June 25th, 2007

Blame Voters, Not Nader

Ralph Nader

According to Politico, Ralph Nader is “seriously considering” re-running for president (when is not not?). Recalling the 2000 election—where had just 538 people who voted for Nader in Florida voted instead for Al Gore, George W. Bush would have not become president—Democrats are again imploring the lefty activist to stay on the sidelines.

“His entry into the race . . . . would be just another vainglorious effort to promote himself at the expense of the best interests of the public,” opines Chris Lehane, a prominent Democratic strategist.

This is a classic case of blaming the messenger. Nader never forced anyone to vote for him. To the contrary, he simply offered what some considered to be an attractive alternative. Plus, as with all third-party candidates, anyone who voted for him likely did so thoughtfully. As such, people should direct their ire not at the candidate but at those who campaigned for him and pulled a lever bearing his name.

Indeed, whatever constitutes the public’s so-called best interests is for voters, not wonks, to decide.


June 24th, 2007

Get Tough on Criminal Justice

Libertarians too often neglect critiques of criminal justice. Fortunately, Radley Balko, formerly of Cato, now of Reason, is a one-man encyclopedia of the system’s abuses.

Example: 17-year-old boy has consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl. Boy is convicted of molestation under a Georgia statute (since revised), and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Judge overturns sentence, but state attorney general appeals, out of duty to the laws “as they are written, not how some may wish they were written.”

This is a classic half-truth, for

Prosecutors have enormous discretion in when and how and against whom they bring charges. They can overcharge and pressure the defendant to plea bargain. They can undercharge if they feel there are mitigating circumstances associated with the crime. Or they can determine that despite the fact that a crime has been committed, in the interest of justice, charges ought not be brought at all.

What’s more, every prosecutor’s office battles with limited resources. A prosecutor can’t possibly enforce each law against each person who breaks it. So prosecutors set priorities. And in choosing which laws they will enforce vigorously and which laws they will let slide, they make public policy.

Yet the problems run deeper than runaway prosecutors. The problem is the institutionally entrenched notion that no one ever lost re-election for being “tough on crime.” In Radley’s words,

Many prosecutors and politicians have unfortunately come to measure success in our criminal justice system by the number of people they put in jail. Criminal laws—particularly those pertaining to drug and sex crimes—are increasingly written with extraordinary breadth and reach. Police officers typically are rewarded for arrests, not for preventing crimes. Prosecutors tend to be promoted or re-elected based on their ability to win convictions, not their fairness or sense of justice. Appeals courts, meanwhile, generally focus on constitutional and procedural issues. Only in extreme cases will an appellate court review the appropriateness of a verdict.

From the writing of laws to their enforcement and prosecution, our system has evolved to the point where justice, mercy and fairness often go overlooked. It’s no surprise that the U.S. leads the world in its rate of incarceration, and by a wide margin.


June 20th, 2007

Free Hong Kong?

Hong Kong Skyline

In college, I subscribed to the idealist school of foreign policy. After I graduated, however, my preparation for a debate on U.S.-Sino relations vis-a-vis Taiwan, made me realize the complexity of international relations, and caused me to change my view:

Even if China annexed Taiwan tomorrow, reunification would not spell disaster. As various Chinese officials have said, a reunified Taiwan would enjoy even greater autonomy than Hong Kong. In theory, Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. In practice, Hong Kong retains its own legal system, currency and customs. A major international center of finance and trade, it is also an economic dynamo. For these reasons, Taiwan’s reunification would occur more in name than in substance. It would amount to new letterhead on a government memo, not serfdom.

Though he challenges this “one-country-two systems” view, Gerald Baker ends up bolstering it. Here’s the crux from his article in the current issue of the Weekly Standard:

The results from 10 years of Chinese control have been mixed. Hong Kong is distinctively freer than anywhere else in China. But it feels as though it is on a long leash. The basic civil rights China promised to maintain look robust enough. Freedom of religion is an obvious reality in the territory, attested to by the fact that the chief executive, or governor, Donald Tsang, is a devout Catholic who attends mass daily. The rule of law—essential to Hong Kong’s efficiently capitalist way of life—has also been maintained. The government has been successfully challenged in court on a number of matters by Hong Kong’s fiercely independent judiciary.

The right of assembly is also a practical reality. In June, on the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre, hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people gathered as they have every year for the last 18 years to denounce China’s human rights record.

More important, it was this type of direct democracy that produced perhaps the most significant political event in Hong Kong in the last five years. In 2003, with the former colony suffering heavily from the SARS crisis, and the government trying to create aggressive new security laws, a half million people marched through the streets to demand the right to vote and to protest a bumbling pro-Beijing administration. They forced not only the withdrawal of the legislation but also in the end the removal of the territory’s pro-Beijing chief executive.


June 16th, 2007

Jack Kevorkian: The Wrong Poster Boy

Jack Kevorkian, in 1991, with his “suicide machine"

For those of us too young to have lived through the heyday of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, Wesley Smith gives us a glimpse of the doctor’s ideas, through his own words. Meanwhile, the New York Times opines that

he besmirched the movement he hoped to energize. If his antics provided anything of value, it was as a reminder of how much terminally ill patients can suffer and of the need for sane and humane laws allowing carefully regulated assisted suicides. . . .

The fundamental flaw in Dr. Kevorkian’s crusade was his cavalier, indeed reckless, approach. He was happy to hook up patients without long-term knowledge of their cases or any corroborating medical judgment that they were terminally ill or suffering beyond hope of relief with aggressive palliative care. . . .

By contrast, Oregon, which has the only law allowing terminally ill adults to request a lethal dose of drugs from a physician, requires two physicians to agree that the patient is of sound mind and has less than six months to live.

Related: Doctors shouldn’t medicate themselves and psychiatrist shouldn’t treat themselves. If they did, their patient would be a fool—which is exactly what Colin Ferguson, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Charles Manson and Jack Kevorkian were in choosing to represent themselves in their own capital criminal cases.


June 16th, 2007

Mitt’s Words That Work

Mitt Romney’s various changes of heart demand a ready repository of finely tuned explanations. Rhetorically, if not factually, his answers are brilliant, employing what pollster Frank Luntz calls “words that work.” This does not necessarily mean answering the question, but reframing it onto common or comfortable territory. Some examples:

1. On abortion, from the third GOP debate:

Q: You made . . . this decision on abortion, opposing abortion, relatively recently. Why should conservatives out there, people who oppose abortion believe you?

A: I’m not going to apologize for the fact that I became pro-life.

2. On his changes of hearts, from his announcement for president:

I haven’t always been a Ronald Reagan conservative. But then again, neither was Ronald Reagan.

3. On abortion, from an address earlier this week to the National Right to Life organization:

I proudly follow a long line of converts—George Herbert Walker Bush, Henry Hyde and Ronald Reagan, to name a few. I am evidence that your work, that your relentless campaign to promote the sanctity of human life, bears fruit.

4. On being Mormon, from the third GOP debate:

Q: [T]here was a recent poll here in New Hampshire. Ten percent said they wouldn’t vote for you because you’re a Mormon. And last week we saw that picture of that man who refused to shake your hand because you are a Mormon. What would you like to say to the voters out there tonight about your faith, about yourself and about God?

A: Well, President Kennedy some time ago said he was not a Catholic running for president; he was an American running for president. And I’m happy to be a proud member of my faith. You know, I think it’s a fair question for people to ask, What do you believe? And I think if you want to understand what I believe, you could recognize that the values that I have are the same values you’ll find in faiths across this country. I believe in God, believe in the Bible, believe Jesus Christ is my savior. I believe that God created man in his image. I believe that the freedoms of man derive from inalienable rights that were given to us by God. And I also believe that there are some pundits out there that are hoping that I’ll distance myself from my church so that that’ll help me politically, and that’s not going to happen.

Addendum (6/25/2007): One glaring exception was Romney’s answer to the question, “Knowing everything you know right now, was it a mistake for us to invade Iraq?”

Well, I answered the question by saying it’s a—it’s a non sequitur, it’s a null set kind of question, because you can go back and say, if we knew then what we know now, by virtue of inspectors having been let in and giving us that information, by virtue of if Saddam Hussein had followed the U.N. resolutions, we wouldn’t be having this—this discussion. So it’s a hypothetical that I think is an unreasonable hypothetical. And the answer is, we did what we did; we did the right thing based on what we knew at that time. I think we made mistakes following the conduct—or the collapse of Saddam’s government.


June 7th, 2007

Jim Gilmore: “I Don’t Claim to Be a Better Conservative”

Jim Gilmore

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore spoke to a small group of conservative journalists this morning at the office of Americans for Tax Reform. The hour-long session was part of the American Spectator Newsmaker Breakfast series. I’ll post a write-up later today; for now, let me report the governor’s response to my question.

I began, “You’ve said you’re the only true conservative,” at which point Gilmore cut me off, lifted his briefing papers from the table and slammed them back down.

“I have never said I’m the only true conservative,” Gilmore declared. He explained that the line came from a reporter, and has been recycled ad nauseam.

A few minutes with Google, however, indicates otherwise.

According to the Associated Press, in December, Gilmore said “he saw no true conservative in the GOP field.” That same month, he told the Washington Post, “There is no committed conservative in this race who can put together a national campaign.”

In February, Gilmore “told bloggers that he’s the only conservative in the race,” according to the host of that meeting, Rob Bluey of the Heritage Foundation. A few days later, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, Gilmore repeated that “he is the only conservative in the race,” according to Kathryn Jean-Lopez, the editor of National Review Online.

In March, an article from the Virginian-Pilot noted, “Gilmore, 57, says he can win because he’s the only ‘real conservative’ seeking the GOP nomination in 2008.” In April, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported, “Claiming that he is the only true conservative in the race, Gilmore said, ‘I won’t waffle, waiver or change.'”

Gilmore then allowed me to continue my question, which I modified as follows: You say you’re the most “consistent” conservative. What specifically about your fellow second-tier candidates makes them inconsistent?

Again, Gilmore tried to disabuse me. “I don’t claim to be a better conservative” than the other candidates, he said.


June 1st, 2007

Are the Beliefs of a Political Spouse Relevant?

Ann Romney, center, wife of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, acknowledges applause as she is introduced by her husband during his State of the State address in the House chamber at the Statehouse, in Boston on Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2006. Debbie DiMasi, left, is the wife of Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi, D-Boston. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

A version of this blog post appeared in Politico on June 1, 2007.

Thirteen years ago, Anne Romney gave a $150 personal donation to Planned Parenthood. Upon the disclosure, her husband, who is now running for president on a staunchly pro-life platform, disclaimed, “Her positions are not terribly relevant to my campaign.”

But are they? Should you consider the views of a spouse when voting for his or her partner?

Undoubtedly, Bill Clinton is integral to Hillary’s campaign. He is, hands down, the best Democratic mind and campaigner today. Of course, the Clintons are an exception, given that one of them occupied the Oval Office for eight years.

What does the Republican front-runner think? Asked if his wife would sit in on cabinet meetings, Rudy Giuliani told Barbara Walters, “If she wanted to. If they were relevant to something that she was interested in. I mean, that would be something that I’d be very, very comfortable with.”

To put the point poetically, recall the scene from Angels in America, where Al Pacino is bragging about his clout. Pacino tells his doctor, I pick up the phone, make a few calls, and you know who’s on the other end? “The president?” “Even better,” Pacino smirks. “His wife.”

Indeed, no one knows the president better than his wife. She’s the first one with him in the morning and the last one with him at night. Do this with someone long enough, and pillow talk is inevitable (even for Tony Soprano). “You know, honey,” Laura Bush admonished George W., “I think it’s time you let Don go” (I’m paraphrasing).

But W. rejected the advice (to fire his now-former former secretary of defense), and it’s worth noting that while the president’s wife, his mother and one of his closest advisers, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, are all pro-choice, he remains a committed pro-lifer; among other things, he has reinstated the global gag rule and appointed two, anti-choice judges to the Supreme Court.

As further evidence of spousal independence, consider such strange-bedfellow marriages as Mary Matalin and James Carville (she was a senior adviser to Dick Cheney, he to Bill Clinton) and Maria Shriver and Arnold Schwarzenegger (she’s a lifelong, hereditary Democrat, he’s the Republican governor of California).

Therefore, Romney is right: the views of a significant other aren’t terribly relevant. While it may be comforting to think that a wife is whispering NARAL talking points into her husband’s ear, the hope for a consequent change in policy is probably more hope than actuality. Spousal disagreement surely softens an otherwise inflexible position (hence the phrase “my better half”), and makes the other person aware of the counterarguments, but it’s unlikely to change one’s mind.

Addendum (6/27/08): Amy Sullivan points out additional examples of First Wife spousal disagreement:

From Pat Nixon, who declared “I believe abortion is a personal choice,” to Betty Ford, who praised the Supreme Court’s judgment in Roe as “a great, great decision” to Laura Bush, who on the eve of her husband’s inauguration said she did not think he would appoint justices who would overturn Roe, pro-choice wives have long tried to signal to voters that this particular Republican President would not focus on abortion.


May 22nd, 2007

Reverse Snob Appeal

Fred and Jerri Thompson

I used to believe that electing a president should partly be a popularity contest. Who’s the guy I’d most like to have a drink with?

The problem, of course, is that I’m never going to socialize with the president of the United States. Instead, my criteria should revolve around things that will actually or plausibly affect me, like Social Security reform, the death tax and net neutrality.

Yet the reverse snobbery of those who champion the beer primary was lost on me until I read this op-ed, by the editor of the Nashville Scene, which compares Al Gore to Fred Thompson. Here’s the nut (and here’s a quick question for this ilk: name a northeastern liberal who passes the beer primary?):

Thompson never came off looking like a cardboard cutout—the way Gore did as a presidential candidate—because there was a kernel of truth to the image. Who could imagine a teenage Gore driving a pickup along Massachusetts Avenue on his way to the privileged academic bastion of St. Albans? But young Freddie Thompson probably did kick back in a Chevy, drinking a beer with his buds, after a Lawrence County High School football game. As Tennessee columnist Frank Cagle once put it, Thompson fit that truck in a way that Michael Dukakis never fit the tank.

So I’m not misunderstood, character matters a great deal. But in electing a person whose powers include first-strike capabilities, considerations as to whether he went to prep or public school, whether his shirt is a hand-me-down or embroidered with a brand-name logo, or whether he avoids multisyllabic words because he doesn’t know many, are frivolous.

To put it another way, who would you rather have as a boss: a bombshell of average intelligence or an overweight nerd? One’s incompetence might result in your being laid off, whereas the worst that can happen with the other is that your circle of people to flirt with in the office shrinks by one person.

(Obligatory pop-culture reference, from Seinfeld:

JERRY: “So this woman you plan on hiring, is she going to be in the spokesmodel category?”

GEORGE: “Sure. I could go the tomato route. But I’ve given this a lot of thought Jerry. All that frustration. I’ll never get any work done. So I’m doing a complete 360 [sic]. I’m going for total efficiency and ability.”)

In the end, charisma and authenticity should be luxuries in politics.

Related: A few days ago, I wondered if the beliefs of a spouse are relevant in voting for a politician. Last month, I examined whether politicians should know the price of a gallon of milk.


May 21st, 2007

What Constitutes “Amnesty”? Or, for That Matter, “Judicial Activism”?

Naturalization ceremony participants raise their hands and hold American flags as they are sworn-in as new U.S. citizens Monday, March 27, 2006, during the Naturalization Ceremony at the Daughters of the American Revolution Administration Building in Washington. President George W.Bush addressed the audience, saying that each generation of immigrants brings a renewal to our national character and adds vitality to our culture

Within the past year or so, two terms have became verboten within the conservative lexicon: “judicial activism” and “amnesty.” Both are so facile and, by now, shopworn, they have lost objective meaning and instead serve as means to hurl at one’s opponents.

So, in order to restore semantic sanity to the debates about the role of the judiciary and about immigration reform, let’s try to unravel some definitions.

“Judicial activism” occurs when the judiciary overturns a law that enjoys overwhelming public support. Hence the phrase “legislating from the bench.”

“Amnesty” is not automatically synonymous with earned citizenship. Instead, the operative question is how long an illegal must wait for legalized status.

If, after paying back taxes, fees and satisfying other conditions (like fluency in English, gainful employment and a clean criminal record), such status is conferred immediately, then that seems like amnesty. If such status must be earned over time, as with the 1986 bill that granted permanent residency after 18 months and citizenship after another five years, then I think invoking the scarlet noun minimizes the hardships associated with waiting.

For those who disagree—like Senator DeMint, who recently proclaimed, “I don’t care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty”—I’d ask you to describe a solution, short of deporting all illegals, which is not amnesty?

By all means, I’m no expert on these subjects; this is just my admittedly uninformed opinion. What do you think?

Addendum (6/16/2007): My litmus test for the “amnesty” label are the requirements for legalization. But as Time reporter Nathan Thornburgh observes, the more common test is legalization itself:

Whether you fine illegal aliens or stick them in English classes or make them say a hundred Hail Marys, at the end of the day, illegals would be allowed to stay and become citizens under this bill. That’s amnesty.

In other words, anything allowing those who came here illegally to stay here legally constitutes amnesty. To avoid amnesty, illegals must get in the back of the line for legal entry.


May 21st, 2007

A 12th Commandment: Principle Before Party

Reagan campaigns with Nancy and Senator Strom Thurmond (right) in South Carolina, 1980

Upon the recent death of religious right pooh-bah Jerry Falwell, Christopher Hitchens observed that having the word “reverend” before your name grants you immunity.* Jonathan Martin drew a similar conclusion about having an “R” after your name, specifically, Ron Paul’s, with respect to the Republican presidential debates.

Now comes news from Erick Erickson that the NRCC is holding a fund-raiser tomorrow for Ken Calvert, with special guest Jerry Lewis. Doug Bandow provides the context:

House Republicans . . . added ethically challenged Ken Calvert to the Appropriations Committee, to temporarily fill a vacancy created by Rep. John Doolittle, another California Republican, who resigned after the FBI raided his home (an increasingly common problem for Republican members these days). And the Republican ranking member remains Jerry Lewis, yet another California Republican . . . [who is] a big spender facing a serious criminal investigation as well.

Add this circle-the-wagons, strength-in-numbers, the devil-you-know-is-better-than-the-devil-you-don’t agenda to the NRSC’s vigorous attempt, in last year’s Rhode Island primary, to ward off a challenge to Lincoln Chafee (lifetime ACU rating: 35), and the message is clear: party trumps principle—even when the party is in the gutter.

It’s said that cops form a “blue line” around their colleagues when one stands accused of misconduct. This mentality, while appropriate in some circumstances, now infects the GOP leadership. Call it the Republican red line; or, as Quin Hillyer puts it (via e-mail), “Calvert leads to culvert”:

By elevating Ken Calvert to the Appropriations Committee, the House leadership has driven its ethics, its message, and its entire caucus into a culvert.

Accordingly, let’s replace Reagan’s 11th Commandment—”Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican”—with a 12th one: Principle before party.

*Maybe this is why former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey, who resigned in disgrace after a gay sex scandal, is now on his way to becoming a priest.


May 20th, 2007

John Ashcroft, Civil Libertarian

Who would have thought former Attorney General John Ashcroft—the guy who ordered $8,000 drapes to cover the bare-breasted “Spirit of Justice” sculpture in a hall of the Justice Department—was a civil libertarian? Compared to his former colleagues, he looks like a card-carrying member of the ACLU. The Post reports:

In addition to rejecting to the most expansive version of the warrantless eavesdropping program, the [former] officials said, Ashcroft also opposed holding detainees indefinitely at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without some form of due process. He fought to guarantee some rights for those to be tried by newly created military commissions. And he insisted that Zacarias Moussaoui, accused of conspiring with the Sept. 11 hijackers, be prosecuted in a civilian court. . . .

None of this meant that Ashcroft was a closet liberal. He championed a broad expansion of government power to investigate possible terrorist cells through the USA Patriot Act, authorized the detention of hundreds without charges in the days after Sept. 11, pushed immigration agents to fully use their power to deport foreigners, secured new authority to peer into private records even in libraries, and oversaw legal interpretations that opened the door to harsh interrogation techniques that critics called torture. . . .

Ashcroft declined to comment last week. But Mark Corallo, his former spokesman, said that when it came to resisting what he considered excesses, “he really did throw some sharp elbows.”

Two questions:

1. Why don’t articles about the midnight visit Andy Card and Al Gonzales paid to Ashcroft, while Ashcroft lay in a hospital bed recuperating from gallbladder surgery, reference the original source of this scoop: not Jim Comey’s testimony earlier this week before a senate committee, but a New York Times article published in January 2006?

2. Why does the Post cite Wonkette as a serious news source, on par with Chuck Schumer, Andrew Sullivan and PFAW president Ralph Neas?


May 20th, 2007

Another Romney Flip-Flop?

Mitt Romney

Although I prefer the old Mitt Romney to his newfound presidential persona, it’s hard not to like the guy. He’s cheerful, charming, convincing, telegenic—in short, a lot like Ronald Reagan (sans the cowboy hats and boots).

But at least in secular terms, Romney faces a hurdle—of his own making, to be sure—which has grown so high that people automatically assume the worst. Consider the latest. According to a recent cover story in Time:

The closest he has ever come to a personal religious crisis, he recalls, was when he was in college and considering whether to go off on a mission, as his grandfather, father and brother had done. Mitt was deeply in love with Ann, his high school sweetheart and future wife, and couldn’t bear to spend more than two years away from her. He says he also felt guilty about the draft deferment he would get for it, when other young men his age were heading for Vietnam.

But in 1994, Romney was seemingly singing a different tune. Ryan Sager unearths a quote he gave to the Boston Herald:

Romney . . . acknowledged he did not have any desire to serve in the military during his college and missionary days, especially after he married and became a father. ‘I was not planning on signing up for the military,’ he said. ‘It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft. If drafted, I would have been happy to serve, and if I didn’t get drafted I was happy to be with my wife and new child.

Soren Dayton sees this as “further proof that Romney isn’t “[serious],” but, like Ryan, I see no contradiction here. One can feel guilty about getting a deferment while simultaneously being thankful for it. Guilt is a complex emotion, and to Romney’s credit, he acknowledges the nuance.


May 19th, 2007

Beware Internet Polls

In general, I distrust polls. But I really distrust those those don’t even pretend to scientific accuracy, as by distinguishing between likely vs. registered voters, screening for people who cannot legally vote, disclosing the margin of error, using neutral language, and so on. The only thing the latter are good for, as Jesse Walker ably explains, is to measure how devoted a following someone has.

This is why, when in 2002 the Modern Library announced its list of the 100 greatest novels and invited online readers to submit their picks, two groups rose up: the Randians and the Scientologists. Where the official top three consisted of Ulysses, The Great Gatsby and A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man, the people’s house picked Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and Battlefield Earth.

Of course, there’s always some cheating (as in using a single computer to vote multiple times). But as Jesse observes of Ron Paul, who’s been racking up victory after victory in various online polls, “The congressman does well even when the multi-voters are ferreted out.”

The reason for such success, as with the Modern Library survey, is the Internet, which from its inception has been a boon for the marginalized (pornographers being the obvious example). Such people are usually geographically separate, but in a classic display of supply meeting demand, the Web allows them to pool their resources.

The final point is the icing on the cake. As Jesse puts it, those, like Little Green Footballs and Pajamas Media, who have banned Paul from their polls, would do well to “ponder the point of offering a system so easily gamed.” Or, in the case of Fox News host Carl Cameron, who questioned his employer’s text-messaging poll, in which Paul placed a solid second, they might “admit that if the votes for Paul didn’t mean much, the same was true of the remainder of the results.”


May 18th, 2007

Why Ron Paul Is Bad for Himself and Good for the GOP

A version of this blog post appeared on TechRepublican.

Here’s the now-infamous exchange (parts of which I’m omitting, signified by ellipses, to get to its essence) among Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), Rudy Giuliani and moderator Wendell Goler, during the most recent debate for the Republican presidential candidates:

Paul: They attack us because we’ve been over there. [For instance,] we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East. . . .

Goler: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

Paul: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. . . .

Giuliani: I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us he didn’t really mean that.

Paul: I believe very sincerely that the C.I.A. is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. . . . If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there.

For these arguments, many are now clamoring for Ron Paul’s exclusion from future debates. This is not only unhealthy, but also sets a dangerous precedent. (What’s next: baring a Republican who supports gay marriage?)

Dissent—in a debate of all places—invigorates discussion. And since Paul is the only one, out of 10 candidates, to oppose the war, his views merit inclusion.

Of course, not all dissent is worthy. Dissent for dissent’s sake is a waste of time, which is precious with only 90 minutes and 10 people. But dissent that’s grounded in conservative principles (“war is the health of the state“), or even some evidence, deserves a hearing.

Indeed, the idea that the U.S. invited 9/11 is not as radical as one might think. This idea, at least the nuanced, scholarly school of it, does not blame the United States for the attacks, but recognizes that it’s both who we are (“They hate us for our freedom“) and what we do (“We’ve been in the Middle East”) that fans the terrorist flames.

Even if Paul sounds like him, Michael Moore he is not.

But if he’s not a kook, then who is he? Well, some of his ideas are kooky, but the bigger problem is that he’s a poor communicator, who suffers from a rhetorical Napoleon complex. In short, he’s his own worst enemy.

Even a fool realizes that a format where you’re given one minute per question is probably the worst place to articulate perhaps the most controversial thing you could say to an American audience (you have blood on your hands for the deadliest attack on American soil in the nation’s history), especially one of Southern conservatives to whom the war on terror trumps everything. To wit, Paul’s above remarks were unnecessary (yes, he was baited, but he took the bait) and inappropriate (they require far too much time to explain, let alone convince someone of).

Since it’s fair to assume that a 10-term member of Congress is familiar with the cardinal rule of marketing—know your audience—the only explanation I can think of for these follies is that Paul likes controversy. And, to give him his due, as a going-nowhere candidate, he may be right to exploit the P.T. Barnum rule of publicity: all press is good press. If nothing else, his confrontation with Giuliani (it’s playing on YouTube as Ron vs. Rudy) has heightened his profile.

But Paul is seemingly oblivious to the alternative: instead of trying to ride his antiwar bona fides, he should emphasize his domestic agenda.

For example, when asked by both Giuliani and Goler to disabuse those who thought he had just likened Americans to cold-blooded mass murderers, instead of returning to theories of blowback, he might have simply said “No, I am not,” and pivoted back to why the Iraq war is hurting our national security.

What Ron Paul offers are deeply consistent, principled views on what the Constitution authorizes and does not authorize. Among Republicans hungry for a candidate who not only believes but also acts on fiscally conservative principles, this is his unique selling point.

Yet in listening to him, you’d never know this. You’d never know that he has never voted to raise taxes. Or that he has never voted for an unbalanced budget. Or that he has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. Or that he has never voted to raise congressional pay. Why? Because Ron Paul is lousy at self-promotion—when, ironically, he has the most to promote.

So, instead of attacking Giuliani and asking him to apologize, both of which only fuel the perception that he is out of touch, Paul must focus more on himself. He’s already nailed showmanship. Now he needs to master salesmanship.

Addendum (6/1/2007): Finally, Paul declares, “It’s preposterous to say that I’m blaming America. That’s a complete distortion, like blaming a person for being murdered. No, I’m looking at the motives and reasons that elicit such hatred and willingness to kill.”


May 10th, 2007

Ron Paul’s YouTube Surge

A version of this blog post appeared on TechRepublican on May 11, 2007.

We’ve already seen how Ron Paul’s fans are using Digg to fire up his campaign. Now comes evidence that they’re also savvy YouTubers (as are, thankfully, his campaign staffers). Both clips come from last week’s debate among the Republican presidential candidates.

The first, uploaded by “dcarrico,” who previously had posted only one, apolitical video, has been viewed nearly 60,000 times. Moderator Chris Matthews asked Paul whether he supported a constitutional amendment allowing foreign-born citizens to become president. Paul said “no, because I am a strong supporter of the original intent,” to which Matthews muttered, “Oh God” (above; fast-forward to 1:10).

The second clip, viewed nearly 3,000 times and uploaded by the politically active “infowars,” scrutinizes another cheap shot. At the end of an answer concerning the war on terror, Paul declared, “I would work very hard to protect the privacy of American citizens, being very, very cautious about warrantless searches. And I would guarantee that I would never abuse habeas corpus.”

What you probably missed is that Rudy, who disagrees sharply with Paul about the role of civil liberties in wartime, snickered at this last line:

In an earlier era (i.e., a year ago), I would have heard about these details through the grapevine, and probably chalked them up as rumors spread by partisans. In the Age of YouTube, I can effortlessly and for free view and confirm such rumors for myself.