgegate probably combine to doom Chris Christie's prospects. At the very least it closes some big checkbooks until Bush makes up his mind ... and if it is "yes," those checks will be written to him rather than to Christie. There's only room for one "moderate governor" in the field, and the Bush family hasn't put two of its own in the White House already by being weak fundraisers.
The RealClearPolitics polling average has Bush in a pack of 4 at the top, all clustered within two points of each other: Mike Huckabee followed by Rand Paul followed by Bush followed by Christie.
I don't think Huckabee will throw in. I could be wrong, but for the moment I'm going to assume he'd rather just keep on making good money as a talking head than spend another year plus riding around flyover country in a bus that smells like a locker room, kissing hands and shaking babies again.
Could it come down to Bush versus Paul for the GOP nomination? Yes, it could (and I think Bush would win such a two-way contest).
Of course there's a large rear end of the pack from which some other contender might pull away. And someone new and unexpected might show up on the field. I mean, we're two years out here.
But even two years out, there's another polling average that has to have Republican strategists and possible Republican candidates worried: Even with Democrats in the midterm doldrums, even with ObamaCare dragging its namesake administration down, even with congressional Republicans bringing up Benghazi as often as most people sneeze, Hillary Clinton boasts a lead of 9% or so on any of them.
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
Election 2016 Handicapping: Key GOP Credibility Issue
The 2008 presidential election went to the Democrats in a walk. After seven years of losing ground wars in Asia, the Republicans just weren't in any position to compete, so they didn't. The Democrats didn't have to compete, so they didn't either. John McCain offered to serve George W. Bush's third term. So did Barack Obama. Obama won because McCain had an "R" next to his name.
The 2012 election cycle could have been competitive. In order to make the race competitive, Republicans had to present a contrast on ObamaCare, on foreign policy, or on both. Instead, they went with the Me Too Mannequin -- the father of ObamaCare, their most hapless and un-charismatic presidential nominee since Alf Landon, whose foreign policy positions alternated between deer in the headlights confusion and "just like the last two guys, I guess, but better because hey, it's ME" -- and lost again.
In 2016, it's the Democrats who will have to own the previous eight years of insane/idiotic foreign policy, with their most likely nominee having presided over a non-trivial portion of the insanity/idiocy as Secretary of State.
If the Republicans want to compete in 2016, or at least clear the board and set themselves up for victory in 2020, their best shot is to knock off the "yes, we too are mentally retarded and morally reprobate" crap and clear the board by acknowledging how abysmally stupid and corrupt the Bush/Cheney administration was on the foreign policy front.
Oddly enough, they're getting an assist in doing so from David Corn of Mother Jones. Here's the money quote from Rand Paul circa 2009:
Most of the potential Republican candidates still seem to think, the contrary evidence of 2012 notwithstanding, that the road to the White House runs through Sheldon Adelson's checkbook (and, therefore, through Dick Cheney's rich capacity for self-serving fantasy).
They were wrong about that last time around and they're wrong about it now. Nominating a candidate who's sane and sage on foreign policy may not be enough to generate a Republican win in 2016, but nominating another whackjob or greedhead is almost certainly a recipe for Republican failure in 2016. Just sayin' ...
The 2012 election cycle could have been competitive. In order to make the race competitive, Republicans had to present a contrast on ObamaCare, on foreign policy, or on both. Instead, they went with the Me Too Mannequin -- the father of ObamaCare, their most hapless and un-charismatic presidential nominee since Alf Landon, whose foreign policy positions alternated between deer in the headlights confusion and "just like the last two guys, I guess, but better because hey, it's ME" -- and lost again.
In 2016, it's the Democrats who will have to own the previous eight years of insane/idiotic foreign policy, with their most likely nominee having presided over a non-trivial portion of the insanity/idiocy as Secretary of State.
If the Republicans want to compete in 2016, or at least clear the board and set themselves up for victory in 2020, their best shot is to knock off the "yes, we too are mentally retarded and morally reprobate" crap and clear the board by acknowledging how abysmally stupid and corrupt the Bush/Cheney administration was on the foreign policy front.
Oddly enough, they're getting an assist in doing so from David Corn of Mother Jones. Here's the money quote from Rand Paul circa 2009:
There's a great YouTube of Dick Cheney in 1995 defending [President] Bush No. 1 [and the decision not to invade Baghdad in the first Gulf War], and he goes on for about five minutes. He's being interviewed, I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it'd be civil war, we would have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes. Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea. And that's why the first Bush didn't go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government and it's a good idea to go into Iraq.
Most of the potential Republican candidates still seem to think, the contrary evidence of 2012 notwithstanding, that the road to the White House runs through Sheldon Adelson's checkbook (and, therefore, through Dick Cheney's rich capacity for self-serving fantasy).
They were wrong about that last time around and they're wrong about it now. Nominating a candidate who's sane and sage on foreign policy may not be enough to generate a Republican win in 2016, but nominating another whackjob or greedhead is almost certainly a recipe for Republican failure in 2016. Just sayin' ...
Saturday, April 05, 2014
Election 2016 Handicapping -- Early Miscellany Note #1
Since he's futzing around with his hat and giving every impression of throwing it into the ring, this is one that it's probably best to address as early as possible.
Q: Is Rand Paul a libertarian?
A: "They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian." -- Rand Paul
Now, does that necessarily mean that Rand Paul isn't a libertarian?
No.
It just means either that
Q: Is Rand Paul a libertarian?
A: "They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian." -- Rand Paul
Now, does that necessarily mean that Rand Paul isn't a libertarian?
No.
It just means either that
- He's not a libertarian; or
- Nobody should believe anything he says, because he's a brazen liar.
In future analyses of the 2016 GOP presidential nomination contest, I will probably spill some (metaphorical) ink trying to help my readers figure out which of these is the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)