Campaign Blog
Gary Nolan's
Campaign Blog
Newly-discovered respect for the Constitution?
Why won’t National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice testify in public, under oath, before the government’s 9/11 commission?
The Bush administration says they are defending an important constitutional principle – separation of powers.
Now, if they would only apply their newly-discovered respect for the Constitution to the rest of the document, especially the parts that have been decimated by the USA Patriot Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
Playing the Blame Game
Forgive me, but I really am not interested in listening to Republicans and Democrats blame each other for 9/11.
Frankly, neither the Bush administration, nor its predecessor, was paying enough attention to the possibility of terrorist attacks here in United States, and the extent to which their foreign adventurism was putting the American people at risk. For both administrations, their top priority was enacting new domestic programs and passing out pork to make sure they remained in power.
Protecting the American people from attack should be job one for any President. In my view, Presidents Bush and Clinton both deserve unsatisfactory evaluations from their employers – the American people.
Going for Broke
Medicare will go broke by 2019, but will begin impacting the rest of the federal budget as soon as 2011. That gloomy assessment is contained in the annual report of the trustees of Medicare and Social Security, which was released yesterday.
Last year’s “go broke” date was 2026, but that was before Congress piled President Bush’s expensive prescription drug benefit on top of the already insolvent Medicare program. Thanks to the irresponsibility of President Bush and the Congress, the problem has become acute – it simply can’t be put off any longer.
Neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry seems willing to tackle this problem. Libertarians will.
Getting to the Truth
Bush administration officials are working overtime to discredit the devastating critique of Bush’s national security policy delivered by former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke in his new book, “Against All Enemies.” So are Clarke’s charges valid, or did he invent these sensational charges simply to boost his book sales?
We’ll have an idea after he testifies today, under oath, before the government commission investigating the 9/11 attacks. Given the recent example made of Martha Stewart for lying to federal investigators, it seems unlikely that Mr. Clarke will commit perjury just to hawk a few more copies of his book. If he repeats his charges this afternoon under oath, I think the President and his administration will have some explaining to do.
Predetermined policy
Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism chief for Presidents Clinton and Bush, has publicly confirmed what many Americans have suspected for years – President Bush and his advisors were determined to connect Iraq to the September 11 attacks and Al-Quaida. Taking out Saddam Hussein was a predetermined policy in search of justification – the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon finally provided the justification the Bush administration had been looking for.
Clarke also confirms that President Bush and his administration knew within a week of the attacks that neither Iraq nor Saddam was involved. But that didn’t stop them from implying that waging war on Iraq was a response to those attacks.
Americans deserve better. They deserve a President and administration that will be straight with them, especially about issues as important as war and peace. President Bush and his administration failed this crucial test – Americans must demand better from their successors.
Who can Americans trust?
In troubling times, Americans look for leaders they can trust. President Bush and Senator Kerry simply aren’t delivering the straight talk Americans are looking for.
President Bush has gone through at least five different rationales for attacking Iraq. One gets the sense that the decision was made first and then he looks for reasons to justify it.
The true cost of the President’s prescription drug bill was kept from the Congress and the American people until the bill could be strong-armed into law. And we have yet to hear anything approaching straight talk from him about our insolvent Social Security system.
Meanwhile, Senator Kerry has changed his views so many times, on so many different issues, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that his simply doesn’t have any core beliefs. At any given moment, his position on a given issue is whatever political expediency demands.
Americans deserve better. They deserve straight talk and honest answers. They deserve a President whose leadership is based on principles, not polls.
The platform I’m campaigning on today is the same one I started with over a year ago. Achieving economic growth by cutting taxes, cutting spending, balancing the budget, and getting rid us useless regulations. Making health care affordable by getting government out of it. Making America safer by staying out of foreign squabbles and bringing our troops home. Protecting our liberty by repealing misguided laws like the USA Patriot Act.
You may not agree with me on every issue. But you can be sure that my positions aren’t going to change with each new poll or focus group. And I’m won’t shy away from the tough issues. If only President Bush and Senator Kerry could say the same.
George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan
In a speech yesterday, Vice-President Cheney tried hard to paint President Bush as the legitimate successor of President Reagan, especially in the area of national security. But his argument doesn’t withstand scrutiny.
President Reagan believed in deterrence, not in fighting pre-emptive wars. He didn’t view the United States as the world’s police force.
And when it comes to the economy, President Bush’s domestic spending spree, has made a mockery of President Reagan’s desire to “get government off our backs.”
Ronald Reagan was a big part of what attracted me to the Republican Party when I first got involved in politics. Neo-conservatives like George W. Bush are what drove me away.
Today, there is only one choice for Americans who want smaller, less expensive, less intrusive government – the Libertarian Party.
Lie to the Voters – Lose Your Job
Spain’s “Popular Party” discovered this weekend that voters don’t appreciate being misled by their elected leaders. After the Madrid bombing, the government of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar tried to convince the public that the Basque separatist group ETA was to blame, even though the evidence increasingly pointed to terrorists allied with Al-Quaida. When Spanish voters discovered that their leaders had been withholding information from them, they decided it was time for new leaders.
President Bush should take heed. Most American’s think the President and his administration misled us about WMD’s in Iraq. And now we’ve learned that the government’s chief analyst of Medicare costs was told he would be fired if he complied with requests from lawmakers to provide cost estimates of the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. Why? Because the White House knew the true cost of the program would be far more than the $395 billion price tag supplied by the CBO.
Lawmakers and the people who elect them deserve honest, complete information so they can make sound decisions. Politicians who instead withhold information and mislead the public should be sent packing by the voters.
Mr. President – are your suitcases handy?
No-win scenarios
Pundits here in America are busy condemning the people of Spain – calling them cowards for yielding to terrorists by voting the incumbent government out of office.
Easy for them to say – they weren’t the ones confronting this no-win scenario.
Vote for the incumbent government – show the terrorists you won’t be intimidated – and thereby reward the government for undermining your national security.
Or, reject the politicians who made your nation less safe – and possibly embolden terrorists to commit additional terrorist acts.
Not an easy choice. But it seems to me that the best response is to vote for what you believe is right – and then unite to bring the terrorists to justice.
Murder and rape ok – drugs not ok?
Here’s yet another ridiculous federal drug law to add to your collection.
The 1998 provision to the federal Higher Education Act (HEA) bars convicted drug offenders from receiving federal student financial aid. However, convicted murderers and rapists face no such restriction.
Somehow, I can’t picture a private scholarship fund doing something this silly.
Ideally, we should turn the business of providing student loans and grants over to the private sector where it belongs. But in the meantime, this ridiculous provision should be repealed.
Winning the war on terror
The terrorist attacks in Madrid are a brutal wake-up call that the war on terrorism is far from over, and won’t be until the last of these murderous thugs is brought to justice.
So how do we win the war on terror?
Short-term, we must continue to focus resources on tracking down the terrorists behind these attacks. Bringing them to justice is necessary to deter future attacks.
However, there are things we need to do long-term to prevent a new crop of terrorists from replacing the old.
First, we need to get rid of misguided security measures like the USA Patriot Act, which trade important civil liberties for the illusion of increased security.
Restricting civil liberties are the tactics of the opponents of human liberty, human rights and the individual's rights as expressed specifically in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. These tactics are undermining our national security instead of enhancing it; they have no place in a free society.
Second, we must refrain from intervening in the quarrels of other nations and from making enemies of oppressed people who would otherwise look to America as a beacon of hope and freedom.
We must stop providing aid and support to authoritarian regimes and dictators around the globe. We must remember that our own government helped arm and train the military of Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein -- the same military that our troops later faced in brutal combat. We must not allow something similar to happen again.
Friendship, non-intervention, and trade with all nations is a time-honored prescription for an America that is at peace with the world. It was the policy recommended by America's Founding Fathers – a policy that will enable us to achieve lasting victory in the war on terror.
Rigged Elections
Believe it or not, there is a nation that conducts allegedly “free and fair” elections where:
* The presidential candidates of the country’s two dominant political parties receive massive taxpayer subsidies to fund their campaigns, while their opponents receive no taxpayer subsidies and are strictly limited in how much money they can raise to compete.
* The same two-party oligarchy has conspired to set up a phony, supposedly “non-partisan” commission, controlled by them, to sponsor presidential debates – debates which purposely exclude contenders from all other parties. Debates funded with contributions that would be illegal if made to the candidates themselves.
* “Reverse Robin Hood” ballot-access laws impose massive petitioning requirements on opposition parties which the two dominant parties are exempt from.
That nation is us – the United States – leader of the “free” world.
The nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties will each receive over $74 million dollars in taxpayer subsidies to run their fall campaigns. The parties themselves will receive about $15 million each to run their conventions.
Meanwhile, nominees of other parties must raise all their own funds, and are legally barred from accepting more than $2,000 from a single individual.
The Commission on Presidential Debates is half Democrat – half Republican. No independents – no representatives of other parties. The commission says that only candidates with 15% support in the polls this fall will be invited to debate – knowing full well that only Bush and Kerry are likely to meet this threshold. The debates will be funded with corporate contributions that would be illegal if given to a single candidate.
Ross Perot was polling around 7% when he was invited to debate in 1992 – he went on to receive nearly 20% of the vote. Jesse Ventura, who was elected Governor of Minnesota in 1998, was polling less than 10% in September. If he had been excluded from debates, he would have never been elected Governor.
Many states impose punitive ballot access barriers on other candidates that candidates from the two-party oligarchy are exempt from. Oklahoma, for example, requires Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to merely pay a $2,500 filing fee. Other candidates must collect over 37,000 valid petition signatures, at an estimated cost of $90,000. And that’s just one state.
The United States advocates free and fair elections for other nations. Isn’t it time we set an example for the world by conducting them here at home?
Senator “Flip-Flop” versus President “Flop-Flip”
President Bush is making Senator Kerry’s frequent changes in position a major campaign issue. However, when it comes to switching positions for political gain, Senator “Flip-Flop” faces strong competition from President “Flop-Flip”:
* Candidate Bush campaigned against using the military for “nation-building.” Now, military nation-building is a keystone of President Bush’s foreign policy.
* President Bush initially opposed creating a massive new bureaucracy -- the Department of Homeland Security. Then he read the polls and did a complete about-face.
* Candidate Bush pledged not to use Social Security taxes to pay for other spending. President Bush has been spending every dollar he can get his hands on and then some.
* Candidate Bush supported free trade. President Bush gave us steel tariffs that cost over 200,000 jobs in steel-consuming industries.
* President Bush opposed campaign finance reform, then changed his mind and signed it into law.
And the list goes on … and on … and on.
What’s interesting is that Bush, like most Democratic and Republican politicians, always seems to flip in the direction of bigger, more expensive, more intrusive government. I guess that’s what happens when you base your views on political expediency, not principle.
Gary Nolan on Haiti: When will we learn?
Once again, our leaders have put American troops in harm’s way on another dubious “peacekeeping” mission. It’s clear our previous efforts to make Haiti “safe for democracy” failed miserably, and there is no reason to think this intervention will turn out any better.
These foreign adventures are not what our troops signed up for. They enlisted to protect America from attack, and to respond when attacked. Neither is the case in Haiti.
Meanwhile, our soldiers are having their tours of duty involuntarily extended, and Reservists and National Guardsmen have been called up for extended tours of duty well beyond what we should reasonably expect of citizen soldiers.
By continuing to use our military for purposes unrelated to national defense, our leaders are overtaxing our troops and undermining our security. America needs a President who understands that every time we intervene in the affairs of other nations, we create new enemies and make all Americans less safe.
Democrats need to get a grip
I can’t believe the fuss Democrats are making about President Bush’s new campaign ads, the ones that include 9-11 footage. Given that the President is making his response to terrorism the centerpiece of his reelection campaign, I fail to see why the Democrats are making such a big deal about this.
There are plenty of good arguments for sending Bush back to Crawford Texas.
* Waging pre-emptive war in Iraq based on non-existent weapons of mass destruction
* Curtailing our civil liberties under the guise of national security
* Massive spending increases and record budget deficits
* Adding a huge new entitlement to the already bankrupt Medicare program
Oh that’s right – Senator Kerry’s record isn’t any better on these issues.
The American people deserve a real debate over issues that matter, not manufactured outrage. Democrats -- get a grip.
A dream (or nightmare) ticket
Now that Senator Kerry has clenched the Democratic nomination, the question on the lips of every political pundit is: Who will Kerry choose as his running mate?
Will he go for lots of charisma (Sen. John Edwards) or no charisma (Rep. Dick Gephart)? Try to win Florida with the obsessive-compulsive Sen. Bob Graham or the Hispanic vote with Gov. Bill Richardson? Or send the Republican faithful over the edge by picking Sen. Hilary Clinton?
Meanwhile, on the Republican side, there’s growing concern that Vice-President Dick Cheney has become too much of a liability – that it’s time for him to have a “medical scare” and step aside for someone who won’t be a drag on the ticket.
Let me suggest the perfect solution for both parties – a dream (or nightmare) ticket …
Bush/Kerry
After all, on many significant issues, Bush and Kerry look more like running mates than political rivals …
* Bush wanted to wage pre-emptive war in Iraq – Kerry voted to give him the authority.
* Bush wanted to curtail our liberties with the USA Patriot Act – Kerry voted for it.
* Bush wanted to expand the role of the federal government in education with the “No Child Left Behind Act” – Kerry voted for it.
* Bush strong-armed Congress into adding a massive new federal prescription drug benefit to the already bankrupt Medicare system – Kerry’s main objection was that the proposed benefit wasn’t generous enough.
* Bush has given us massive spending increases and record deficits – Kerry wants to spend even more.
A Bush/Kerry Republicrat (or Demopublican) ticket would open up the possibility of a real debate, with Bush/Kerry making the case for big, expensive, intrusive government, and the Libertarian ticket stressing the benefits of government that is small, limited, and effective.
Unlike a series of sham debates between Bush and Kerry, these would be debates worth having.
Kerry & Bush: AWOL
For the past two months, Senator Kerry has been AWOL – Absent Without Leave – from his responsibilities as a sitting Senator. For the past two months, he’s been campaigning full-time for President – while drawing full-time pay from the taxpayers. President Bush is also campaigning for reelection on the taxpayers’ dime.
Meanwhile, candidates like me who actually work for a living can’t draw salary for not working while campaigning full-time. Under our crazy campaign finance laws, that would be considered an illegal contribution, a way of getting around contribution limits.
In my case, there’s an added wrinkle. If I had continued broadcasting my radio show while running for President, the FCC would have required every station carrying my show to offer equal time to every other candidate for President.
And this fall, it will get even worse. My campaign team and I will have to devote much of our time and energy to raising money, with contributions limited to just $2000 per person. Meanwhile, Bush and Kerry get around $70 million each from the taxpayers to run their campaigns, while continuing to draw full-time pay from the taxpayers for at best part-time work.
Politicians shouldn’t be paid for not working, and they shouldn’t campaign for office at taxpayer expense. As a small step toward fairer elections, let’s dock Bush & Kerry’s pay for every day they’re out campaigning.
And while I’m engaged in wishful thinking, why don’t we take that $140 million in political welfare and use it to pay down the national debt instead. After all, Bush and Kerry helped get us into this mess in the first place.
One battle ends; another begins
Polls suggest that the battle to choose a Democrat to face off against President Bush could be effectively over by tomorrow. Senator Kerry enjoys double-digit leads in every Super Tuesday state but Georgia and he’s well ahead there as well.
Once the Democratic race is over, attention will turn to the general election. That’s where my Libertarian campaign will play a deciding role.
A two-way race between Bush and Kerry would likely be as close as the Bush-Gore race was in 2000. Nader will once again draw votes from the Democratic nominee, though problems with ballot access, money, and the loss of a big chuck of his 2000 support means he won’t be the factor he was four years ago.
The key to this election are the small government conservatives and small “L” libertarians who voted for Bush in 2000, but feel betrayed by his bloated budgets and record deficits. If Bush loses a significant portion of that constituency, he loses the election.
It’s my message that’s resonating with these voters. In every public appearance and radio show, people who voted for Bush in 2000 tell me they aren’t making that mistake again – they’re supporting my Libertarian campaign instead.
The real battle begins after Super Tuesday. As Senator Kerry likes to say, “bring it on.”
Social Insecurity
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan delivered a shock to the political system last week when he stated the obvious – the current Social Security system is unsustainable. Unless benefits are cut and/or taxes increased, the system will run out of money and be unable to pay the benefits promised.
The source of the Social Security crises is obvious – politicians making promises they can’t keep with money that they don’t have and isn’t theirs. Greenspan’s proposed solution – long-term benefit cuts, won’t fly politically and would make the effective return on the Social Security taxes we pay worse than simply stuffing the money in a mattress.
There is a much better solution to the Social Security mess – a terrific plan unveiled by the Cato Institute. Here are the key points of the Cato Social Security Project, from their website www.socialsecurity.org:
* Individuals would be allowed to divert their half (6.2 percentage points) of the payroll tax to individually owned, privately invested accounts. Those who chose to do so would agree to forgo all future accrual of retirement benefits under the traditional Social Security system.
* The remaining 6.2 percentage points of payroll taxes would be used to pay transition costs and to fund disability and survivors' benefits.
* Workers who chose the individual account option would receive a "recognition bond" based on the accrued value of their lifetime-to-date benefits. Those bonds, redeemable at the worker's retirement, would be fully tradable in secondary markets.
* Those who wished to remain in the traditional Social Security system would be free to do so, accepting a level of benefits payable with the current level of revenue.
The return from investing 6.2% in private accounts would pay substantially greater benefits than the government currently provides from taking twice that amount. And the funds would be yours, out of the reach of greedy politicians.
It’s not a perfect solution, since the employer share of payroll taxes would remain in place until the transition to a fully private system was complete. Frankly, the Democrats and Republicans who got us into this mess haven’t left us with any good options.
The Cato plan is the only comprehensive solution I’ve seen that would actually solve the problem. It’s a great place to start.
