It looks obvious

The LP held its convention this weekend, nominated, along of other issues, Bob Barr as its Presidential candidate. The LP, unlike other parties, has a different nomination process which doesn’t include primaries but a debate between the candidates in the convention itself followed by voting of the delegates.

The debate was nationally broadcasted and it was very interesting debate. This debate, partially because the LP candidate has very little chance to actually elected, featured much more substance, core issues and questions about the future ideological path of the party.

Part 1:

And here is part 2:

The rumors that Carlson Tucker might be seeking the LP nomination are very encouraging. It isn’t that I think that if Tucker will be the LP nominee it will increase the party chances to win the election, but it will create a clear choice. I’m not sharing the excitement of many Libertarians with the candidacy of Bob Barr, I suspect, from reading his record, that he is plain social conservative. While I understand the motivation to attract the disappointed conservatives the plan shouldn’t be to become a conservative but rather offer an ideological choice.

While there are many things in common between the conservative movement and the Libertarians the LP should be careful from attempting to become another GOP. Nominating Barr only because of the hope that he will attract voters, that otherwise are not libertarian, is a grave mistake. On the other hand someone like Carlson Tucker represent a better Libertarian choice and he doesn’t lack public recognition will do great for attracting people who look for better choice than we are offered by the two major parties.

If the rumors happen to be true, I’ll be happy to volunteer for Carlson Tucker.

He can’t be serious, can he? How can you have your wife campaigning for you and than cry foul when she become target for political attacks? I do like Michelle Obama, despite our disagreements, - she is very charismatic and very smart. But she made a mistake - a pretty stupid mistake, and they had to know that it will be use against her and her husband.

Earlier this week John McCain gave a speech about his plan to fight global warming. It shouldn’t be surprising that McCain’s plan calls from more government regulations and more limitations on the market. So in order to balance the election campaign populism here is a short interview with Prof. Bob Carter, which unlike McCain actually know what he is talking about and thus doesn’t fit for public office, in much more sane discussion about global warming.

(h/t Maggie’s Farm)

Alisa’s disagreement with my assessment about McCain is a good reason to look at the remaining candidates and start theorizing who is the leaser evil. We can assume, with high level of certainty that the major parties candidates will be Obama and McCain and that two additional recognize candidates will be Ralph Nader and Bob Barr for the LP. This is a rather depressing list of candidates for me, where even the presumed libertarian candidate is basically a social conservative, which prevent me from the luxury of ideological, or protest, vote. I will not support, nor vote, for any of the candidates this election because I came to conclusion that voting for the leaser evil is a waste of a vote. However, the question which of the two major candidates is potentially less offensive is still worth exploring.

McCain is a very interesting candidate. His ability to attract the anti-war votes in NH is still a mystery to me. He has a pretty solid record of voting for balanced budget, controlled spending and opposing tax increases which mark him on the side of fiscal conservatives. However, this should not confuse us with the illusion that McCain is a “small government” supporter. His record indicates that he, very much like Hillary Clinton, believes in efficient government rather than small government. His voting record, his public statements and the initiatives he took over the years are clear demonstration of increasing the role of the federal government and limiting individual liberties. The famous Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as the McCain-Feinglod act, is a clear example of his willingness to limit the freedom of speech (and make it harder for political competition) in favor of regulating behavior. McCain willingness to expand the role of the federal government, regulate behavior and social interactions, such as professional sport, is a clear indication that McCain is not a pro-liberty candidate.

My major opposition to McCain foreign policy agenda isn’t his position on the war in Iraq, or even on the approach he advocate to fight terrorism. What truly worries me is that McCain genuinely believe that in national greatness and greater good. It is not a hockish, but realistic, approach for use of power to achieve national interest goals, which one can argue with, but rather an ideological approach for spreading Americas goodness that is scary. It is the true ideology driven, rather than sober cynical politician, that is more dangerous.

It is the core ideology of McCain, in which he genuinely believe and advocate for, which should make us worry. His believe that individual should subject their interest for some greater good. No, he is not a socialist but the subjecting individual freedom for the collective interest is bad policy regardless its tag name:

“serving a cause greater than self-interest.”

[…]

“We are fast becoming a nation of alienating individualists, unwilling to put the unifying values of patriotism ahead of our narrow self-interests,” Mr. McCain warned in a speech during his 2000 presidential campaign. He added that “cynicism threatens to become a ceiling on our greatness.”

Obama is in many ways an enigma. His public image heavily marketed by his campaign, and by his opponents, is misleading. Obama, unlike the annoying, yet effective, slogan of change and unlike the claim that he is the most liberal, which is to mean socialist, member of the house is actually a main stream politician. The list of issues and policies that makes Obama a non-starter for me is very long. But it is the fact that he is a mainstream politician, even more than his saner foreign policy, that makes him less alarming candidate.

McCain, very much like Clinton and Chaney, is goal driven and the process is subject to achieving those goals. Obama, on the other hand, made the process his campaign main issue. I wrote in the past about the importance of the rules of the game in maintaing liberal-democracy, Obama, the politician and the Presidential candidate, seems more likely to preserve them.

I wasn’t McCain’s supporter as it is, but this makes his candidacy a complete disaster:

Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and defeated contender for the GOP presidential nomination, is currently at the top of John McCain’s short list for a running mate. At least that’s the word from a top McCain fundraiser and longtime Republican moneyman who has spoken to McCain’s inner circle. The fundraiser is less than thrilled with the idea of Huckabee as the vice presidential nominee, and many economic conservatives—turned off by the populist tone of Huckabee’s campaign and his tax record as governor—are likely to share that marked lack of enthusiasm.

It is very hard to predict from how one run a political campaign the way they will be once in office. Even if most of the things being said and promised on the campaign trail are sincere, and usually they are not, the realities of the limited abilities and political constraints forces compromises and changes from the promises given. In many respects the campaign and the actual behavior in office are two distinct entities and the most one can hope is that they following the same guiding principals.

But there are some useful things one can learn about a candidate: an assessment of the candidates agenda, their management skills in how they are running their campaign and the advisors they are choosing, some of their moral callings - the things they choose to do or to avoid doing advancing their chances to be elected and so on. One of the things I love looking at is how the candidates manage their campaign budget. While a candidate can use theoretical terms when promising to do winders with the country’s budget the campaign budget is pretty simple test case for their abilities. On the one hand it is much simpler than the complex budget, and needs, of the country and on the other hand its reflect the general approach, experience and abilities of the candidates and their staff to balance a budget with high pressure to increase spending. While managing the campaign budget efficiently doesn’t ensure the same results on the national level, mismanaging it is an indicator for inability to manage larger, more complex budgets.

So how should one trust Senator Clinton with the country’s economy when her campaign budget is managed so poorly?

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign is continuing to struggle to stay ahead of its bills, finishing March with just $9.3 million in the bank for the primary, coupled with $10.3 million in debt, according to a report filed last night with the Federal Election Commission.

[...]

Mrs. Clinton had ended February with $8.7 million in debt. She collected about $20 million in March but spent about $22 million, adding to her pile of unpaid invoices.

Despite my natural pessimism, these type of questions is a good sign:

Chelsea Clinton is spending long days on the campaign trail telling college crowds about her mother’s positions on everything from health care and student-loan costs to the Darfur crisis and gay rights.

But there is one subject she will not discuss — “The Other Woman.”

[...]

“She really has gotten more questions on whether or not her mother believes the U.S. dollar should be tied to the gold standard,” (emphasize mine - RSM) Reines said. “That’s a question she’s gotten probably 10 times.”

I was wondering how Clinton can maintain her populist rhetoric against the trade agreement with Columbia while her spouse actively support it and financially benefit from it. The answer is simple - postpone the voting until nobody will notice:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House will change its rules so as to skirt a requirement that it vote on a free trade agreement with Colombia.

Pelosi says the House will vote on the rules change policy Thursday, effectively putting off a vote on a free trade agreement that is a key priority of the Bush administration.

I don’t argue that this is unique for Clinton. Postponing the vote benefits Obama as well. It is a common practice, which we usually fall for every time. It is only make election debates useless process and make me wonder why bother at all.

The little irony is that I’m not a great fun of trade agreement at all. Although not because I believe in protectionism, quite the contrary - I don’t think that the state should be involve in trade. 

Politic, mostly when the Clintons involved, will always surprise me. Did they really think that the story will surface, mostly after using Penn as scape goat?

On Sunday evening, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, resigned from his post after it was revealed he was working (on the side) for the passage of a Colombia Free Trade Agreement that his candidate opposed.

But within the Clinton campaign, Penn is not the highest-ranking adviser with financial ties to groups and individuals supporting the passage of the measure.

Former President Bill Clinton has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars speaking on behalf of a Colombia-based group pushing the trade pact, and representatives of that organization tell The Huffington Post that the former president shared their sentiment.

In June 2005, Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America. The organization is, ostensibly, a development group tasked with bringing investment to the country and educating world leaders about the Colombia’s business opportunities.

It is interesting how the ethics of making a decision about trade agreement will be when it effect the President spouse bank account directly will be. It is sure a lucrative business to be in the business of selling access…