Well, there goes that opportunity for a protest vote.

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Update (II): If you thought that no one would be lame enough to defend these interviews… you’re wrong.

If you thought that Congressman Weiner couldn’t look worse than he did in this post, well you were wrong. There is of course, this video, too, from MRCtv (and the man formally known a College Politico):

Watch  to the whole thing, especially the part where he calls one of the reporters a jackass.  Really, I haven’t seen a performance this awful since when Connie Chung interviewed Gary Condit.*

Update: Right Wing News calls it “the Hindenburg of press conferences.” Heh.

Meanwhile as a follow up to something I wondered out loud this morning, we might finally explain how he accidentally would tweet such a thing to the whole world.

Now as Lee pointed out in the comments to that post one way to send a direct message is to type the following in a normal tweet:

(more…)

[guest post by JVW]

Two years after Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson came out in favor of government compelling small businesses to engage in speech they abhor then showed a remarkable ignorance about foreign events, thereby sinking any chance he might have had to make Libertarians competitive in the weakest Presidential field since Franklin Pierce beat Winfield Scott, the Montana Libertarian candidate for governor, Rick Breckenridge, appears to be going for a “hold my beer” moment. Here’s the Missoula newspaper from last Wednesday:

The Libertarian candidate in Montana’s U.S. Senate race threw his support behind his Republican opponent Wednesday in a surprise move that came in response to an election mailer from an unknown group that appeared aimed at undermining Rosendale’s support among conservatives.

Republican Matt Rosendale, Montana’s state auditor and insurance commissioner, is in a tight race against two-term Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, with the balance of power in the closely divided Senate potentially at play.

Libertarian Rick Breckenridge has virtually no chance of winning and hasn’t dropped out with voting already underway. His participation has threatened to peel away votes that might otherwise go toward the Republican and boost Tester’s chances next week.

[. . . ]

Breckenridge said in an interview that he doesn’t know the source of the mailer, which promoted him as a “true conservative” and claimed that Rosendale supports using drones to spy on private citizens.

He said it appeared to be an attempt by so-called dark money groups to influence Montana’s election and that he’s decided Rosendale is the best candidate to stop such efforts. Federal election laws require campaign materials to disclose their funding source.

“The reality is I’m only going to get 3 or 4 percent of the vote, and he (Rosendale) has the character to combat this issue,” Breckenridge said. “I’m standing in unity and solidarity with Matt to combat dark money in politics.”

And then here’s Mr. Breckenridge earlier today:

Libertarian candidate Rick Breckenridge has backed away from his previous endorsement of Republican nominee Matt Rosendale just a day before Montanans are set to go the polls to vote in the state’s Senate race.

Breckenridge told Fox News that while he did use the word “endorse” in phone call with reporters last week, his “endorsement” was only on the issue of dark money. The Libertarian said he was angry about a campaign mailer urging voters to support the Libertarian candidate because Rosendale would bring more government surveillance if elected in November.

Libertarianism gets the benefit of being associated with principled and hip: P.J. O’Rourke, Penn Jillette, Neal Peart before he became an American citizen, Cato the Younger, but it seems that the guys (let’s face it: libertarians are all pretty much white males) whom they convince to run for office are almost uniformly unserious or downright loopy. If they ever want to be seen as a legitimate third political party, it would help if they could stop nominating weirdos. You supposedly can’t judge a book by looking at the cover, only sometimes you can.

– JVW

How reassuring? Mmmm…somewhat. The lede tells you it’s +6 worth of reassurance. But read further and it’s really more like +4 or +5. Good enough:

A new Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll shows Democrat Hillary Clinton with a 6-point lead among likely Pennsylvania voters, who also expressed some concerns about potential violence as the tense and tumultuous election draws to a close.

The results are similar to a poll conducted two weeks earlier, indicating little to no shift in public opinion after the recent FBI announcement that it was reviewing a new set of emails linked to Clinton, said Chris Borick, director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion.

The statewide survey — conducted between Oct. 30 and Nov. 4 with 405 likely Pennsylvania voters and with a margin of error of 5.5 percentage points — shows Clinton with support from 48 percent and Trump with the backing of 42 percent in a head-to-head matchup.

When third-party candidates are included, Clinton’s lead narrows to 4 points. She drew 44 percent, with Trump at 40 percent, Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson at 7 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein at 2 percent.

Both Johnson and Stein will be on the ballot, suggesting that +4 might be closer to the truth. That said, voters tend to get more serious when they actually get in the voting booth, and people who initially said they were for third-party candidates often change their mind and vote for one of the major-party candidates when the rubber hits the road. So we may be looking at +5 for Clinton here.

Muhlenberg has an A rating from 538, by the way, and is typically biased in favor of the Republican by about half a point. So this is not pro-Democrat hackery.

Trump could conceivably win without Pennsylvania, but it’s a rough, rough road. (So rough!) He’ll need Ohio, which is realistic. He’ll need Florida, which he could do. But good luck winning Virginia. And while things are looking good for him in North Carolina, Georgia, and Iowa, it’s looking very tough for him in Wisconsin and Colorado, among other places.

Overall, not a good sign for the Trumpster.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

A new CBS/New York Times poll shows Trump pulling within the margin of error — but Hillary is still leading, 45% to 42%. For now.

Heading into the final days of the presidential campaign, the race has settled back into a tight contest, with Hillary Clinton holding an edge over Donald J. Trump after a month of tumult. Most voters say their minds are made up and late revelations about both candidates made no significant difference to them, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll released Thursday.

Five days before Election Day, the margin between the candidates is narrow, with 45 percent of likely voters supporting Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic candidate, to 42 percent for Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee. The difference is within the poll’s margin of sampling error. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, has the support of 5 percent of likely voters, and the Green Party nominee, Jill Stein, takes 4 percent.

The poll fully prices in James Comey’s letter concerning the re-opening (yes, lefties: “re-opening”!) of the email investigation. However, because of the time it takes to conduct polls and the resultant delay, not all the new Clinton revelations (such as the Clinton Foundation investigation) were known to respondents:

The Times/CBS poll began hours after Mr. Comey’s letter became public, and most voters contacted said they had heard about the development. Even more voters said they were aware of charges that Mr. Trump had made unwanted sexual advances toward a number of women.

Yet, about six in 10 voters over all said that the 11th-hour disclosures about each candidate would make no real difference in their vote, but they were more likely to be negatively affected by the revelations about Mr. Trump than by those about Mrs. Clinton. Four in 10 likely voters said Mr. Trump’s behavior toward women made them less likely to support him while fewer, one-third, said the newest development in the F.B.I. investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails had that effect.

Enough with the polling news. I feel a rant coming on.

Hillary Clinton is such an awful candidate that it is in fact conceivable that we could elect, as President of the United States, a man with the political knowledge of a fourth grader and the self-centered temperament of a five-year-old. A man who tells us that under Hillary Clinton, 650 million immigrants could enter the U.S. within a week. A man who thinks that judges sign bills. A man who, when asked about the Supreme Court, immediately thinks about a Justice who criticized him. A man who can’t concentrate on anything but t*ts and p***y for more than five minutes. A man whose entire reason for existence is narcissism. A man who is, easily, the least-informed candidate to run for the Presidency in history . . . and perhaps the least-informed serious candidate for any federal elective office in decades.

Hillary is so beatable. And yet the Republican electorate picked a nasty, cruel, staggeringly dishonest, laughably ill-informed, and utterly amoral human being as the alternative.

The “Republican” has a chance of winning after eight years of government intrusion into our lives and the doubling of our national debt. Had you told me, two years ago, that I would be writing that sentence five days before the election, I would have assumed that I would be ecstatic.

But, because I do not trust the nominal Republican, and find him unstable and frightening, none of this makes me happy, in the slightest.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

Caleb Howe published a comprehensive summary of recent polls this morning, generally showing tightening in the race between Trump and Clinton. Since then, today’s numbers from the ABC/Washington Post tracker have come out, and show a (very small) further movement towards Trump, with the race tightening from a two-point gap yesterday to a one-point gap today — a statistical tie:

The Post-ABC Tracking Poll continues to find a very tight race, with Clinton at 46 percent and Trump at 45 percent among likely voters in interviews from Tuesday through Friday, followed by Libertarian Gary Johnson at four percent and the Green Party’s Jill Stein at two percent. The result is similar to a 47-45 margin in the previous wave released Saturday, though smaller than found in other surveys this week. When likely voters are asked to choose between Clinton and Trump alone, Clinton stands at 49 percent to Trump’s 46 percent, a margin that is still statistically insignificant.

The tightening of recent days is well shown in this graphic:

The tracking poll also gives us one of the first snapshots of voters’ reactions to the FBI re-opening (yes, lefties: re-opening!) the email investigation. Most don’t care, but some do:

A majority of all likely voters say they are unmoved by the FBI’s announcement Friday that it may review additional emails from Clinton’s time as secretary of state. Just over 6 in 10 voters say the news will make no difference in their vote, while just over 3 in 10 say it makes them less likely to support her; 2 percent say they’re more likely to back her as a result.

If you have been looking for a dramatic finish, this poll could be read to suggest that you may just get one.

That lawyerly statement is about as far as I am willing to go, though. I wouldn’t get too excited. Show me evidence that Trump has a chance of winning North Carolina, and then we’ll talk.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

[guest post by Dana]

Over at Reason, some noteworthy “libertarian and conservative legal experts” weigh in on whether the Supreme Court is a good enough reason to vote for Trump.

Orin Kerr sums up the results:

Five of the 10 answers were some form of “no.” Most of these responses argued that while Trump’s judicial nominees might be marginally better than Hillary Clinton’s, that possible benefit is outweighed by the damage Trump would do as head of the executive branch. (Jonathan Adler, Alan Gura, Orin Kerr, Roger Pilon and Timothy Sandefur)

Two of the answers were some form of “maybe.” Generally, they argued that Trump’s judicial nominees would be better than Clinton’s and that reasonable people will disagree on whether other concerns about Trump outweigh that. (Randy Barnett and Michael Rappaport)

Finally, three of the answers were some form of “yes.” Generally, they argued that Trump’s judicial nominees clearly would be better than Clinton’s. These answers did not take a clear position on whether people should vote for Trump, but instead responded only to the question of whether Supreme Court appointments provide a good reason to do so. (David Kopel, Glenn Reynolds and Carrie Severino)

Here are a few of the interesting opinions:

Jonathan Adler
Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University

The future of the Supreme Court is of tremendous importance, particularly given the number of likely retirements in the next several years. Concern for the Court, and lower federal courts, is often a good reason to ignore a Republican presidential candidate’s other inadequacies. A sound court appointment far outweighs a few silly spending programs. Many say this justifies supporting Trump. Not me. Trump is beyond the pale and there’s no guarantee Trump’s nominees will be any good anyway.

Roger Pilon
Director of Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute

Assuming Trump were to follow through on his list of possible Supreme Court nominees, that would be a reason to support him, but there are countervailing reasons to oppose him that are, I believe, far more important. The Court will correct itself in time, I hope, but it is the character of the Republican Party and, more broadly and crucially, of our very nation that is at stake in this election. Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate, to be sure, but the election of Donald Trump would so defile the party of Lincoln and America itself that it must be resisted. He is an aberration that we must get past, and quickly.

Michael B. Rappaport
Director of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism at the University of San Diego School of Law

I certainly believe that the future of the Supreme Court is “a reason” to support Trump. There are no assurances, but I do believe it is likely that he will choose someone from the list he issued previously (or someone similar). Is it strong enough reason to overcome the other reasons not to vote for him?

To me, it depends on one’s perspective. If one is simply voting for the candidate whose views are closest to your own, then most libertarians will vote for Gary Johnson. Trump’s Supreme Court appointments are unlikely to affect that.

But if you are (for some reason) choosing between Trump and Clinton, then Trump’s likely appointments are important. Both Trump and Clinton are so flawed that any significant chance that one of them will do something good is pretty important. So I would say that if one is choosing between Trump and Clinton, then Trump’s likely appointments are a strong reason for preferring him. Of course, that strong reason might be outweighed by other considerations, depending on your views of the two candidates.

In a separate column titled “It’s the Supreme Court, Stupid,” Hugh Hewitt also claims that because of the Court, voters should support Trump:

[T]here is a positive case for Donald Trump, a third prong in the case for working for Trump’s election: He brings 3,000 political appointees with him, and the first two — Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as VP and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has chief of the transition — telegraph that the vast majority of his team in the executive branch (and his appointees on the courts) will be conservatives.

Back in May, the Trump campaign released this list of potential Supreme Court justices.

This isn’t a new subject of discussion, certainly, but it’s interesting to read the compilation of views. And the fact remains that there will be at least one, if not more vacancies filled by the next president.

–Dana

Red State’s undying opponent of Trump (and Hillary) Leon Wolf sat down with libertarian candidate Austin Petersen today. (Well, “with” in the sense of they were on Skype together. It’s the Internet age, folks!) Here is their 15-minute interview:

I recently mentioned that I had a slightly negative memory of Petersen from a podcast. I found that podcast tonight and listened to it again as I walked around cleaning the house. It is over an hour and is embedded at the end of this post. My memory was not entirely accurate. The podcast was with my man Tom Woods, and on the second listen I was wildly entertained to listen to these two guys go at it. Tom Woods is a Rothbardian anarchist — but a reasonable one who rejects Rothbard’s more harebrained ideas (like his views on dealing with children). Petersen is a “minarchist” — essentially a limited government Founding Fathers type of guy with a libertarian perspective. Petersen is entertaining and explicitly adopts the Alinsky tactic of getting your opponent’s attention through aggression and ridicule — but he managed to do it in a respectful way. Basically, he told Woods that he loves Woods’s contributions to liberty but that he thinks Woods’s anarchist views are “stupid” — and he told him why he thought so.

I won’t go so far as to call Woods’s philosophy “stupid” — because I have a lot of respect for Woods, and he more than holds his own in this episode. And the bottom line is that both of these guys agree with almost all of us on easily 90%-plus of important issues. We believe in the most limited government possible. We’re against taxation for the purpose of redistribution. We’re for federalism: state control of all matters not explicitly entrusted to the central government. We’re for less regulation. Go down the line.

But these guys go at it hammer and tongs on issues like whether we need some minimal central authority to enforce life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I happen to agree with Petersen on this one, and he does a great (and entertaining) job of taking on Woods, who I believe is literally a genius and one of the most compelling public speakers I have ever heard. It was great listening to two smart people go at each other like this, knowing that in the end, we agree on so much.

As for the other libertarian candidate of note? Gary Johnson? Yeah, he says government should be able to force Jewish bakers to bake cakes for Nazis:

The issue arose when fellow Libertarian presidential candidate Austin Petersen brought to the attention of moderator John Stossel that in an earlier debate in Oregon, Johnson declared that bakeries should be forced to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. Johnson affirmed the position, arguing that being able to discriminate on the basis of religion is a “black hole.” Petersen pushed Johnson on the issue and asked whether he felt Jewish bakers should be forced to bake wedding cakes for Nazi customers. Stossel directed the question to Johnson, who replied “that would be my contention, yes.”

So, Gary Johnson can pretty much go to hell. I’ll never vote for that guy.

Austin Petersen is never going to be President. No large-L libertarian (or probably even a small-l libertarian) will be in my lifetime.

But he has substantially the right principles, I think, and he would do just fine for a protest vote, if nothing better comes along. And by the way? He’s pro-life.

Here is that podcast. Do like I did, and find some time where you are driving around, or cleaning the house (like me), or whatever. Enjoy two smart, liberty-minded people just going at it. It’s great stuff.

A little “fuck you” to conservatives from the Trumpmeister:

And I’m a conservative, but don’t forget, this is called the Republican Party. It’s not called the Conservative Party.

He’s right, you know. Well, not about the part where he said he’s a conservative. That part is a lie. But the other part, the part where he talked about the name of the Republican party? He’s right about that.

And, you know, it got me thinking.

What if there were a party called the “Conservative Party”?

Guess what? It turns out there is! Technically, the name is the “American Conservative Party.”

I don’t really know much about them. But I went to their Web site, and read through this document, which is their statement of principles.

And I’ll be damned if I can find anything in there that I disagree with. Here is the beginning, to give you a taste:

The American Conservative Party represents a brand of Conservatism that we believe best reflects the true and noble intentions of our Founders, which in turn reflected the conclusions of thousands of years of human civilization.

We strongly believe in the freedoms and liberties ingrained in our founding documents; and we support the Constitution as it is written–to protect, among other things, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition the government, and the right to keep and bear arms.

American Conservatism stands for small, limited government at every level. It stands strongly for individual responsibility and a civil society where individuals take on duties to take care of their own communities, and where Government is the resource of last resort.

Taxes should be levied for the sole purpose of financing the limited responsibilities of government such as providing for the common defense, apprehending and incarcerating criminals, and adjudicating legal disputes. No taxes should be levied [for] redistribution of wealth.

These ideals were first laid out in the form of our Creed and have served as the cornerstone of our agenda since our founding in 2008. As a Party driven by Principles, we offer this document to effectively expound on those ideals and lay down a framework for a return to limited, enumerated, and federalist government in the United States.

Amen. Right?

I don’t know what I think about the idea of a third party. I am not thrilled with the libertarian candidates. Gary Johnson would force bakers to make cakes whether they agree with the message or not. Austin Petersen has rubbed me the wrong way when I heard him on a podcast. There are other minor parties — like the Conservative Party USA (CP-USA, not to be confused with CPUSA, the Communist Party of the USA), which endorsed Ted Cruz but had some warm things to say about Trump. Pass! There’s the Constitution Party, which seems a little bigger than some of the other minor parties, but I’m not sure I buy into the whole paleoconservative movement, which strikes me as kind of wacky.

The American Conservative Party is clearly not a major force in U.S. politics. Their organization appears to be somewhere between zero and, well, zero. But I do recommend you read their statement of principles. It’s pretty damned well thought out.

And, unlike the Republican Party, they do have “Conservative” in their name. So there’s that!

[Posted by Karl]

The latest from PPP:

Newt Gingrich’s campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa.  He’s at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

Paul has outcampaigned and outorganized his rivals in Iowa.  Granted, the PPP poll can be criticized, as his support comes disporportionately from young voters and those who identify as either Democrats or independents.  However, despite Iowa being a closed caucus, you can register to participate right up to caucus day.  If Paul can get these people to sign up, it’s a good bet they’ll caucus.

At the Washington Examiner, Timothy P. Carney predicts:

The Republican presidential primary has become a bit feisty, but it will get downright ugly if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses.

The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media. (Disclosure: Paul wrote the foreword to my 2009 book.)

***

If Paul wins, how will the media and the GOP react? Much of the media will ignore him (expect headlines like “Romney Beats out Gingrich for Second Place in Iowa”). Some in the Republican establishment and the conservative media will panic. Others will calmly move to crush him, with the full cooperation of the liberal mainstream media.

Carney seems upset by the prospect, but then again, Carney refers to Paul’s “abiding 9/11 conspiracy theorists and allowing racist material in a newsletter published under his name” as… “indiscretions.” 

Similarly, the unhinged Andrew Sullivan euphemizes that Paul “had associations in the past that are creepy when not downright ugly.”  I should not have to remind the HIV-positive pundit about the content of Paul’s newsletters:

 They frequently quoted Paul’s “old colleague,” Representative William Dannemeyer–who advocated quarantining people with AIDS–praising him for “speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby.” In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine “who certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.” In an item titled, “The Pink House?” the author of a newsletter–again, presumably Paul–complained about President George H.W. Bush’s decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite “the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,” adding, “I miss the closet.” “Homosexuals,” it said, “not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.” When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, “Bring Back the Closet!” Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, “Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals.”

James Kirchick, who tracked down these newsletters, adds this:

One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” a strange claim for a physician to make. 

Paul gave credence to the theory, later shown to have been the product of a Soviet disinformation effort, that AIDS had been created in a U.S. government laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

However, in Sullyworld, it’s Gingrich who is filled with resentment, and Perry who is fascistic.  Kirchick also details Paul’s relationship conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, which may not bother Sullivan, given his own penchant for paranoid consipracy theories and Trig Trutherism (one of which originated with Alex Jones).

Like Paul voter Dave Weigel, both Sullivan and Carney are ostentatious in their disregard for mainstream conservatism.  Sullivan’s case is well-known; Carney’s hobby-horse is in exposing crony capitalism as an equal opportunity pursuit by Republicans, although Paul’s status as a GOP earmark king is left out of Carney’s latest apologia.  Also omitted is this from Kirchick:

[A] subsequent report by Reason found that Ron Paul & Associates, the defunct company that published the newsletters and which counted Paul and his wife as officers, reported an income of nearly $1 million in 1993 alone. If this figure is reliable, Paul must have earned multiple millions of dollars over the two decades plus of the newsletters’ existence. It is incredible that he had less than an active interest in what was being printed as part of a subscription newsletter enterprise that earned him and his family millions of dollars. Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said Paul told him that “his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto.”

Carney cannot bring himself to come up with a cute term for this sort of capitalism, in which a Congressman and presidential candidate profits personally and politicially from actively peddling hatred and intolerance.  If Paul wins Iowa, someone else surely will.  And contra the Weigels, Carneys and Sullivans, it will be richly deserved.

–Karl