The Political Inquirer

Is it even a big deal? I’m sick of hearing those on the Left cry that all homosexuals should have a “right to marry” as much as I am hearing Christians on the Right act like it is the most important issue in politics today (seconded only to our destruction of all things Muslim with big bombs). There are some things we need to recognize here related to this subject:

1. Leftists: No one has a “right” to get married. Each state can define its own “rights” and laws governing marriage.
2. Christian Right: Gay marriage isn’t “undoing” the family. If it is, then that is your fault for not teaching people to be good fathers and mothers. Government cannot ban gay marriage and make things any more right than if the Left gets it legalized. Your failure to keep people moral through religious teaching is shining through when you resort to government to try to make up for your mistakes.

There should not even be laws governing marriage as far as I am concerned. Such laws were originally put in place by people who wanted a law dictating that interracial couples could not marry, if I remember correctly.

A leftist and a rightist write Lew:

Writes Matthew Dailey: ” “I’m a twenty-one year-old living in northern California. About a year ago, I was the most leftist of the left, a product of my high school education I’m ashamed to say. But when Ron Paul entered the national political scene last summer, I started to pay attention. Since then, my views on economic freedom have vastly changed. Now I’m a daily visitor to lewrockwell.com and the blog. Thank you for giving me a place to feel sane.”

Writes Charles Krblich II: “Last year (coming from the most fascist of the right), I never would have agreed with Matthew Dailey — the man who wrote you. Now however, I find that a common ground exists between us. Not only has Ron Paul changed his world view, but he has also changed mine, and LRC.com is where I get to deluge myself with this perfectly sane and rational world view. As Ron Paul says himself in his book THE REVOLUTION, ‘And despite their philosophical differences in some areas, these folks typically found, to their surprise, that they rather liked each other.’”

It just goes to show that there are some elements of freedom on both the right and the left that need to be combined. True liberty is being shunned by a “divide and conquer” method.

Enough said.

President George W. Bush openly criticized Senator Barack Obama, which is a peak into what this campaign will look like. In 2000, George W. Bush undermined his “friend” John McCain by starting those nasty rumors in South Carolina. Today, he is undermining his “friend” John McCain once again by giving him no choice but to defend this inept President and his inept policies. A cynic might suggest Bush is deliberately sabotaging his “friend.” Read more »

Edwards endorsed Obama today if you didn’t get a chance to read the news. Headline on Drudge Report’s site: “The Ticket?” with a picture of Obama and Edwards. I am positive Obama will pick a white male if he intends on winning, but I’m not seeing Edwards as a strong point.

Market forces are predicting a war in Iran, I suspect. Speculators would obviously bid up the price of oil if they think a major conflict will come soon. Philip Giraldi at the American Conservative:

There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants.  The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action.  The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation.

Read more »

US News and World Report has information that McCain is likely to pick Huckabee for the vice presidency. Here are the three reasons McCain should pick Huckabee, according to the article:

1) He is a great campaigner and communicator who could both shore up support in the South among social conservatives (Huckabee is a former Baptist minister) and appeal to working-class voters in the critical “Big 10″ states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio.

2) As any pollster knows, voters search for candidates who “care about people like me,” and Huckabee would probably score a lot higher on that quality than millionaire investor Mitt Romney. Plus, given all the turmoil on Wall Street, 2008 would seem to be a bad year to pick a former investment banker for veep.

3) Economic conservatives and supply-siders may balk, but the threat of four years of Obamanomics and higher investment, income, and corporate taxes might be enough to keep them on board.

All three reasons are the reasons I refuse to vote for any sort of McCain or Huckabee ticket.

Rob Malley is an analyst at the Washington, D.C. based International Crisis Group, specializing in the Israeli-Arab conflict.  The International Crisis Group mission statement is as follows. 

“The International Crisis Group (Crisis Group) is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation, with some 145 staff members on five continents, working through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and resolve deadly conflict.”

Rob Malley is also a middle East policy adviser to Barak Obama.  Barak Obama has stated that as president he would not meet with Hamas.  I have to ask, what is the problem? 

If you are against the Iraq War but you enlist the support of a retired Iraqi war general is that a conflict of interest, or a credible source of information?  If you are against legalizing homosexual marriage and also have a homosexual working on your staff, are you a hypocrite or an open minded person?  If you have a great grandfather who supported the Nazi’s in WWII, are you yourself an Anti-Semitic?  If you have a preacher who expresses views that you have stated you disagree with does that make you a liar because you never severed the  relationship with the person previously, or are you someone who can listen and discern for yourself what you believe?  If you talk to your child about the dangers of using drugs and underage drinking even though you yourself have engaged in such activities, does that make you a hypocrite or a credible source of information through personal experience?

Finally, if you have a Middle East policy adviser who met with extremist groups, does that make you a terrorist sympathiser yourself or just a wise leader who positions advisers around him with real experience and not personal acquaintances who blindly support your pie in the sky ideals?

I have not been in full support of Bob Barr like some conservatives and Ron Paul supporters have been, largely because he has not shown himself to be truly dedicated to the idea of liberty. Joshua Katz has written a piece outlining some reasons not to vote for Barr, most of which I agree with wholeheartedly. I think after Mike reads the piece he might even be open to supporting Barr!

Another big problem I have with Barr is not him as a person, but the fact he is running with the Libertarian Party. I am quick to describe myself a libertarian these days, but not with a capital ‘L’. The party itself is destined to ruin, is filled with “libertines“, and has no commitment to Austrian economics and real principles.

Congressman Rahm Emanuel, from the great state of Illinois, said that Senator Ted Kennedy should not have said something to the effect that Hillary Clinton should not be on the Obama ticket. It would seem that Rahm is overly sensitive to this issue. It is Emauel who has supposedly remained neutral in this campaign because of his history with the Clintons and the fact that Obama is from Illinois. He can’t decide which one to support. A sense of loyalty or a sense of geography.

On a day when it seemed that everybody was beating up on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton — even “Saturday Night Live” had run a skit making fun of her -– one person came to her defense on Sunday: Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, a top Democrat in the House.

Mr. Emanuel called to assail Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, for remarks he made when asked about the possibility of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois choosing Mrs. Clinton, of New York, as his running-mate.

“I have a lot of respect for Ted Kennedy, but I don’t know how the hell he comes off saying that,” said Mr. Emanuel, who has ties to Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama and has not endorsed in the race. “The gratuitous attack on her is uncalled for and wrong. He is a better senator than that comment reveals.”

To the victor go the spoils (the original quote was referring to war). And to Obama the choice of who is his Vice-Presidential candidate will be an Obama choice. Not an Emanuel choice or even a Ted Kennedy choice.

Thus far Obama’s judgment has been superior. I will yield to his judgment when he picks his eventual running mate. If he picks Hillary, I will certainly support the ticket. I personally favor Colin Powell as I have posted here, because I truly believe they would be unstoppable. The way he has handled controversy after controversy, we are starting to get a strong sense of what an Obama Presidency will be like. Very strong and very focused. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

Question.  When is media coverage for a presidential primary not a good thing?  Answer: When the media coverage is focused on when you will get out of the race for the good of the party.

On the Republican side of the aisle one could argue that Mitt Romney heard an early curtain call and took a bow too soon.  Maybe his large personal campaign donations started to hurt, maybe he was hoping for the VP spot thinking that McCain will not be running again in 4 years, or even more likely he was doing the noble thing for the good of the party hoping to become a rising star in Republican Party.  Whatever the reason, I feel that had he continued he probably could have had enough support to force a brokered convention (along with the help of Ron Paul supporters) where he might have been chosen by the GOP over the largely Independent choice for John McCain.

Hillary on the other hand, seemingly doesn’t know when to leave the stage.  She is still grabbing roses meant for someone else and blowing kisses at the audience.  And so I beg the question, “What to do about Hillary?”  Theories abound on why she is still fighting for the nomination when the microphone has been cut and the lights on the stage are dimming and audience members are leaving. 

1 - Could it be because she cares so much about the country and truly believes she is the only one with solutions for issues the American people care about?  Not likely.  Most of what you hear is just Obama trashing and very little dialogue about her passion for one cause or another that Obama isn’t also supporting and addressing.  Aside from her truly Hawkish stance which is so bright and visible it must be blinding for her supporters not to see, she and Obama have very similar views. 

2 - Is it because she feels that Obama will lose to McCain but she can win and for the good of American we need a Democrat in the White House?  “Yes” and “No”.  “Yes” she brings this up quite frequently and has even recently used some very divisive language (you guessed it about race.) to illustrate this point.  The “No” response is largely because she has failed to convince or show us that Hillary voters will not pick Obama but instead will go in droves for McCain.  Actually, I think this possibility is plausible enough when you consider they are both close enough to the center from their respective parties to the point where it raises eyebrows for some and others want them out.  The other reason for the “No” response is because if she cared so much about a Democrat being in the White House, she would have ended her campaign and supported Obama by now, at least after Indiana.  There is no reasonable explanation to me how her actions could help the Democratic party in November.

3 - October Surprise?  The wedding has passed and the preacher has already declared “Speak now or forever hold your piece”  She didn’t speak.

4 - Campaign Debt settlement?  Nah.  They got the money.  Have you seen their tax returns?

5 - VP spot?  Hmmm… Of all the opinions mentioned thus far, this one has the most interesting dynamics.  Would Hillary be happy with a VP spot knowing it would likely hurt her chances in 2012.  Does Hillary think that Obama will offer her the spot to get her to shut up much like an adult pulling out a pacifier for a 2 year old throwing a tantrum?  Would it help or hurt Obama’s chances for the election?  I won’t attempt to answer these questions because I have no expertise or inside information that might make my view worth a dimes difference more than anyone else’s, but I will pose one interesting scenario.  What if Obama publicly offers the VP spot to Hillary Clinton in an attempt to unify the party and solidify his candidacy.  It is a very large bluff assuming that Hillary will not accept and also assuming that Barak dooes not want her, but think of the table stakes!  In one fell swoop Hillary would show that she is not concerned about the party, or America, because a VP spot would surely give her an excellent opportunity and realistically the only option left for her to be highly involved on the issues she cares so much about.  Declining this opportunity would show her to be concerned about one thing and one thing only, herself. 

So, to answer the question “What to do about Hillary?”, maybe the answer is for Obama to offer her the VP position.  What is the risk?