Et Tu, Paul!?

OK, so it pains me to report that Dr. Paul, my choice in the Republican field, is not untainted by the scourge of pork (PDF). I haven't been able to actually get the pdf to load for me, but I will be interested to see what it contains.

While Paul's voting record remains exemplary, I am greatly troubled that he has taken his place at the trough. I guess that partly explains how he has been able to get repeatedly re-elected against the odds.

My only consolation is that at least he fessed up when asked, which is more than can said about most.

Sigh.

GOP Demagogues -- Our Last, Best Hope

Probably the most significant reason (behind Iraq) for the Democrats return to power was their promise to clean up the "Culture of Corruption" that is created by the way earmarks are handled. I called bullshit at the time, not because I didn't think the process needed to be cleaned up, but because I knew the Dems wouldn't actually keep that promise.

After a just-for-show swat at the earmarks during their 100 hours agenda, it was back to business as usual, or at least it was briefly. Now things have gotten even worse. House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey (D-WI) has decided to take the process completely underground and tack the earmarks on after the passage of bills just before they went into conference. This makes the chance of sunlight reaching these projects virtually nil. Indeed there are already some 30,000 requests (more than under the Republicans even) waiting to get slipped in.

Fortunately, there are a few members of the Grand 'Ol Party that either still hold to small government beliefs or that have found religion on the subject now that the electorate has kicked them firmly in the balls. They are making noise and the Dems don't like it. We've already seen Murtha castigating anyone that would dare challenge his place at the trough and now Obey is trying to get those pesky few Republicans to pipe down:

House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., today outlined how earmarks will be disclosed before conference, and warned that if Republicans “demagogue” the issue there might be no earmarks in the fiscal 2008 bills.

Now call me crazy, but you have to be one hell of an idiot to threaten these guys in such a manner. If I was a member fighting against earmarks and the guy that controlled all earmarks threatened to put an end to all those earmarks if I didn't pipe down, what do you think I would do?

Update: There may be some progress.

Thompson's Federalism

In this comment on a previous post about Ron Paul, Kyle takes note of Fred Thompson's position on Federalism, specifically mentioning his vote on a tort reform bill.

The other day, Thompson was on with Larry Kudlow and this point was specifically discussed:



The pundit featured in this video didn't seem too happy with his answer, but I sure liked it a lot.

Jaw Dropping Arrogance

I have been a fairly avid observer of the political scene for the last 15 years or so and in that time, I have seen no shortage of pure unadulterated arrogance displayed by various politicians. However, over at Politico.com, I just found what I believe to be the quote by which all other political arrogance will be judged henceforth:

Later, after McCain briefly chatted with reporters, Dave Coddington of Gilford, a self-described conservative, stopped the senator and read a question he had scrawled down on a notebook questioning whether "the more people see [the immigration deal] in the light of day, the more they see what it can do to America?"

"Actually, I always do the right thing and it always turns out alright and I know what the right thing is," McCain responded looking directly into the Coddington's eyes. (emphasis mine)

The fact that this man is still somehow a leading contender for the Presidency in '08 is astounding. Of course, I bet this gets precious little play by the MSM, who continue to be enamored by their favorite "maverick".

I know there is some stiff competition in the arrogant remarks category, I mean he is competing with such doosies as Hillary's "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" but can any of you come up with a statement to top this?

Update: In other news, Vladimir Putin, astutely sensing that he was falling behind to Ahmadinejad and Chavez in the "Most Asinine Statement by a Foreign Leader" category, comes out swinging with this whopper:

Of course I am an absolute, pure democrat. But you know the problem? It's not even a problem, it's a real tragedy. The thing is that I am the only one, there just aren't any others in the world.

More of the Same

Back before the 06 midterm elections, the second most voiced complaint from Dems was the "Culture of Corruption". According to them, if the Dems got control they would sweep in and clean house on the way things are done in Congress. Back then, I told my Dem friends they were crazy if they thought the Donkeys were any different than the Elephants.

Needless to say, I was right and they were wrong. The Dems have done next to nothing to rid Congress of earmarks, those nasty little add-ons to bills that members use to butter up constituents, payoff lobbyists, and fatten their own pockets.

Now that the Dems control the purse strings once again, they are not quite so eager to clean up shop, Robert Bluey points out:

So when Murtha faced Republican opposition for a $23-million earmark to fund the National Drug Intelligence Center, an operation in his hometown of Johnstown, Pa., he blew a gasket -- “unleashing a loud, finger-jabbing, spittle-spraying piece of his mind,” according to The Hill.

Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), a fellow appropriator, was the recipient of Murtha’s tirade for voting against the earmark in committee. Murtha threatened to pull a pet project from Tiahrt’s district to exact revenge. Fortunately for both members, the situation was resolved, and they walked away from the squabble with their projects intact.

Such is life in Washington, where members of Congress still don’t get it.

The Dems seem to have a short memory when it comes to their campaign promises. What a shock right? Well, only if you have no idea of how politicians work or if you are just so blindly partisan that you only see problems with the "other" side.

Democrats and Republicans are both quick to point out the problems with the other side, while blatantly ignoring their own party's lapses. As the saying goes, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." The truly disheartening thing is that there is no sign of change on the horizon. Their taste of power has almost completely cleansed the Republican party of all of its beliefs of small government and fiscal sanity, so even if they regain power, expect no changes.

I guess the best that can be hoped for is continued split power between Congress and the President. At least that slows the process down a bit so that not quite as much pork gets through, but both sides have shown they are eager to be "bought off" with pork; principles be damned when there is other people's money to be wasted.

Who Will It Be?

The first 2008 primaries are still 9 months away, so what better time to engage in idle thoughts and useless predictions about the outcome for both parties.

Let's start with my thoughts on the Dems:

Hillary Clinton -- barring any major missteps, the likely nominee
Barack Obama -- already starting to falter under the spotlight
John Edwards -- possible VP selection
Joe Biden -- no chance
Bill Richardson -- possible VP selection
Christopher Dodd -- no chance
Dennis Kucinich -- no chance
Mike Gravel -- no chance
Al Gore -- things become much more interesting if he jumps in

Now on to the Reps:

Rudy Guiliani -- possible nominee or VP selection
John McCain -- rubs too many people wrong
Mitt Romney -- no chance
Ron Paul -- should get the nomination, but won't
Sam Brownback -- no chance
Tom Tancredo -- no chance
Tommy Thompson -- no chance
Jim Gilmore -- no chance
Mike Huckabee -- no chance
Duncan Hunter -- no chance
Fred Thompson -- not declared, but likely nominee

Of course, there is no way of knowing what will happen between now and then. Besides, the shear madness of the political thought process of both Democrats and Republicans boggles my mind, so trying to guess what they will actually do is really just pointless.

I probably have a better chance of guessing what country the next Ms Universe will be from and would undoubtedly enjoy getting to know more about the candidates much more.

Feel free to give me your thoughts on the matter in the comments.

Ron Paul Won't Get My Vote for President

Off the top of my head, I can't think of another elected official on the national level that has done more to consistently promote liberty in the modern era than has Dr. Ron Paul. In the face of the acerbic environment of DC, he has resisted the temptation to sway with the polls and has stood fast on principle. It is no wonder that the LP dubbed him as their candidate for President in 1988.

Of course, anyone who follows politics knows that third party candidates rarely have much success on any level, which is why Dr. Paul runs as a Republican. I am constantly amazed that he manages to get re-elected in TX-14 simply by putting an (R) at the end of his name rather than an (L), but without changing his message. He certainly doesn't do it with help from the RNC. To them, he is nothing more than a placeholder for the Republican Party. They do not actively support him, though they should. A good look at his views could do a lot to remind Republicans of many of the things they supposedly stand for.

By this point, after such a glowing description of Dr. Paul, you may be wondering why he won't be getting my vote for President. Simple. Republicans are idiots and he will be lucky to garner a few percentage points of the vote during the primaries. Therefore, he will not actually be running for the Presidency, but only the Republican nomination for President. Because of that, he won't be getting my vote for President.

He will get my vote for the Republican nomination though, and he should get yours as well. The Republicans have taken advantage of the fact that many liberty minded people feel like they are between a rock and a hard place come election time. They don't want to vote for whatever unappealing character happens to get the Rep. nomination, but they also find themselves afraid to vote for a third party candidate for fear of the unappealing character on the Dem side will win.

Believe me, that is a nauseating feeling indeed. I have voted for the LP candidate during the last 2 Presidential elections (since I started considering myself a libertarian), but I can say that the thought of Gore or Kerry being President scared the hell out of me. The thought of another Republican like Bush scares me as well, so I will undoubtedly vote for whomever garners the LP nomination once again. And once again, he will have no chance of actually winning.