Part 3, the conclusion to our interview with Brian Jones.
***
OL&L: There are some among our conservative friends who, as much as they despise the Clintons, and don’t want them back in the White House, if there must be a Democratic President, they actually prefer Hillary to Barack because they know she’ll do what’s popular, what’s safe, and wont veer hard to the left.
Brian Jones: I think there’s a pragmatism to Hillary Clinton that’s hard to get away from. Hillary is someone to took a poll about where she should live in New York when she ran for the Senate. She’s driven by ambition and calculation. There’s a belief among some that that ambition will keep her kind of on the straight and narrow. She won’t go too far off the deep end. Whether that’s true or not, I’m not sure. It makes sense to me that that’s how she operates, and that’s how she’ll continue to operate. It’s how her husband operated and why you had him talking about things like seat belts and school uniforms and never really doing anything big in his presidency.
Obama is much more of an unknown. Sometimes it seems like he’s coming at Hillary from the right, but then you look at his voting record and find that he is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.
I do believe there is something to this notion that she would be more of a centrist candidate. And maybe that helps her in the general election.
OL&L: One of our friends, a self-described Libertarian, said that he will vote for Obama because he views him as a symbol of hope and he believes his rhetoric about change. But the thing that struck us about his support for Obama, and we wonder if this is common among Obama supporters, is that despite what Obama is saying to appeal to the base, he believes Obama is smart enough that once he gets in office, he’ll make the good decision, that he won't be ultra liberal. Do you believe that to be true?
Brian Jones: There’s no doubt he’s a very intelligent person. And it’s the game that every politician plays in the primary—some better than others. They start off appealing to the base and then try to broaden their appeal in the general election. They search for ways to appeal to more people—whether that’s through compassionate conservatism or whatever. Ronald Reagan was able to successfully appeal to a group now referred to as Reagan Democrats,
In the case of Obama, I’m not sure you can say which way he’ll go. For anyone who goes through the process, is ambitious enough to seek the Presidency and reach the level Barack Obama is at right now, there have to be elements that, for lack of a better word, are commonsensical. In an Obama Presidency you’re going to see higher taxes. You’re going to see a larger federal bureaucracy. You’re going to wind up seeing more government spending. Remember, Bill Clinton came into office and within a year passed the largest tax increase in the history of the country. You’re going to see policies that aren’t going to get many centrists and Republicans excited.
OL&L: With Democrat turnout and campaign donations at current levels, you don’t see a Democrat in the White House as an inevitability, do you?
Brian Jones: Now way. I don’t see it at all. Elections are about choices. Right now you see a lot of energy for the Democrats. But at the same time, we haven’t reached the point where you’ve got one candidate vs. another candidate where you can really begin to engage on the issues. In the last months or so, as the campaign has become front and center for people, the generic ballot, which tracks whether someone would vote for a Democrat or Republican for Congress, the Democrats, who had a double digit lead for a number of months, have seen their lead shrink to 4 or 5 points. I think that, as soon as we get to focus on the issues, realize what’s at stake, and have a candidate who’s the manifestation of that, it will wind up changing. This notion that the Democrats have it in the bag is a complete misnomer. You could have talked to many Democrats in February 2004who would have said that there was no way George Bush was going to get reelected. And this year we’re going to have a new face, and I think there’s a very good chance Republicans could wind up keeping the White house.
OL&L: Fantastic. Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Jones.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
14 February 2008
13 February 2008
Is He Sure It Wasn't A Warm Sensation Going Down His Leg?
(because he needs Depend Adult Incontinence Products. after all, he was a speech writer for Jimmy Carter and that was like a bajillion years ago)
Chris Matthews:
Chris Matthews:
It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. [emphasis added]If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Barack Obama's Cult Of Personality
Image Link
Love this cartoon.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Interview With Brian Jones, Former RNC Director Of Communications - Part 2
Here's part two of our three part conversation with Brian Jones, former RNC Communications Director and John McCain for President Communications Director.
***
OL&L: Our concern, and maybe the concern of other conservative voters is that when it comes to the general election, and there are more than just ardent Republicans and Democrats voting, do you think that “like-ability” will have a better or broader appeal? How will the Republican candidate combat that superficial appeal?
Brian Jones: Hillary’s appeal may be superficial and image based, but let’s face it, she’s not a like-able candidate. Even Democrats I talk to—and I think most Democrats would agree—say she’s not as like-able as Obama.
The challenge for Obama, if he gets the nomination, is how does he maintain this rockstar-like status? How does he maintain that aura for eight, nine, ten months? It just seems that in today’s media environment, we’ve seen what can happen with other candidates. It doesn’t take long to be this inevitable, floating-above-everything candidate, like Rudy Giuliani. Then, the next thing you know, you’re on the outside looking in.
One thing McCain does have is that like-ability factor, a certain honesty, a genuineness that people appreciate. Sometimes it works against him. Sometimes that genuineness strikes people as a little too much candor or even anger. I think it’s just genuineness, honesty, candor. And I think most people connect with him on that level. They might not always agree with him, but they know he’s always going to give it to them straight.
OL&L: So you see him as being able to rival the like-ability of Barack Obama?
Brian Jones: You see it with members of the press and I think you see it with voters too. He may not be able to match Obama’s like-ability, but that will be offset by other facets of McCain’s personality. In McCain you have someone with impeccable foreign policy credentials. Granted, the economy has taken center stage, but there’s news out of Iraq today that al-Qaeda is training children to shoot weapons and be suicide bombers. This problem is not going to go away. For people who are fed up with government spending, McCain has a long record of fighting government waste.
If it’s Barack versus McCain, Obama may be the more like-able candidate, but that’s not going to take him all the way. And McCain’s straight talking will help offset that.
OL&L: As you mentioned before, McCain has the next 10 months to point out that there’s more to being President than just being well liked—we aren’t voting for the junior class president.
Brian Jones: McCain can sometimes be a little streaky as a politician, but he is a great story teller. I saw it when I traveled with him. He has this ability to really get people wrapped up in what he is saying. I don’t think it has come out in this campaign yet. I remember one instance, when we were riding on the bus all day long and he was telling stories about the ’96 Dole campaign and other campaigns. There were staffers and reporters and a couple of local supporters on the bus for the last stretch. We got to the hotel and no one had realized the bus had stopped because they were so in to the stories he was telling. The bus driver had to come back and say, “hey, we’re at the hotel now.”
He’s got that ability to connect with people in a way that other politicians don’t. That hasn’t received as much attention because of the media infatuation with Obama. Huckabee is also a great communicator. But McCain clearly has strengths there, too.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
***
OL&L: Our concern, and maybe the concern of other conservative voters is that when it comes to the general election, and there are more than just ardent Republicans and Democrats voting, do you think that “like-ability” will have a better or broader appeal? How will the Republican candidate combat that superficial appeal?
Brian Jones: Hillary’s appeal may be superficial and image based, but let’s face it, she’s not a like-able candidate. Even Democrats I talk to—and I think most Democrats would agree—say she’s not as like-able as Obama.
The challenge for Obama, if he gets the nomination, is how does he maintain this rockstar-like status? How does he maintain that aura for eight, nine, ten months? It just seems that in today’s media environment, we’ve seen what can happen with other candidates. It doesn’t take long to be this inevitable, floating-above-everything candidate, like Rudy Giuliani. Then, the next thing you know, you’re on the outside looking in.
One thing McCain does have is that like-ability factor, a certain honesty, a genuineness that people appreciate. Sometimes it works against him. Sometimes that genuineness strikes people as a little too much candor or even anger. I think it’s just genuineness, honesty, candor. And I think most people connect with him on that level. They might not always agree with him, but they know he’s always going to give it to them straight.
OL&L: So you see him as being able to rival the like-ability of Barack Obama?
Brian Jones: You see it with members of the press and I think you see it with voters too. He may not be able to match Obama’s like-ability, but that will be offset by other facets of McCain’s personality. In McCain you have someone with impeccable foreign policy credentials. Granted, the economy has taken center stage, but there’s news out of Iraq today that al-Qaeda is training children to shoot weapons and be suicide bombers. This problem is not going to go away. For people who are fed up with government spending, McCain has a long record of fighting government waste.
If it’s Barack versus McCain, Obama may be the more like-able candidate, but that’s not going to take him all the way. And McCain’s straight talking will help offset that.
OL&L: As you mentioned before, McCain has the next 10 months to point out that there’s more to being President than just being well liked—we aren’t voting for the junior class president.
Brian Jones: McCain can sometimes be a little streaky as a politician, but he is a great story teller. I saw it when I traveled with him. He has this ability to really get people wrapped up in what he is saying. I don’t think it has come out in this campaign yet. I remember one instance, when we were riding on the bus all day long and he was telling stories about the ’96 Dole campaign and other campaigns. There were staffers and reporters and a couple of local supporters on the bus for the last stretch. We got to the hotel and no one had realized the bus had stopped because they were so in to the stories he was telling. The bus driver had to come back and say, “hey, we’re at the hotel now.”
He’s got that ability to connect with people in a way that other politicians don’t. That hasn’t received as much attention because of the media infatuation with Obama. Huckabee is also a great communicator. But McCain clearly has strengths there, too.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
David McCullough & ConSource
ConSource is a good and worthy effort to digitize relevant primary source documents related to the Constitution and make them available to everyone.
We received the following information via email and pass it along to you, dear reader.
Join us today for:
George Washington: From Commander in Chief to Chief Executive
Taught by:
David McCullough
Pulitzer Prize-Winning Author
Webcast at www.ConSource.org
Wednesday, February 13th
2:00-3:00 p.m. EDT
All students are invited to learn and ask questions about George Washington first-hand by participating in this online President's Day celebration.
For more information, please visit www.ConSource.org.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
We received the following information via email and pass it along to you, dear reader.
***
Join us today for:
George Washington: From Commander in Chief to Chief Executive
Taught by:
David McCullough
Pulitzer Prize-Winning Author
Webcast at www.ConSource.org
Wednesday, February 13th
2:00-3:00 p.m. EDT
All students are invited to learn and ask questions about George Washington first-hand by participating in this online President's Day celebration.
For more information, please visit www.ConSource.org.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
12 February 2008
American Historical Perspective (formerly, Responding To Your Comments)
We felt left out of the good dialogue erupting in the comments section here at OL&L. Frankly, we can't keep up with everything everyone writes, but we did want to respond to a couple of things.
Side note: glad to see our three "contrarians" ringing in, as usual, in a contrary way (MJM, JW, BT--thanks). Lest anyone think otherwise, we appreciate what they add to the discussion here. They keep us honest and keep us from devolving into an echo chamber--you know, like the DailyKos and Huffington Post folks.
Justin, we didn't give up on Bush. Why, just a couple of weeks ago we wrote this: State of the Union (this is what happens when you don't check OL&L every day). To summarize: on balance, we think he's done more good than bad.
Regarding this loss of purpose and American division about which you speak, we ask you this: did you only become politically aware during the Bush presidency? Do you truly believe this nation was united until GWB was elected President? Do you really think the world loved us until he was elected President (subquestion: do you seriously care what the world thinks of us?)? (maybe we should have said until we went to war in Iraq)
(Segue into addressing the entire readership)
People who think that things are horrible now, that the US sucks right now, that world opinion of the US is at an all-time low, etc., etc., do not have a sufficient knowledge of American history. They forget or never knew how bad things were during WWI, the Great Depression, WWII (it wasn't always as popular as it is now), the 1960's (1968 in particular), Vietnam, the stagflation of the 1970's, Nixon, Carter, the Cold War.... we could go on.
In our opinion, these people are engaging in too much national narcissism and navel gazing.
If you think America has reached rock bottom, wake up and familiarize yourself with American history. Or, we don't know, maybe compare our history to pretty much any other country in the world. The point is, you need a little (just a little) perspective.
On balance, things have never been better than they are right now. We have our warts, But more countries are freer, more countries abide by the rule of law, more people live longer, more people are healthier, more people have more money, more people are educated--than at any time in the history of the world. Sure, bad things still happen. Duh. But don't buy into the doom-and-gloom of, well, anyone.
If you start from that premise, you will vote for a candidate who, we fear, does little more than inspire and persuade--one whose idealism (like yours) will get knocked in the head by reality. Republicans have never "been in love" with our candidates (including Reagan, well, at least not until he was dead) the way liberal progressives are. Maybe it's because we're not as idealistic and more realistic than Democrats. We don't know.
We focus more on their experience, the substance of their principles, and their voting record, because these things are tangible. We can look and see how candidate X voted and examine his record. We can analyze candidate Y's policy proposals and see how they match our priorities. We can review candidate Z's management of a state or other entity and see whether or not he was successful. All of this we do because we care less about their personality, less about their eloquence, less about their charisma than Democrats seem to. This is why insults about Bush's poor communication skills never bothered us. We don't take insults to our favored candidates personally. Democrats poked fun because it bothers them if their candidates can't speak well. Congrats, Democrats. In Barack Obama, you've got your good speakin' man.
And yes, we know a President won't be able to follow through on all his campaign promises and proposals. And we know that many of the things he says are only meant to curry favor with this or that special interest group. We don't care. Seriously, we could not care less. We know this is the game he has to play to get elected. Part of it (in the case of McCain/Feingold) is our candidates own fault. But by looking at what he has done and comparing that to what he says, we make the best guess we possibly can about the candidate's core principles. Hopefully they match ours.
At least, this way we don't get bitter and jaded when they don't live up to our unrealistic expectations.
We repeat: nostalgic notions of how America was supposed to have been are inaccurate. And no candidate, however inspiring, will ever unify and make a utopia out of America.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Side note: glad to see our three "contrarians" ringing in, as usual, in a contrary way (MJM, JW, BT--thanks). Lest anyone think otherwise, we appreciate what they add to the discussion here. They keep us honest and keep us from devolving into an echo chamber--you know, like the DailyKos and Huffington Post folks.
Justin, we didn't give up on Bush. Why, just a couple of weeks ago we wrote this: State of the Union (this is what happens when you don't check OL&L every day). To summarize: on balance, we think he's done more good than bad.
Regarding this loss of purpose and American division about which you speak, we ask you this: did you only become politically aware during the Bush presidency? Do you truly believe this nation was united until GWB was elected President? Do you really think the world loved us until he was elected President (subquestion: do you seriously care what the world thinks of us?)? (maybe we should have said until we went to war in Iraq)
(Segue into addressing the entire readership)
People who think that things are horrible now, that the US sucks right now, that world opinion of the US is at an all-time low, etc., etc., do not have a sufficient knowledge of American history. They forget or never knew how bad things were during WWI, the Great Depression, WWII (it wasn't always as popular as it is now), the 1960's (1968 in particular), Vietnam, the stagflation of the 1970's, Nixon, Carter, the Cold War.... we could go on.
In our opinion, these people are engaging in too much national narcissism and navel gazing.
If you think America has reached rock bottom, wake up and familiarize yourself with American history. Or, we don't know, maybe compare our history to pretty much any other country in the world. The point is, you need a little (just a little) perspective.
On balance, things have never been better than they are right now. We have our warts, But more countries are freer, more countries abide by the rule of law, more people live longer, more people are healthier, more people have more money, more people are educated--than at any time in the history of the world. Sure, bad things still happen. Duh. But don't buy into the doom-and-gloom of, well, anyone.
If you start from that premise, you will vote for a candidate who, we fear, does little more than inspire and persuade--one whose idealism (like yours) will get knocked in the head by reality. Republicans have never "been in love" with our candidates (including Reagan, well, at least not until he was dead) the way liberal progressives are. Maybe it's because we're not as idealistic and more realistic than Democrats. We don't know.
We focus more on their experience, the substance of their principles, and their voting record, because these things are tangible. We can look and see how candidate X voted and examine his record. We can analyze candidate Y's policy proposals and see how they match our priorities. We can review candidate Z's management of a state or other entity and see whether or not he was successful. All of this we do because we care less about their personality, less about their eloquence, less about their charisma than Democrats seem to. This is why insults about Bush's poor communication skills never bothered us. We don't take insults to our favored candidates personally. Democrats poked fun because it bothers them if their candidates can't speak well. Congrats, Democrats. In Barack Obama, you've got your good speakin' man.
And yes, we know a President won't be able to follow through on all his campaign promises and proposals. And we know that many of the things he says are only meant to curry favor with this or that special interest group. We don't care. Seriously, we could not care less. We know this is the game he has to play to get elected. Part of it (in the case of McCain/Feingold) is our candidates own fault. But by looking at what he has done and comparing that to what he says, we make the best guess we possibly can about the candidate's core principles. Hopefully they match ours.
At least, this way we don't get bitter and jaded when they don't live up to our unrealistic expectations.
We repeat: nostalgic notions of how America was supposed to have been are inaccurate. And no candidate, however inspiring, will ever unify and make a utopia out of America.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
11 February 2008
Premature IED
From the, "you can't make this stuff up" file, a Mullah, prepping a bomb (presumably for coalition forces) blew up himself and his sons:
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
A LANDMINE blew up in the home of a religious cleric in southern Afghanistan, killing the mullah, two of his sons and two other men who had been preparing an attack, police said today.Ace of Spades notes:
Coalition forces have reported "a significant uptick in dramatic irony" in the Helmand province lately, and called this latest incident "as worrisome as it is hilarious."Apparently our efforts to infiltrate terrorist training centers in Afghanistan/Pakistan and teach "how (not) to build a bitchin' IED" are finally bearing fruit. Here's to hoping for a few more premature IED's.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Interview With Brian Jones, Former RNC Director Of Communications - Part 1
Last week we conducted an interview with Brian Jones, Managing Director at Mercury Public Affairs. Thanks to Mr. Jones for taking time out of his busy work day to speak with us.
We'd originally planned on distilling the interview into a single post but with the large amount of good material, we decided to post the transcript in its entirety (divided in 3 because we know at least half of our readers are ADD/ADHD). This is part 1.
Thanks also to Liz Mair, Online Communications Director at the RNC for making all the arrangements.
***
OL&L: First off, would you mind giving a quick bio?
Brian Jones: Sure. I’m currently a managing director at Mercury Public Affairs where I deal with a number of corporate clients, some political clients. I was previously communications director for the John McCain for President Campaign earlier last year till some challenges arose. I was communications director at the Republican National Committee during the 2006 cycle. I was a senior communication advisor to the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign. Before that I worked for Mercury Public Affairs as their Vice President of Polling and Advertising. I ran the research operation at the NRCC during the 2002 cycle and worked on host of local, state, and national political campaigns and some public relations work along the way.
OL&L: Where did you receive your academic training?
Brian Jones: I was an undergrad at the University of Massachusetts which isn’t necessarily known for producing for Republicans. I did graduate work and got a Master’s degree at the University of Washington.
OL&L: The first thing we wanted to ask you about is something we’ve discussed amongst my politically minded friends. We’ve been trying to understand the appeal of the Democratic candidates. We contrast this, of course, with those of us who are Republican voters. We get into the nitty gritty of their politics, policies, their background and experience. But when we ask our liberal friends to describe to us why they’re voting for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, they have a real tough time. Could you provide some insight into the appeal of either of them or maybe into how voters are able to distinguish the one from the other?
Brian Jones: Good question. They’ve been attacking each other non-stop for the last month plus. But they’re not that different. Their proposals would result in higher taxes, larger government and weakened national security. One of the things that’s interesting about Hillary is that she is saying there will be no new bureaucracy with her health care plan. That’s a little like saying, I’ve got news for you: the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus really do exist. It’s just not true.
I think the appeal is a couple of things: one is, Democrats are obviously motivated by seven years of a Republican in the White House. They’ve got this baseline of motivation right now that the party out of power often ends up feeling. I do think people underestimate the Republican turnout effort—what you’re going to end up seeing in 2008. Democrats were motivated in 2004. Ultimately Republicans turned out in better numbers than did the Democrats.
There does seem to be this kind of split among Democrats. There are two different camps right now. Obviously Obama is the more transformational/change type candidate. People are flocking to him because of the aura around him. He is still someone who has voted Democrat 95% of the time. He’s got the most liberal ranking in the National Journal which is quite a feat, because the Senate also has Bernie Sanders who is a self-described Socialist from Vermont. I think what you’re seeing now is people project onto Obama this desire for change. He is a strong order, he comes across as very likeable. So I think it’s kind of an image thing with Obama as much as anything else, because the substance and the background isn’t really there.
Then you have the status quo branch of the Democratic Party going with Hillary Clinton. They’re going more with the known quantity, maybe someone who’s not as interesting or inspiring, but someone who you think you know what you’re going to get with her. Being potentially the first woman President has some appeal too.
What I think is interesting is that Clinton has done a good job of courting more blue collar voters. I’m not sure how that will all flesh out or exactly what it means, but it does seem that she may offer a bit more substance than Barack. But with both of them, it does seem that they are more image candidates than substantive candidates.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
We'd originally planned on distilling the interview into a single post but with the large amount of good material, we decided to post the transcript in its entirety (divided in 3 because we know at least half of our readers are ADD/ADHD). This is part 1.
Thanks also to Liz Mair, Online Communications Director at the RNC for making all the arrangements.
***
OL&L: First off, would you mind giving a quick bio?
Brian Jones: Sure. I’m currently a managing director at Mercury Public Affairs where I deal with a number of corporate clients, some political clients. I was previously communications director for the John McCain for President Campaign earlier last year till some challenges arose. I was communications director at the Republican National Committee during the 2006 cycle. I was a senior communication advisor to the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign. Before that I worked for Mercury Public Affairs as their Vice President of Polling and Advertising. I ran the research operation at the NRCC during the 2002 cycle and worked on host of local, state, and national political campaigns and some public relations work along the way.
OL&L: Where did you receive your academic training?
Brian Jones: I was an undergrad at the University of Massachusetts which isn’t necessarily known for producing for Republicans. I did graduate work and got a Master’s degree at the University of Washington.
OL&L: The first thing we wanted to ask you about is something we’ve discussed amongst my politically minded friends. We’ve been trying to understand the appeal of the Democratic candidates. We contrast this, of course, with those of us who are Republican voters. We get into the nitty gritty of their politics, policies, their background and experience. But when we ask our liberal friends to describe to us why they’re voting for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, they have a real tough time. Could you provide some insight into the appeal of either of them or maybe into how voters are able to distinguish the one from the other?
Brian Jones: Good question. They’ve been attacking each other non-stop for the last month plus. But they’re not that different. Their proposals would result in higher taxes, larger government and weakened national security. One of the things that’s interesting about Hillary is that she is saying there will be no new bureaucracy with her health care plan. That’s a little like saying, I’ve got news for you: the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus really do exist. It’s just not true.
I think the appeal is a couple of things: one is, Democrats are obviously motivated by seven years of a Republican in the White House. They’ve got this baseline of motivation right now that the party out of power often ends up feeling. I do think people underestimate the Republican turnout effort—what you’re going to end up seeing in 2008. Democrats were motivated in 2004. Ultimately Republicans turned out in better numbers than did the Democrats.
There does seem to be this kind of split among Democrats. There are two different camps right now. Obviously Obama is the more transformational/change type candidate. People are flocking to him because of the aura around him. He is still someone who has voted Democrat 95% of the time. He’s got the most liberal ranking in the National Journal which is quite a feat, because the Senate also has Bernie Sanders who is a self-described Socialist from Vermont. I think what you’re seeing now is people project onto Obama this desire for change. He is a strong order, he comes across as very likeable. So I think it’s kind of an image thing with Obama as much as anything else, because the substance and the background isn’t really there.
Then you have the status quo branch of the Democratic Party going with Hillary Clinton. They’re going more with the known quantity, maybe someone who’s not as interesting or inspiring, but someone who you think you know what you’re going to get with her. Being potentially the first woman President has some appeal too.
What I think is interesting is that Clinton has done a good job of courting more blue collar voters. I’m not sure how that will all flesh out or exactly what it means, but it does seem that she may offer a bit more substance than Barack. But with both of them, it does seem that they are more image candidates than substantive candidates.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Rep. Tom Lantos, RIP
This morning we were saddened to learn from Drudge that Human Rights champion Tom Lantos had passed away.
We didn't know Congressman Lantos well, and we didn't agree with many of his political positions, but we certainly admired his leadership on human rights issues. He was one of the few in his party, indeed, all of Congress, to decry human rights abuses in North Korea, the Middle East, Cuba, China--around the world.
Our interest in history and Holocaust history in particular made us admire his personal story as a Holocaust survivor. He was one of the many saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
He was a staunch defender of Israel--a position we share. He was also one of the few who was consistently critical of Saddam Hussein and did not, once he was out of power and executed, forget Saddam's atrocities.
A friend of ours interned with Congressman Lantos and knew him to be honorable and principled. When we were involved with the Sutdent Campaign for Child Survival, we attended a conference at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Congressman Lantos was the featured speaker to a relatively small, intimate group of student activists. We asked him questions during the Q&A and briefly spoke with him afterward. We found him to be kind and gracious and patient in answering our questions. We found the following excerpt from a report on the first SCCS conference:
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
We didn't know Congressman Lantos well, and we didn't agree with many of his political positions, but we certainly admired his leadership on human rights issues. He was one of the few in his party, indeed, all of Congress, to decry human rights abuses in North Korea, the Middle East, Cuba, China--around the world.
Our interest in history and Holocaust history in particular made us admire his personal story as a Holocaust survivor. He was one of the many saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
He was a staunch defender of Israel--a position we share. He was also one of the few who was consistently critical of Saddam Hussein and did not, once he was out of power and executed, forget Saddam's atrocities.
A friend of ours interned with Congressman Lantos and knew him to be honorable and principled. When we were involved with the Sutdent Campaign for Child Survival, we attended a conference at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Congressman Lantos was the featured speaker to a relatively small, intimate group of student activists. We asked him questions during the Q&A and briefly spoke with him afterward. We found him to be kind and gracious and patient in answering our questions. We found the following excerpt from a report on the first SCCS conference:
Our very first speaker, Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), updated us on child survival and the Millennium Challenge Account. He then gave us tips on how we could be more effective and pledged his own supporting leadership for Child Survival.He followed through on his pledge. We're sorry to see him go and send our deepest condolences to his family and all who knew him. Representative Tom Lantos, RIP.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
10 February 2008
We Aren't Just Self-Promoters...
...we're friend-promoters, too.
Our friend, Michael J. Mouncer, who blogs for Gooses Ganders (a Friend of Lybberty), recently produced a music video for the Blakes. The song is "Don't Bother Me" and it will be appear on MTV2's Subterranean late tonight.
Congrats to MJ. And to the rest of you: watch it.
*UPDATE 8:20pm MST: For the Marxist in the family, cruise on over to The People's Cube and take their Fun With Quotes: Interactive Collective Quiz.
**UPDATE 11 February 2008 1:01am MST: We just checked and the 27 comments registered under last week's post about Romney dropping out of the Republican primary broke the previous OL&L comment record of 26. Way to go, everybody! Keep up the good work and let's see if we can push that record to 28, or something.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Our friend, Michael J. Mouncer, who blogs for Gooses Ganders (a Friend of Lybberty), recently produced a music video for the Blakes. The song is "Don't Bother Me" and it will be appear on MTV2's Subterranean late tonight.
Congrats to MJ. And to the rest of you: watch it.
*UPDATE 8:20pm MST: For the Marxist in the family, cruise on over to The People's Cube and take their Fun With Quotes: Interactive Collective Quiz.
**UPDATE 11 February 2008 1:01am MST: We just checked and the 27 comments registered under last week's post about Romney dropping out of the Republican primary broke the previous OL&L comment record of 26. Way to go, everybody! Keep up the good work and let's see if we can push that record to 28, or something.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
09 February 2008
It's A Beautiful Saturday Afternoon...
....and we hope you're not indoors like we've been, but outside enjoying some sort of athletic activity.
So, with spring in the air, we're thinking about baseball, and fantasy baseball. Email us if you're interested in joining our official, OL&L Fantasy Baseball League. Who knows, Morgan, maybe you'd find you liked baseball?
***
They linked to us, we'll link to them:
BYU Weekly (see "Faces of BYU")
***
We just finished transcribing our interview with Brian Jones of Mercury Public Affairs, formerly John McCains Director of Communications, RNC Director of Communications, and lots of other really cool stuff. Our Bush-hating readers will be glad to know he helped the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004.
Anyway, we got it typed up and are figuring out how to put it on the web. Stay tuned.
***
Thanks to everyone for their comments and the healthy discussion that has resulted here at OL&L. Don't burn all your good thoughts on one post--we need y'all for the long haul. So, post early, post often--even if it's just to say, "Jake, you're an idiot."
***
Regarding Spikers' point about the President's influence over social issues: agreed that he/she has very little personal influence over those issues. However, he or she will choose at least one Supreme Court Justice. It is highly likely that this new Justice will, along with the rest of the Supreme Court, rule on cases related to abortion, gay marriage, and less likely, stem cell research.
Furthermore, this new Justice will be either be constructionist in their judicial philosophy or activist. For these reasons, we want a Republican President committed to picking a judge like Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito.
The thought of having another David Souter makes us want to throw up.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
So, with spring in the air, we're thinking about baseball, and fantasy baseball. Email us if you're interested in joining our official, OL&L Fantasy Baseball League. Who knows, Morgan, maybe you'd find you liked baseball?
***
They linked to us, we'll link to them:
BYU Weekly (see "Faces of BYU")
***
We just finished transcribing our interview with Brian Jones of Mercury Public Affairs, formerly John McCains Director of Communications, RNC Director of Communications, and lots of other really cool stuff. Our Bush-hating readers will be glad to know he helped the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004.
Anyway, we got it typed up and are figuring out how to put it on the web. Stay tuned.
***
Thanks to everyone for their comments and the healthy discussion that has resulted here at OL&L. Don't burn all your good thoughts on one post--we need y'all for the long haul. So, post early, post often--even if it's just to say, "Jake, you're an idiot."
***
Regarding Spikers' point about the President's influence over social issues: agreed that he/she has very little personal influence over those issues. However, he or she will choose at least one Supreme Court Justice. It is highly likely that this new Justice will, along with the rest of the Supreme Court, rule on cases related to abortion, gay marriage, and less likely, stem cell research.
Furthermore, this new Justice will be either be constructionist in their judicial philosophy or activist. For these reasons, we want a Republican President committed to picking a judge like Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito.
The thought of having another David Souter makes us want to throw up.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
08 February 2008
Charles Barkley, Great American
Charles Barkley is the only reason we watch basketball on TNT. He is smart and funny. And now, it appears we have something in common with Sir Charles: neither of us like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton (click here & here for examples).
From the NY Post Page 6, this fantastic quote from Charles Barkley, future Governor of Alabama regarding Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton:
Now, watch for the thought police of the left to demonize Barkley, just like they demonized Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, and Clarence Thomas before him.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
From the NY Post Page 6, this fantastic quote from Charles Barkley, future Governor of Alabama regarding Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton:
I don't believe in them. They always play the race card, and you can't always play the race card, sometimes the race card is needed but not in every situation. We have to hold blacks more accountable for their actions.We have disliked the influence held by "black leaders" Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton. So we appreciate anyone who has the guts to stand up to them and their cronies. Props to Charles Barkley and good luck in his future race for the governorship.
Now, watch for the thought police of the left to demonize Barkley, just like they demonized Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, and Clarence Thomas before him.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
OL&L On BYUTV's BYU Weekly
Thanks to our friend EJB (and LC), we will appear in this week's edition of BYU Weekly.
(We suppose this will settle, once and for all, the debate about our multiple personality which manifests itself in the use of the editorial or royal first personal plural.)
In it, we talked about our inclusion in the America's Future Foundation College Blogger Contest 2008 and our experience at grad school in London. BYU Weekly was interested in how BYU is being represented here and around the world.
You can watch BYU Weekly at 4:30pm MST on Dish channel 9403 and DirectTV channel 374. Additional broadcast times can be found here (scroll down, in "additional resources, BYU Television). If you don't have DirectTV or Dish, click here to find out about BYU TV availability in your area.
Thank you for your continued support.
*UPDATE 8:12pm MST: We've got conflicting reports about the airtime of this show. The Dish listing and the internet say 4:30pm MST, but our friend EJB and her producer Ben say 4pm MST. To be safe, set your Tivo to record the entire hour. According to our email from him, it will also run at the following times:
February 09 at 4 PM on BYU-TV
February 10 at 9 AM on BYU-TV
February 10 at 2:30 PM on KBYU-TV
February 11 at 5 PM on BYU -TV
February 12 at 6 PM on BYU -TV
February 12 at 9 PM on BYU -TV
February 13 at 11 AM on BYU -TV
**UPDATE 9 February 2008, 2:49pm MST: It's definitely airing at 4:30pm today.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
(We suppose this will settle, once and for all, the debate about our multiple personality which manifests itself in the use of the editorial or royal first personal plural.)
In it, we talked about our inclusion in the America's Future Foundation College Blogger Contest 2008 and our experience at grad school in London. BYU Weekly was interested in how BYU is being represented here and around the world.
You can watch BYU Weekly at 4:30pm MST on Dish channel 9403 and DirectTV channel 374. Additional broadcast times can be found here (scroll down, in "additional resources, BYU Television). If you don't have DirectTV or Dish, click here to find out about BYU TV availability in your area.
Thank you for your continued support.
*UPDATE 8:12pm MST: We've got conflicting reports about the airtime of this show. The Dish listing and the internet say 4:30pm MST, but our friend EJB and her producer Ben say 4pm MST. To be safe, set your Tivo to record the entire hour. According to our email from him, it will also run at the following times:
February 09 at 4 PM on BYU-TV
February 10 at 9 AM on BYU-TV
February 10 at 2:30 PM on KBYU-TV
February 11 at 5 PM on BYU -TV
February 12 at 6 PM on BYU -TV
February 12 at 9 PM on BYU -TV
February 13 at 11 AM on BYU -TV
**UPDATE 9 February 2008, 2:49pm MST: It's definitely airing at 4:30pm today.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
07 February 2008
Mitt Romney Bows Out
Just watched Mitt Romney's speech to CPAC where he announced that he will drop out of the race. Click here for the transcript.
They're reporting on Fox News that Romney initially decided to continue the race, but as he worked on his CPAC speech, it occurred to him that to fight on would hurt the conservative and Republican cause and more importantly, it would hurt America.
As our father said, "what else would you expect from Romney. He's the man we thought he was."
And so he is.
You can question whether or not his current positions are genuine--we don't, not anymore--but you can't doubt his love of country.
Mark Halperin at time.com has a list of 10 suggestions of things Romney could have done differently to perhaps win the nomination.
We've laid out very plainly our problems with McCain--primarily here and here. We hope he seizes the opportunity to appeal to conservatives and assure them he will fight for the things that are important to them.
If he continues to appear dismissive or disdainful of the Reagan coalition, in favor of his independent, liberal, and media friends, he will not have a snowballs' chance of beating Hillary or Barack. His contemptuous and condescending attitude towards conservatives won't win him many votes.
We will vote for the Republican candidate for President, because as Mitt Romney said in his speech, "we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism."
*UPDATE 12:18pm MST: Romney to try again in 2012.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
They're reporting on Fox News that Romney initially decided to continue the race, but as he worked on his CPAC speech, it occurred to him that to fight on would hurt the conservative and Republican cause and more importantly, it would hurt America.
As our father said, "what else would you expect from Romney. He's the man we thought he was."
And so he is.
You can question whether or not his current positions are genuine--we don't, not anymore--but you can't doubt his love of country.
Mark Halperin at time.com has a list of 10 suggestions of things Romney could have done differently to perhaps win the nomination.
We've laid out very plainly our problems with McCain--primarily here and here. We hope he seizes the opportunity to appeal to conservatives and assure them he will fight for the things that are important to them.
If he continues to appear dismissive or disdainful of the Reagan coalition, in favor of his independent, liberal, and media friends, he will not have a snowballs' chance of beating Hillary or Barack. His contemptuous and condescending attitude towards conservatives won't win him many votes.
We will vote for the Republican candidate for President, because as Mitt Romney said in his speech, "we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism."
*UPDATE 12:18pm MST: Romney to try again in 2012.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
06 February 2008
Spencer Hadley Commits to the Cougars - Huzzah For Connell, Washington!
We haven't written about sports in a long time (about a year ago, in fact, when QB Jason Munns, from our Alma Mater, Southridge High School, signed with BYU). But we can't miss the opportunity to write about a fellow Eastern Washingtonian joining the BYU Football Team.
Yup, his name is Spencer Hadley and he played LB, WR, RB, and KR for his high school football team--the Connell Eagles. Apparently he was also their best basketball player.
Our favorite detail from his recruit bio, though, is this:
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Yup, his name is Spencer Hadley and he played LB, WR, RB, and KR for his high school football team--the Connell Eagles. Apparently he was also their best basketball player.
Our favorite detail from his recruit bio, though, is this:
"raised on a dairy farm and lists working cattle as a special skill"How awesome is that? Welcome to BYU, Spencer. We hope you enjoy your stay. And win lots of football games.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
McCain/Huckabee vs. Romney
Whence the animus, John and Mike?
Last night we received a thoughtful email from longtime reader, Matt Perkins. In it, he asked, "why is [there] so much bitterness and rancor aimed at Romney from the McCain & Huckabee camps?" It's a good question. And we're not sure we know the answer.
This morning, we watched Huckabee supporter, big smile sporter, and all around conservative bad-A, Chuck Norris on one of the network talk shows. Asked about his man Mike Huckabee and the results of Super Tuesday, Norris said that if Huckabee had $40M of his own money to spend, he would be the Republican frontrunner.
So is plain old class warfare and jealousy of Romney's personal wealth prompting the rancor between the Huckabee and Romney camps? Maybe.
Huckabee is the one who famously referred to Romney as the "guy who fired them (average joe)." This kind of rhetoric mirrors the talking points of the left. But what do we draw from this? Maybe Huckabee really is the populist and less the conservative that Romney's ads have indicated.
Romney's largesse has permitted him to produce and run ads which criticize both John McCain and Mike Huckabee. We've watched these ads. Sure, they're hard hitting. But they don't seem dishonest. They certainly haven't been personal--certainly not personal in the way that Huckabee's use of Romney's Mormonism was personal.
Unlike Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, Mitt Romney didn't have national name recognition. Unlike Mike Huckabee, Romney didn't have a ready-made group of Evangelical voters. Mormons don't have nearly the numbers. At least, not outside of Utah. What Romney did have was money. And he did what unknown candidates have always done--run ads attacking the other candidates.
We don't mind attack ads. We relish them, in fact, and wrote as much a few weeks ago. But some voters (pansies) and other candidates (wimps) don't like them. We suspect that these ads and Romney's money combined to create the animus that seems to exist between McCain/Huckabee and Romney.
Huckabee's recent combination with McCain can be explained by self interest. He knows he has zero chance of being the Republican nominee, but if he helps McCain knock off Romney, he could very well end up as McCain's running mate.
--->Programming notes:
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Last night we received a thoughtful email from longtime reader, Matt Perkins. In it, he asked, "why is [there] so much bitterness and rancor aimed at Romney from the McCain & Huckabee camps?" It's a good question. And we're not sure we know the answer.
This morning, we watched Huckabee supporter, big smile sporter, and all around conservative bad-A, Chuck Norris on one of the network talk shows. Asked about his man Mike Huckabee and the results of Super Tuesday, Norris said that if Huckabee had $40M of his own money to spend, he would be the Republican frontrunner.
So is plain old class warfare and jealousy of Romney's personal wealth prompting the rancor between the Huckabee and Romney camps? Maybe.
Huckabee is the one who famously referred to Romney as the "guy who fired them (average joe)." This kind of rhetoric mirrors the talking points of the left. But what do we draw from this? Maybe Huckabee really is the populist and less the conservative that Romney's ads have indicated.
Romney's largesse has permitted him to produce and run ads which criticize both John McCain and Mike Huckabee. We've watched these ads. Sure, they're hard hitting. But they don't seem dishonest. They certainly haven't been personal--certainly not personal in the way that Huckabee's use of Romney's Mormonism was personal.
Unlike Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, Mitt Romney didn't have national name recognition. Unlike Mike Huckabee, Romney didn't have a ready-made group of Evangelical voters. Mormons don't have nearly the numbers. At least, not outside of Utah. What Romney did have was money. And he did what unknown candidates have always done--run ads attacking the other candidates.
We don't mind attack ads. We relish them, in fact, and wrote as much a few weeks ago. But some voters (pansies) and other candidates (wimps) don't like them. We suspect that these ads and Romney's money combined to create the animus that seems to exist between McCain/Huckabee and Romney.
Huckabee's recent combination with McCain can be explained by self interest. He knows he has zero chance of being the Republican nominee, but if he helps McCain knock off Romney, he could very well end up as McCain's running mate.
--->Programming notes:
- This Saturday at 4:30pm MST on Dish Channel 9403 & DirectTV Channel 374 (click here for additional programming availability in your area) our profile will run on the program "BYU Weekly." Tell your friends.
- We recently concluded an interview with former RNC Communications Director and current GOP consultant, Brian Jones. Thanks to Mr. Jones for being so gracious. Stay tuned for a post with all the good stuff.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
05 February 2008
Neverending Super Tuesday
Like yesterday's post about John McCain, we've got a number of disjointed thoughts about Super Tuesday and the race in general. We couldn't fit it all into one, coherent post, and we wanted to be able to update it throughout the day, so we're going to semi-regularly update this post for the rest of the night. Check back often.
(scroll down for updates)
- On the way back from Alta, we listened to the Sean Hannity show. Sean, as many of you know, has become an ardent Romney supporter. He couldn't stop talking about the smoke-filled, back room deal between Mike Huckabee and John McCain in West Virginia. Of course what they did was legal and a part of both parties' political history, but that doesn't mean that anyone has to like it.
- John McCain consistently misrepresents Mitt Romney's position. Before Florida he tried to convince voters Romney would set a withdrawal date for troops in Iraq. Either he was being disingenuous or he is too stupid to understand a simple sentence. Since we think Senator McCain is a smart man, we vote for the former.
McCain is at it again.
Supposedly by comparing John McCain's candidacy to Bob Dole's--the fact that Dole was also viewed as next-in-line and eventually lost--Mitt Romney is supposed to have disparaged Dole's military hero status and his service to America. We listened to Romney's comments and our considered response is: yeah, right.
Talk about a wilful suspension of basic listening skills. There was nothing that could have been construed as a criticism of Dole's military service. Zilch.
There is plenty of room for McCain to criticize Romney about his record. He doesn't need to be deceitful. In our eyes, this man of principle loses a bit of his luster.
*Update 6:29pm MST: Looks like Arizona is tighter than McCain would like. Jim Geraghty (see the link) reports that anti-amnesty folks and Mormons are coming out in support of Romney. If Evangelicals, African-Americans, and women can play identity politics, why can't Mormons?
**Update 10:25pm MST: We said our piece at the Provo City Council meeting. Property rights, liberty and the unintended consequences and costs of regulation--we think we may have been a little too theoretical. 3 members of the council responded to our comments. Their responses ranged from mildly interested, to lecturing, to completely dismissive.
Afterwards we commented for a story to appear in tomorrow's edition of the Salt Lake Tribune. We also appeared on camera for BYU's noon o'clock news show. Be sure to tune in.
Yes, we are a media whore.
***Update 11:12pm MST: How 'bout that Mike Huckabee?
****Update 11:29pm MST: Jane Fleming Kleeb of the Young Voter PAC and some gimmicky MTV get-out-the-vote thing is the single most irritating/annoying/shrill liberal commentator on television.
Yes, Jane, the surge is working.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
(scroll down for updates)
- On the way back from Alta, we listened to the Sean Hannity show. Sean, as many of you know, has become an ardent Romney supporter. He couldn't stop talking about the smoke-filled, back room deal between Mike Huckabee and John McCain in West Virginia. Of course what they did was legal and a part of both parties' political history, but that doesn't mean that anyone has to like it.
- John McCain consistently misrepresents Mitt Romney's position. Before Florida he tried to convince voters Romney would set a withdrawal date for troops in Iraq. Either he was being disingenuous or he is too stupid to understand a simple sentence. Since we think Senator McCain is a smart man, we vote for the former.
McCain is at it again.
Supposedly by comparing John McCain's candidacy to Bob Dole's--the fact that Dole was also viewed as next-in-line and eventually lost--Mitt Romney is supposed to have disparaged Dole's military hero status and his service to America. We listened to Romney's comments and our considered response is: yeah, right.
Talk about a wilful suspension of basic listening skills. There was nothing that could have been construed as a criticism of Dole's military service. Zilch.
There is plenty of room for McCain to criticize Romney about his record. He doesn't need to be deceitful. In our eyes, this man of principle loses a bit of his luster.
*Update 6:29pm MST: Looks like Arizona is tighter than McCain would like. Jim Geraghty (see the link) reports that anti-amnesty folks and Mormons are coming out in support of Romney. If Evangelicals, African-Americans, and women can play identity politics, why can't Mormons?
**Update 10:25pm MST: We said our piece at the Provo City Council meeting. Property rights, liberty and the unintended consequences and costs of regulation--we think we may have been a little too theoretical. 3 members of the council responded to our comments. Their responses ranged from mildly interested, to lecturing, to completely dismissive.
Afterwards we commented for a story to appear in tomorrow's edition of the Salt Lake Tribune. We also appeared on camera for BYU's noon o'clock news show. Be sure to tune in.
Yes, we are a media whore.
***Update 11:12pm MST: How 'bout that Mike Huckabee?
****Update 11:29pm MST: Jane Fleming Kleeb of the Young Voter PAC and some gimmicky MTV get-out-the-vote thing is the single most irritating/annoying/shrill liberal commentator on television.
Yes, Jane, the surge is working.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
BYU/Provo Parking Addendum
Last Friday we let loose with a post about the Provo parking debacle. Debacle. Seems to be everyone's fav word to describe the situation. We explained how we thought the parking thing fit into a greater debate about property rights--not only in the city of Provo, but nationwide.
In conversation with a number of different friends, we found that maybe we didn't make it as clear as we thought we did or should.
For a number of years, the Provo City Council has done whatever it could to limit occupancy in new construction--a clear violation of property rights. It--they, whatever--has tried to do the same thing with existing structures bylimiting, for example, the number of students who could live in a given house. Unfortunately for them, these houses were constructed before the enactment of these new rules and by and large they have been able to avoid the Provo City Council's tyrannical, property-right violatin' ways.
But finally, they hit upon a solution. In parking they trust. By limiting the number of "street parking permits" for each house, etc., they could essentially limit the number of occupants. If a given house only had 3 parking spots, how could they reasonably expect to rent to 4, 5, or even 6 students? They couldn't. And the Provo City Council is aware of this.
So who loses? Students, any new owner/renter, and owners of properties that currently rent to students. By limiting the number of parking spots and thus, students per habitation, they in effect limit the sources of income for the owner. Rather than renting 1 house X 6 rooms to 6 students at $200 per = $1200 per month, the property owner has to generate $1200 from 3 student-renters. But this probably wont happen either, because the market wont bear a 2x increase in the cost of rent. The students will go elsewhere. Or the owner will buck the law.
It doesn't help that BYU has limited student housing to a 2 mile radius around campus. This makes it more difficult for students to avoid the ridiculous, property rights violating, rent price escalating, car parking limiting ways of the Provo City Council. It's as though the two groups got together to come up with the best way to raise the cost of living for students.
Mind you, the neighborhoods they are trying to protect/maintain the ambience, etc., are overwhelmingly dominated by the student population. The student to regular-joe-citizen rate exceeds 10-to-1. And it's not as though parking problems just cropped up in the last couple years or so, screaming for the legislative attention of the all powerful Provo City Council. Nor are these issues any different to the problems faced in any other college town across the country. What is different is the complete disregard for the student population shown by the Provo City Council. They absolutely could not care less.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
In conversation with a number of different friends, we found that maybe we didn't make it as clear as we thought we did or should.
For a number of years, the Provo City Council has done whatever it could to limit occupancy in new construction--a clear violation of property rights. It--they, whatever--has tried to do the same thing with existing structures bylimiting, for example, the number of students who could live in a given house. Unfortunately for them, these houses were constructed before the enactment of these new rules and by and large they have been able to avoid the Provo City Council's tyrannical, property-right violatin' ways.
But finally, they hit upon a solution. In parking they trust. By limiting the number of "street parking permits" for each house, etc., they could essentially limit the number of occupants. If a given house only had 3 parking spots, how could they reasonably expect to rent to 4, 5, or even 6 students? They couldn't. And the Provo City Council is aware of this.
So who loses? Students, any new owner/renter, and owners of properties that currently rent to students. By limiting the number of parking spots and thus, students per habitation, they in effect limit the sources of income for the owner. Rather than renting 1 house X 6 rooms to 6 students at $200 per = $1200 per month, the property owner has to generate $1200 from 3 student-renters. But this probably wont happen either, because the market wont bear a 2x increase in the cost of rent. The students will go elsewhere. Or the owner will buck the law.
It doesn't help that BYU has limited student housing to a 2 mile radius around campus. This makes it more difficult for students to avoid the ridiculous, property rights violating, rent price escalating, car parking limiting ways of the Provo City Council. It's as though the two groups got together to come up with the best way to raise the cost of living for students.
Mind you, the neighborhoods they are trying to protect/maintain the ambience, etc., are overwhelmingly dominated by the student population. The student to regular-joe-citizen rate exceeds 10-to-1. And it's not as though parking problems just cropped up in the last couple years or so, screaming for the legislative attention of the all powerful Provo City Council. Nor are these issues any different to the problems faced in any other college town across the country. What is different is the complete disregard for the student population shown by the Provo City Council. They absolutely could not care less.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
04 February 2008
John McCain on Super Tuesday
Had a few thoughts about John McCain we wanted to get down before the start of Super Tuesday. In no specific order....
- We disagree with those who say that John McCain is too old to be President. We value the wisdom and experience that comes with age. Also, McCain seems to be in good health, so dying in office does not seem to be a legitimate threat. We're much more worried by the youth and inexperience of Barack Obama than the age, wisdom and experience of John McCain. Don't vote for Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul because John McCain is too old; vote for someone else because you disagree with his politics.
- Speaking of his politics, the thing that bothers us most about John McCain is his reputation for compromise. When Republicans were in power, he "crossed the aisle" to co-author McCain-Feingold--one of the worst, 1st Amendment limiting pieces of legislation in history. He voted against tax cuts. He voted against drilling in ANWR. He did all of these things when its conceivable his leadership could have taken the country in a more conservative direction.
What will he do with his party in the minority? If John McCain, "maverick" (Top Gun?) was willing to "compromise" with his party in the majority, what will he do as President when Democrats are running Congress? We think it will start with comprehensive immigration reform, but where will it end? Universal health care?
If Dems control Congress, we need a President who is poised to use his veto pen and hold the Conservative line. We don't need John McCain crossing the the aisle, again.
- On the war, John McCain is solid and has proven his principled leadership--even when it was very unpopular--and we've given him credit for his stand. We were especially impressed with a speech he gave on 11 April 2007 to the graduating class at VMI. Click here to read the text and here to view a short video clip. We admire John McCain for this. But this is only one of our oft-stated, highest order priorities (War on Terror, Courts, Taxes).
- Until recently, we were confident McCain would nominate a good, conservative Justice to the Supreme Court. But then, there was this column from the Wall Street Journal's John Fund: Winging It. In it, McCain expresses misgivings about Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito whom we have named, along with John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as being a model Supreme Court Justice. Would McCain compromise with Dems on a Supreme Court nominee? For us, this would be completely unacceptable.
- On taxes, John McCain is not solid. Not solid? He's not even mushy. He opposed the Bush tax cuts and opposed eliminating the death tax. Attempting to re-write history, McCain said his opposition was based on fiscal responsibility--he wanted to cut spending, not taxes. Or at least, he wanted to cut spending equal to the cut in taxes. But we're not so new to the game that we don't remember McCain's rhetoric of the day: he employed the same class-warfare rhetoric the Democrats trot out, not only against the Bush tax cuts, but ad nauseam.
Hey, John, if you really wanted to cut government spending, wouldn't it be best to cut government funding? Just a thought.
- Props to McCain for his free-trading ways.
We had to end with something positive, right?
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
- We disagree with those who say that John McCain is too old to be President. We value the wisdom and experience that comes with age. Also, McCain seems to be in good health, so dying in office does not seem to be a legitimate threat. We're much more worried by the youth and inexperience of Barack Obama than the age, wisdom and experience of John McCain. Don't vote for Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul because John McCain is too old; vote for someone else because you disagree with his politics.
- Speaking of his politics, the thing that bothers us most about John McCain is his reputation for compromise. When Republicans were in power, he "crossed the aisle" to co-author McCain-Feingold--one of the worst, 1st Amendment limiting pieces of legislation in history. He voted against tax cuts. He voted against drilling in ANWR. He did all of these things when its conceivable his leadership could have taken the country in a more conservative direction.
What will he do with his party in the minority? If John McCain, "maverick" (Top Gun?) was willing to "compromise" with his party in the majority, what will he do as President when Democrats are running Congress? We think it will start with comprehensive immigration reform, but where will it end? Universal health care?
If Dems control Congress, we need a President who is poised to use his veto pen and hold the Conservative line. We don't need John McCain crossing the the aisle, again.
- On the war, John McCain is solid and has proven his principled leadership--even when it was very unpopular--and we've given him credit for his stand. We were especially impressed with a speech he gave on 11 April 2007 to the graduating class at VMI. Click here to read the text and here to view a short video clip. We admire John McCain for this. But this is only one of our oft-stated, highest order priorities (War on Terror, Courts, Taxes).
- Until recently, we were confident McCain would nominate a good, conservative Justice to the Supreme Court. But then, there was this column from the Wall Street Journal's John Fund: Winging It. In it, McCain expresses misgivings about Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito whom we have named, along with John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as being a model Supreme Court Justice. Would McCain compromise with Dems on a Supreme Court nominee? For us, this would be completely unacceptable.
- On taxes, John McCain is not solid. Not solid? He's not even mushy. He opposed the Bush tax cuts and opposed eliminating the death tax. Attempting to re-write history, McCain said his opposition was based on fiscal responsibility--he wanted to cut spending, not taxes. Or at least, he wanted to cut spending equal to the cut in taxes. But we're not so new to the game that we don't remember McCain's rhetoric of the day: he employed the same class-warfare rhetoric the Democrats trot out, not only against the Bush tax cuts, but ad nauseam.
Hey, John, if you really wanted to cut government spending, wouldn't it be best to cut government funding? Just a thought.
- Props to McCain for his free-trading ways.
We had to end with something positive, right?
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
01 February 2008
Provo City Council vs. BYU Students - The Parking Kerfuffle
Lots of news and events this week for our BYU readership.
Our friends organizing the "resistance" to the Provo City Council's ignorant parking program sent us the following email. Read it and attend the upcoming meeting to register your distaste for their new plan.
But this parking proposal--regulating parking in areas dominated by students--goes way beyond anything they have done before. The areas they propose to regulate have more students than permanent residents by more than 10-1. They propose to punish, really, a huge student population--several thousand--for the benefit of a few hundred residents.
This follows their recent theme of limiting the student population in the name of protecting permanent resident property rights. This blog consistently argues in favor of protecting property rights. Provo City Council's proposals are not that--they are not simply protecting property rights. They are abusive and dictatorial and violate the property rights of non-resident owners who want to rent their properties to students.
The result? Housing/rent costs for students and other non-permanent residents far above what they should be. The Provo City Council is doing what Thomas Sowell has criticized Bay Area residents for doing for years--making property decisions that punish new and poor residents by causing property prices to rise. These people wont buy the property themselves, so they pass legislation to limit the property rights of those who do want to buy it.
From "Property Rites" by Thomas Sowell:
Provo City residents have a pretty sweet deal with students. They receive sales tax and rent tax far above what they would otherwise plus all the tax benefits of BYU itself to say nothing of the jobs provided by the presence of BYU or the students. Unlike many other college towns, they don't have to deal with the usual negative aspects of having a large student population--rowdy drinking and riots. Instead, BYU students provide a cheap, educated workforce and literally hundreds of thousands of hours of community service.
In return, Provo residents through the Provo City Council reward BYU students with greater and greater restrictions on how and where they can live (BYU hasn't helped out much there) and how and where they can park. And their reach extends even to areas overwhelmingly dominated by students. We cannot come up with enough adjectives to describe our outrage and many of the ones we'd like to use are not appropriate for this family-friendly blog.
One last appeal: go to the Provo City Council meeting and register your disgust with the council members. Do not be apathetic or lazy and leave the fight to others. Take the fight to them yourself.
Time and Place
Date: Tuesday, 5 February 2008
Time: 7-9:00pm
Location: City Office Building
Street: 351 W Center St.
City: Provo, UT
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Our friends organizing the "resistance" to the Provo City Council's ignorant parking program sent us the following email. Read it and attend the upcoming meeting to register your distaste for their new plan.
Most of the city council is now ready to vote to implement the new parking program south of campus (University Ave to 900 E and Campus to Center St). It is important that as many people come as can to voice their opinions. Please read the information found at http://parking.provo.org so you have an idea what is going on.Provo City Council has consistently acted without regard to the student population. We understand why they do it--students aren't registered as voters in Provo so they have nothing to fear when they cross them.
There are required to hold a public hearing and to allow the community to speak. Please come and speak. Please come prepared. I will have voter registration books on hand for those ready to register to vote in Provo. YOUR VOTE MATTERS.
If they pass this law, I will get a referendum set up for people to sign to put it on the ballot in November. Only locally registered voters signatures are counted. Provo City is pushing us around and trying to run out the little guys. Help us stop them. My landlord is already selling his house because of all the legislation the council has passed that is asinine. They don't want families to stay they want developers. They want to regulate student life so that we don't interfere with their lives.
Please come and support those that will speak out even if you don't want to say anything.
But this parking proposal--regulating parking in areas dominated by students--goes way beyond anything they have done before. The areas they propose to regulate have more students than permanent residents by more than 10-1. They propose to punish, really, a huge student population--several thousand--for the benefit of a few hundred residents.
This follows their recent theme of limiting the student population in the name of protecting permanent resident property rights. This blog consistently argues in favor of protecting property rights. Provo City Council's proposals are not that--they are not simply protecting property rights. They are abusive and dictatorial and violate the property rights of non-resident owners who want to rent their properties to students.
The result? Housing/rent costs for students and other non-permanent residents far above what they should be. The Provo City Council is doing what Thomas Sowell has criticized Bay Area residents for doing for years--making property decisions that punish new and poor residents by causing property prices to rise. These people wont buy the property themselves, so they pass legislation to limit the property rights of those who do want to buy it.
From "Property Rites" by Thomas Sowell:
Many restrictive land use laws in effect turn a chance that someone paid for into a guarantee that they did not pay for, such as a guarantee that a given community would retain its existing character.When long-time Provo residents purchased their property, they didn't purchase a guarantee that any future building would be limited to certain area or certain types of residents (read: not students). They only purchased the right to their own property. Their continued insistence to limit the rights of anyone who came after them through the legislative authority of the Provo City Council is abusive and ignorant of property rights.
In the normal course of events, things change. Land that is not nearly as valuable as farmland as it would be for housing would be sold to people who would build housing. But restrictive laws prevent this from happening.
Such laws help preserve the existing character of the community, at the expense of farmers and others who would gladly sell their land to builders if they had a chance to do so. Because they can't, their value of their land is reduced drastically.
The biggest losers are those families who are deprived of housing and those families who are deprived of the standard of living they could have if they did not have to pay for sky-high rents or home prices due to an artificial scarcity of housing.
The biggest winners are existing homeowners, who see the value of their property go up by leaps and bounds. Also benefitting are environmentalist groups who are able to buy up farmland at a fraction of its value because there are so few alternatives for the farmers.
Provo City residents have a pretty sweet deal with students. They receive sales tax and rent tax far above what they would otherwise plus all the tax benefits of BYU itself to say nothing of the jobs provided by the presence of BYU or the students. Unlike many other college towns, they don't have to deal with the usual negative aspects of having a large student population--rowdy drinking and riots. Instead, BYU students provide a cheap, educated workforce and literally hundreds of thousands of hours of community service.
In return, Provo residents through the Provo City Council reward BYU students with greater and greater restrictions on how and where they can live (BYU hasn't helped out much there) and how and where they can park. And their reach extends even to areas overwhelmingly dominated by students. We cannot come up with enough adjectives to describe our outrage and many of the ones we'd like to use are not appropriate for this family-friendly blog.
One last appeal: go to the Provo City Council meeting and register your disgust with the council members. Do not be apathetic or lazy and leave the fight to others. Take the fight to them yourself.
Time and Place
Date: Tuesday, 5 February 2008
Time: 7-9:00pm
Location: City Office Building
Street: 351 W Center St.
City: Provo, UT
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
StatCounter
