Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. The Race for Second?

 

Paul pauses during a network news interview on Capitol Hill in WashingtonThere is no next-in-line for the GOP nomination this cycle. We had one of the least-inspiring candidates the last time around — last two times? — while the other candidates all sputtered and fell.

This means the race is wide open, and we’ve already had much better talent announced already than we’ve had in the recent past (admittedly, not the highest bar to clear). But I think the vast majority of people, whether or not Scott Walker is exactly their man, don’t see any of the senators pictured here as having what it takes to make it.

This leads to speculation of what exactly Cruz, Rubio, and Paul are trying to accomplish by running. Sure, it will expand their national profile, and that’s usually a good thing for the narcissists who think they can and should rule others. Maybe they are trying to influence debate and nudge the platform and eventual nominee in their preferred direction.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Stephen Harper Should Play the Anti-American Card

 

imageWith a federal election coming up later this year, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s campaign strategy of using wedge issues to separate his principal opponent from Canadian voters while strengthening his bond with conservatives is coming into focus.

Regarding the former, he’s championed the construction of the Victims of Communism memorial in Ottawa, which has elicited shrieks of outrage from the Ottawa intelligentsia (as well as specious excuses from the Liberals). Again, the politics here are designed to separate voters of Polish, Ukrainian, and other Eastern European extraction — and, for that matter, non-European refugees of communism, such as the Cambodians — from the Liberal Party. In the latter mode, he’s commented on Bill C-42 – designed to deregulate gun ownership, as well as rural citizens’ need for guns to defend themselves.

As I have said a number of times before (here and here), another excellent wedge issue Harper might exploit is the Keystone XL pipeline, whose Congressional approval President Obama has recently vetoed. Traditionally, Harper’s Conservative Party has been seen in Canada as the pro-American party due to the Conservative’s natural ideological sympathy with the American system of government. The Liberals have used this to insinuate Conservative disloyalty to Canada. With Keystone XL, however, the roles are reversed: Harper can play the anti-American card against the Liberals, who are forced by their ties to environmentalism, to oppose a project that is indisputably good for the Canadian economy. So far, so good.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. New Video, New Campaign, A New Hillary?

 

Under the guise of how to keep an idiot in suspense, I spent a good part of my Sunday waiting for Hillary Clinton’s much-anticipated Twitter announcement.

And then it came – surprise! – John Podesta, her campaign’s senior advisor, issuing this email to Mrs. Clinton’s fan base: “I wanted to make sure you heard it first from me – it’s official: Hillary’s running for president. She is hitting the road to Iowa to start talking directly to voters. There will be a formal kickoff event next month, and we look forward to seeing you there.”

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Rubio Makes it Official

 

shutterstock_180970304 (1)From the New York Times:

MIAMI — Senator Marco Rubio of Florida told his top donors Monday that he was running for president in 2016, becoming the third Republican to officially enter the contest.

Mr. Rubio will make a formal announcement Monday evening here, when he is expected to present himself as the embodiment of generational change who can unite the Republican Party’s factions and offer economic solutions for the 21st century.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Asset Forfeiture Reform in New Mexico

 

384px-Governor_NewMexicoLate last month, the New Mexico legislature passed a bill — with no opposition in either chamber — reforming civil asset forfeiture, a process that is sometimes abused by law enforcement to seize citizens’ private property without their being convicted of a crime, or following a minor traffic violation. Worse yet, under some arrangements with the Feds, police departments can keep the money to use for their own budgets. No one knew whether Governor Susana Martinez would sign SB 560, and the clock was ticking before the legislature’s session ended. Well, she has done it!

Republican New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez has signed into law House Bill 560, the state’s broad asset forfeiture reform legislation. The bill, introduced by Republican Rep. Zachary Cook, had complete bipartisan approval in the state’s split House (controlled by Republicans) and Senate (controlled by Democrats).

More from Reason:

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Handicapping the Republican Presidential Hopefuls

 

shutterstock_121492783The biggest issue with the current crop of Republican presidential candidates rests in the one characteristic they all share: that they are all politicians. Okay, so Dr. Carson is no politician, but he’s not a viable candidate, either. Let’s start with Jeb Bush. He used to be the most conservative of the Bushes, but he traded that in for what I’m sure he believes is practicality. It’s not. It’s not even compromise. It’s weakness. The media senses it, and they cheer for him. DocJay is right: Jeb is Hillary’s mark and nothing smacks more of politics than the Bush Dynasty.

Scott Walker is a fighter, no doubt, but his hands are still stained permanently with the ink of taxpayer dollars. In his short life, he’s been a politician… and nothing else. Chris Christie was a prosecutor before he immersed himself in politics. If there’s one thing nearly as disqualifying of politicians as politics, it’s the practice of law and — worse yet — the practice of law on the government payroll. Private practice is narrowly qualifying, but double-damn on those who cash a government check. And while Christie never had my vote, he earned my contempt when he wrapped his beefy arm around our President, seeking favor after disaster.

Rand Paul is an MD, an Ophthalmologist. So far, so good. His experience in politics is limited to the Senate but — in spite of his sometimes surly demeanor — his pedigree makes him yet another politician, yet another political legacy. And with this legacy comes the scent of his father’s kookiness. Ted Cruz is yet another lawyer, the former Solicitor General for the state of Texas, though he spent several years in private practice. As with Rand Paul, his first elected office is the US Senate.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Tolerance and the Despot

 

obama as despot“That’s my reality!” she said over and over again. It was 1997, I believe, and I was relaxing with a few friends in the NCO Club at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina following my return from another tour of duty in the Mideast. A female NCO was at our table, where we all took turns telling stories from our various deployments over the years. As the number of empty beer bottles increased, so too did the eccentricity and humor of the stories, except, that is, for this solitary NCO whose demeanor became more emphatic and grim as time passed.

I forget the specifics of the stories she told, chiefly because of the startling manner in which she concluded each anecdote, leaning in for dramatic effect, her eyes widening all the while, and announcing, “THAT’S MY REALITY!” The effect was immediate and as she desired, for it foreclosed any further question or attempts to explore her perspective in depth. Indeed, it seemed that to trespass on her “reality” would have been akin to saying, “No, actually, I don’t think your children are attractive at all, and that crayon scrawl your jug-eared son drew suggests that the epilepsy meds aren’t working very well either.” Certain things just aren’t up for discussion after all, and that included her “reality.”

To her everlasting credit, however, she didn’t demand our immediate and universal endorsement of her reality, such a presumption being considered, once upon a time, rude and small-minded. She could have her reality, and we could have ours, and we would coexist in a genial conversation. But that was back then, when from the academy to the editorial page we were encouraged to push against the alleged tide of intolerance, to celebrate inclusiveness, embrace diversity and, above all, to exercise Tolerance. Remember that word? That goal? That talisman?

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Please Stop the Pandering, Senator Paul

 

shutterstock_180495284You may count me among those unenthused by the prospect of a Rand Paul presidency. To understand why, look at the speech he gave in announcing his candidacy on Tuesday. Using an old and stale a rhetorical device, Senator Paul proclaimed his visions of an America he assures us would exist under his stewardship. Among these visions was this: “I see an America where criminal justice is applied equally and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.”

Senator Paul cannot possibly be so uninformed as to think that crime is committed in equal proportions across all ethnic lines. The only explanation for including that little nugget in the speech is that he is pandering to those who cling to the discredited belief that the criminal justice system is rigged against racial minorities.

The myth of the racially biased criminal justice system has been thoroughly debunked, in my opinion most effectively by my friend Heather Mac Donald (see here, for example). But, like “Hands up, Don’t Shoot,” it is a myth that refuses to die. And though this myth persists, it is nonetheless disappointing to see politicians propagating it, most especially a Republican aspiring to be president.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Rand’s Reforms: The Ricochet Survey

 

RandHere’s a protip for the approaching presidential campaign season: when the candidates take to the stump, always read the transcript rather than watching the speech. I adopted this technique during the 2008 presidential campaign, when it simply became too arduous to sit through 75 minutes of mass hysteria (and at least one audience member fainting) to get through 15 minutes worth of Barack Obama’s cotton candy remarks.

The transcripts are clarifying. You’re not distracted by the delivery or the audience dynamics. You’re essentially alone with the candidate and his thoughts. And, nine times out of ten, you’re going to be disappointed — because the vast majority of these guys don’t have much to say.

Now, I don’t especially blame them for this. Running for the presidency in the modern era often dictates hiding the ball (the 2008 Obama campaign is a textbook example of this). But it does make mining the transcripts an interesting exercise. You’ll often discover that dozens of paragraphs worth of rhetoric only yield two or three concrete proposals.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. An Intemperate Proposal Regarding Titles

 

In The Conservatarian Manifesto — which I finished last night and, as The Daily Shot might put it, heartily recommend — Charles C. W. Cooke writes:

By custom, we allow politicians to retain their titles for life. Throughout the 2012 election, Mitt Romney was referred to as “Governor Romney,” when in fact he had not been in public office for six years. One can only ask, “Why?” America being a nation of laws and not men, political power is not held in perpetuity, and there is supposed to be no permanent political class. Americans do not have rulers, they have employees— men and women who can be hired and fired at will and who remain subordinate both to the highest law in the land and to the popular will that it reifies. It is wholly proper for individuals to adopt titles when they have been hired by the people. But it is utterly preposterous for those individuals to retain those titles when their commission has come to an end. To my leveling tastes, even titles such as “Doctor” and “Professor” should be limited to the workplace. But at least those honorifics denote a permanent achievement or skill set. “Governor” is, by definition, a temporary responsibility. A citizen maintaining it after he has left office makes about as much sense as a retired CEO insisting that he be referred to as “Chief Executive” after he has left his post.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Senator Rand Paul Formally Announces Candidacy

 

shutterstock_180495377From the Washington Post, Senator Ted Cruz now has some official competition:

Sen. Rand Paul, the maverick first-term senator who rode a tea party wave from a Kentucky ophthalmology practice to Congress, on Tuesday formally announced a bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

“I am running for president to return our country to the principles of liberty and limited government,” Paul wrote on his official campaign Web site, hours ahead of an official campaign launch in Louisville.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Indiana: Saying What Needs to Be Said

 

shutterstock_158203232From the recent open letter, “Now is the Time to Talk About Religious Liberty,” an unapologetic statement of simple political, religious, and legal sanity:

In recent days we have heard claims that a belief central to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — that we are created male and female, and that marriage unites these two basic expressions of humanity in a unique covenant — amounts to a form of bigotry. Such arguments only increase public confusion on a vitally important issue. When basic moral convictions and historic religious wisdom rooted in experience are deemed “discrimination,” our ability to achieve civic harmony, or even to reason clearly, is impossible.

America was founded on the idea that religious liberty matters because religious belief matters in a uniquely life-giving and powerful way. We need to take that birthright seriously, or we become a people alien to our own founding principles. Religious liberty is precisely what allows a pluralistic society to live together in peace.

Member Post

 

One of the distinguishing features of the Indiana debacle is that it involved Mike Pence, who I thought would’ve made a swell Republican candidate for president. Until last week, he was a solid conservative who was cogent in espousing conservative principles. His record as governor has been Walker-like and I didn’t see anything disqualifying about […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. For Our 2016 Candidate: Inspiration or Grit?

 

shutterstock_133013534Last night, I was listening to Hugh Hewitt talking to The Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis about Mike Pence’s response to the outcry over Indiana’s RFRA law. One of them noted that Pence’s failure (and that of Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson) to fight back hurt the conservative cause. Lewis noted that a fighter like Chris Christie would have hit it out of the park. Pence, he said, is an affable guy and a good communicator, but isn’t a fighter. He concluded that if Republicans want inspirational speeches , they should nominate Bush or Rubio. If they prefer a fighter, then Christie or Cruz (and someone else whose name escapes me) should be their choice.

Since Cruz has been a polarizing figure who has not shown an ability to work with other Republicans or accomplish much, I would be inclined to rule him out. Christie has been a fairly successful governor and has helped elect many Republican governors. And because he is a fighter — yet one with a more personable style — I think he would do better in a general election. Christie was able to win reelection in liberal New Jersey with 61% of the vote without changing his positions on abortion or SSM.

If there is anyone else with his abilities (which Walker may also possess), I’m willing to consider him or her.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Selma Envy

 

SelmaHeschelMarchI was never in the military; I was in the last draft class that sent people to Vietnam, but my draft number was 275, so I wasn’t called. Rush Limbaugh likes to recount the story of how Bill Clinton regretted that 9/11 happened on his successor’s watch, thus depriving him of the opportunity to show true leadership.

I say this to make the point that as we look back, we sometimes wish that we could put ourselves into today’s events in such a way as to allow us to be cloaked in the more forgiving glow that the passage of time has given to events that were so raw at the time. Unfortunately, there are also those who will use the glow of past events to shine a light upon things that they can’t justify with reason:

“Why do so many young adults paint absurd caricatures of Christians who request government protection of their religious freedoms, arguing their true goal is to ban gay men from sitting at the local lunch counter?… Why do so many people, Gen Xers and younger, invent a monster of anti-gay bigotry and keep screaming the monster is real despite a mountain of contrary facts standing before them?”

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. GOP 2016: Drop Anti-SSM Plank or Drop Party Platform Entirely?

 

platformAt Hot Air yesterday, Noah Rothman asked: “Will opposition to gay marriage disappear from the GOP’s party platform?” Rothman claims that only “vicious partisans” on either side of the aisle care about platforms. I don’t know about vicious, but he’s right to say the whole platform process is outdated.

In national election years, the candidate at the top of the ticket becomes the embodiment of the party platform. Who cares about the student government-like exercise of delegates voting on an official statement of principles? Its sole purpose has become putting a social issues face on the punching bag for media coverage. The prelude to convention coverage becomes a series of divisive stories about how Republicans continue to be out of touch with young voters and emerging trends (as defined by MSM reporters). I do so hate it when they’re right.

Rothman cites polls indicating that voter sentiment on same-sex marriage is trending away from the traditional view, even among Republicans in states like New Hampshire and South Carolina. Younger voters with strong views about personal freedom are clearly leading the charge. So why not cancel the scheduled media event of a party platform debate on SSM? Isn’t the convention mostly just a kick-off event for the fall campaign anyway? Won’t social issues be pushed enough by the liberal press without Republicans themselves initiating the blood-letting?

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. A Few Thoughts on Indiana and Coercion

 

imageConservatives are allergic to government coercion. This allergy informs all of our positions on public policy. It informs out position on religious freedom. The reason liberals can’t tell the difference between the promotion of liberty and promotion of “hate” all comes down to our differing views of coercion. For conservatives, political coercion is the original sin of authoritarian governments. For liberals, it is the glue that binds their entire moral identity.

Consider two pillars of the progressive left: Social Security and Obamacare. Would either of these programs survive even a month if they weren’t compulsory? Would any liberal program survive? And if this kind of coercion represents a social good, then it would not seem at all unethical to force a business owner into an involuntary transaction. Once you cross that line, “hate” is the only logical explanation for opposing their policies.

(Incidentally, I used to allowed for the possibility that the charge of “hate” is just an attempt to shut down debate by casting conservatives as unreasonable, but I have talked to enough liberals to know that they actually believe this stuff).

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Reiding Between the Lines

 

ReidHis decision not to seek another Senate term sent Washington into a tizzy last week, begging questions as to what prompted the surprise career choice and what it portends for control of the chamber beyond 2016. But enough about Indiana Senator Dan Coats . . .

Instead, it’s Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who made the big splash in announcing that he won’t seek a sixth term next year. And this being the nation’s capital, where no one voluntarily relinquishes power unless (a) they’re shoved out the door or (b) happen to be awaiting indictment, one wonders what all contributed to Reid’s retirement.

Here are three things to ponder:

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. The Estate Tax: an Explanation and a Modest Proposal

 

shutterstock_222504601As a lawyer, I spent a good part of my career helping people and families transfer wealth from one generation to the next in the most wholesome way possible. Though I’m not quite a specialist, this gave me some insight into estate tax system, why it doesn’t work, and what we should do with it.

As Americans, we are born into a state of liberty, meaning we have self-ownership and the freedoms to voluntarily exchange our labor for property and that property for other property as we see fit. The mix of property that we own when we, as P. G. Woodehouse wrote, “turn in our dinner pail” is our estate. When smart, hardworking (and lucky) Americans do this for a few decades, those estates can become quite large.

Teddy Roosevelt (prep school, Harvard, Columbia) inherited such an estate, freeing him to pursue unproductive activities full-time. This, oddly, led him to believe that allowing very productive individuals to pass on large estates to their children leads to a dangerous concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. The estate tax started out modestly enough, went up and down during and after World War I, until another patrician Roosevelt (prep school, Harvard, Columbia) came along. Roosevelt and his New Deal Democrats blamed the Great Depression on a conspiracy of rich people, and they have been doing it ever since.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. The Enduring Problem of GITMO

 

imageWriting in the Washington Examiner, Byron York suggests that the prosecution of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is likely to rekindle debate over the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. President Obama is apparently embarrassed that he has not been able to close the prison as promised six years ago and — given his penchant for taking questionable executive action over congressional objections — it’s reasonable to expect him to do something about it in the next few years. There’s no way that ends well.

But while it’d be best for Obama not to get his way on this matter, GITMO’s use as a detention facility — and the political maneuvering around it — should not continue past the next presidents’ term. The prison’s location was clearly chosen less for its geographic advantages — members are welcome to correct me if I’ve missed something, but Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia has long struck me as a superior location in almost every regard that way — than for its unique political situation, being situated on the only spot on earth from which the United States military cannot be evicted that is also not subject to US civilian law. It’s humiliating for the United States military to feel it has to hide its prisoners from civilian courts (though I leave it to readers to decide on their own whether this speaks worse about our military or our courts). Comparisons to a gulag are offensive on many levels, but that’s hardly an endorsement of the situation.

Adding to the circus has been our nation’s inability to prosecute the prisoners, even under the relatively easy standards of evidence and proof afforded by the military tribunals set-up nearly a decade ago. Indeed, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s military trial is yet to even start. Unless something changes the situation — which, again, I doubt will be a good thing under President Obama — it’s likely that his detention will span at least three presidencies without resolution.