Senator John McCain should have opposed the TARP bailout:

What was McCain’s bold step? He lined up behind President George W. Bush and was perceived as part of the problem on Capitol Hill while he joined his Democratic opponent in the massive spending spree. Is there any wonder why independents and many conservatives concluded that a vote for John McCain was the same as a vote for Barack Obama? If the GOP wishes to regain the majority, it must offer voters more than a distinction without a difference.

and

The GOP must renounce the Bush Doctrine of “…preemptive war and an interventionist foreign policy…” 

Nothing has shaken voters’ trust in the GOP like the lack of justification for the war. While I make the case in my book, “Nothing for the Nation,” that the Senate Democratic leadership in 2002 was just as culpable in authorizing the invasion of Iraq as the House Republican leadership, most Americans see the Iraq war as a Republican creation. If Republicans would renounce the Bush Doctrine by rejecting pre-emptive war and an interventionist foreign policy, they could put the issue of Iraq in the proper current context.

 I quote from his column in Politico of March 24, 2009.  (Hostettler joined Ron Paul and four other GOP representatives in voting against the war in Iraq.)

I think Hostettler is absolutely right.  If McCain had at least offered some opposition to the TARP bailout and stood with the House Republicans (The House voted initially against the TARP bailout) he’d at least given himself a fighting chance.  How many conservatives stayed home (I did not by the way, I proudly voted for the war hero McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin) or voted for a third party due to the TARP bailout. 

I also think that the war in Iraq was at the very least mishandled.  it was turned into an invasion for democracy rather than a coup to overthrow Hussein (if that was necessary) and secure any weapons.  We are still in Iraq several years later and the American people rightly turned against the GOP.

There were other reasons:  Arrogance (read Terri Schiavo – unconstitutional federal legislation to benefit one case), corruption and personal moral failure, and a failure to adequately control spending. 

But Hostettler is right. 

Should libertarians support Hostettler?  I like what I am reading:  A social conservative who is a RP libertarian, too.  I would note that some Campaign for Liberty/Ron Paul supporters are helping him and there is even some evidence Paul himself is supporting him.  The American Spectator reported Hostettler being only three points behind Bayh.  Put me down as leaning toward him.

Paul was the only speaker so far to fill the entire convention hall at the Conservative Political Action Conference, and some of his supporters were turned away after the room reached its capacity of 1,100 people.

He also spoke to his non-interventionist foreign policy:

“We are now spending one trillion dollars a year to manage our world empire,” he said. “There is nothing wrong with being a conservative and having a conservative belief in foreign policy where we have a strong national defense and don’t go to war so carelessly.”

I, however, felt his best part was when he alluded to the terrorist rights issue (I am trying to quote from a video not Politico and it is approximately right):

“Somebody in the Administration,…makes a determination that that individual is a threat…[even if they are an American citizen]…he can be assassinated.” 

There’s more.  After citing the imprisonment of Eugene V. Debs and suggesting he might have been assassinated today, Paul warned that preservation of liberty is necessary:

“This is protecting the whole integrity of our country and our Constitution and the rights of the individual.”

Paul also cited the erosion of habeas corpus, the acceptance of “secret detention” and basically warned the conservatives that this is a threat to them and is not consistent with conservative traditions.  This was important.  I am glad it was well-received (although there was some booing) and conservative activists need to hear it.  Military tribunals and loss of rights for “terror suspects” is a threat to conservatives. 

Paul admitted his Presidential campaign has increased his visibility on places like Fox News.  I agree with that too.  He also called for freedom of expression and tolarance for other viewpoints. 

I conclude with this observation:  Ron Paul is not a charismatic speaker.  This is actually good.  It is the strength of his ideas that draw people to him.

Greenwald starts out with an assertion on January 7 that I do not fully agree with:  That Israel behavior is one cause for radicalization in the Arab world – specifically the attack in Gaza.  I strongly support Israel and its right to exist in peace.  I further am aware that Christians in the past have been unnecessarily mean to Jewish people and that must be repudiated.  The Jewish people are special to God.  Hence I strongly support Israel.  But Greenwald updates his entries (I was inspired by that in how I update my entires).  In  Update II and III, I find these words:

UPDATE II:  The Yemeni government today warned that any direct U.S. military action in that country “could bolster the popularity of Islamic militants” and “would strengthen Al Qaeda.”  For reasons that should be obvious, that’s how it works:  not only in Yemen, but generally.

UPDATE III:  Time reports that Balawi (the Jordanian doctor) had been a genuine intelligence asset for the U.S., working to help the U.S. find and bomb Al Qaeda sites, but was completely transformed at some point into an Al Qaeda sympathizer and ultimately a suicide bomber who killed 7 CIA agents.  Part of the reason for the conversion?  Because of “his outrage at the high number of civilian casualties inflicted in the resulting strikes”; he “had become enraged at the Americans for killing a high number of civilians in their hunt for al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders.”  Relatedly, Spencer Ackerman notes that Balawi’s Internet writings reflect a growing commitment to violence due to American and Israeli attacks on Muslims (“They have not left any excuse for any Muslim with a hint of honor to remain hesitant and accept the shame of staying away from the honor of participating in jihad”).

Just contemplate how many Balawis there are in the world:  Muslims who begin with sympathy towards the U.S. and hostility towards Al Qaeda who are completely transformed into the opposite as a result of the constant civilian death we and Israel bring (regardless of intent) to that part of the world.

Let’s now go to the exchange between Mayor Giuliani and Cong. Paul in Columbia, South Carolina (again courtesy of the CFR).  I set the stage with this exchange between Wendell Goler and Paul:

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don’t think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.

This brought an angry retort from Mayor Giuliani:

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)

Of course Paul didn’t back down at all:

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were — if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

I do think Paul states the issue much better in The Revolution: A Manifesto at 15:

“Looking for motive is not the same thing as making excuses; detectives always look for the motive behind crime, but no one things they are looking to excuse murder.”

Nor did Cong. Paul seek to excuse 9/11.  He in fact voted to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan and also wanted to authorize the use of letters of marque and reprisal against bin Laden.  It was first ridiculed but now Paul’s ideas are getting more respect.  Paul called for  letters against the Somali pirates:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and a growing number of national security experts are calling on Congress to consider using letters of marque and reprisal, a power written into the Constitution that allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe.

Thanks to Politico!

Paying a billion dollars to get bin Laden and bring him to justice (yes, in a CIVILIAN court with ALL the rights of ANY criminal suspect!) is cheaper than the Iraq war or the Afghanistan incursion. 

The wisdom of non-intervention is manifest.  Non-intervention is best; it’s what the Founders called for; it is not isolationism but respect and trade with all nations rather shows the best of the United States and its people.

Here is the Politico article with video.  I heard the video and it is compelling.  The GOP ought to use it throughout the nation.  Both the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and progressives have as expected  condemned the switch.  I think Griffith is a great choice and I hope the ones planning to run in his district will withdraw from the race and endorse Rep. Griffith.

My next recommendation is to encourage my favorite Democrat officeholder to do the same:  Cong. Heath Shuler of North Carolina.  I admire Shuler for his character and integrity and he is a devout follower of Christ and a conservative.  He was critical of Speaker Pelosi, voted against the first stimulus, voted against ENDA and the hate crimes bill and voted against Obamacare (but forthe Stupak amendment) and voted for Audit the Fed.  Even Shuler’s support for cap-and-trade was primarily a reflection of his faith - being a good steward of our resources.  I am disappointed but I can’t be too unhappy at an attempt at a principled stand.  Shuler is also a national security conservative.  He drew these comments from FireDogLake, NC progressives (just for the record, the NC progressives are right about that particular issue) and other sites too.  (I cannot condone the language at many of these sites!  I apologize!) 

Let’s email his office with nice invites to do exactly that.  Heath Shuler would be a great member of the GOP!

Here is Gary Johnson’s official Our America web site.  His positions are similar to Cong. Paul’s web site.  Thanks to tajitj for this news tip!

Is libertarian rock star and Texas Republican Ron Paul going mainstream?

He’s got everyone from South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint to Minnesota moderate Democrat Collin Peterson to California liberal Barbara Boxer on his side in his audit-the-Fed crusade. He’s drawing liberal support in his push to rein in the cost of the war in Afghanistan. Senate candidates like Democratic Rep. Paul Hodes of New Hampshire are finding Dr. No’s populist economic anger to be useful in the campaign, echoing Paul’s criticism of the Federal Reserve.

I agree.  Libertarianism draws from BOTH the left and the right.  And will have enemies from both left and right as well.  Here is the comment from a Democrat candidate for Senate in New Hampshire:

“So far, the Federal Reserve has refused to answer questions about special loans and deals for Wall Street banks. I support an audit of the Federal Reserve to provide answers for working families and to protect New Hampshire taxpayer dollars,” said [Rep. Paul] Hodes, a Democrat who is running for Senate in New Hampshire and backed the Fed measure.

I think that Cong. Paul started a movement that will transcend party, region and ideology.  It will be an exciting time. 

Thanks to both Politico and Lew Rockwell’s blog.

Another interesting realignment comes in criminal justice, where the Campaign for Liberty and the New York Times are saying the same thing.  Too many federal crimes!  Thanks to Ron Paul News.

This is quite impressive:

Pawlenty, under the radar of D.C.’s political community, has locked up some of the key operatives who engineered then-President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign — a significant feat for a little-known Midwestern politician.

These political operatives are impressive:

Nelson initially ran Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2007 and was the national political director on the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign in 2004. Taylor was also a senior official on the Bush campaign and did a stint as White House political director at the start of his second term. Musser ran the Republican Governors Association in 2006 and advised Romney at the outset of his 2008 White House run. Fabrizio and Mueller have also worked on GOP presidential campaigns.

Strong was a Ranger, or top Bush fundraising bundler, in 2004 and for McCain. He’s joined by a group of Minnesotans, including former Target CEO Bob Ulrich, GOP strategist Jeff Larson and TCF Financial Corp. CEO Bill Cooper.

There’s more of interest, including a new PAC:

And in formally opening his political action committee, Freedom First, Thursday, Pawlenty will also announce two co-chairmen, William Strong, a Morgan Stanley vice chairman, and former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.), both of whom are heavyweight GOP figures, along with a list of prominent Minnesota donors.

Finally, an interesting discussion of Pawlenty’s weaknesses.

Yet Pawlenty lacks a few important strengths that some of his possible opponents enjoy. He doesn’t have the ability to finance his own campaign as Romney does, nor does he maintain anything close to the former presidential hopeful’s donor and grass-roots base. He lacks Huckabee’s natural hold on social conservatives. And he’s never going to enjoy a fervent following like the one Palin can point to.

It’s also not entirely clear what Pawlenty’s signature issues will be, since there is no overarching accomplishment in St. Paul that he could clearly run on.

My take on this is that Jonathan Martin is right.  However, being governor of a blue state for eight years, no major scandal that I know of, and working with the other party, will help Pawlenty.  The fact he has been in St. Paul for eight years is an overarching accomplishment.  Minnesotans are among the most savvy voters and political activists in the country.  Pawlenty could conceivably carry Minnesota for the GOP (the 2000 and 2004 elections were reasonably close and I think a few local pride votes could be enough) and may have an impact on neighboring Wisconsin (also has been close, too in 2000 and 2004) and maybe even Iowa.

One more thing:  Pawlenty has been to Virginia to help our next Governor, Bob McDonnell!  (So has Governor Jindal – twice)  You can’t  be a serious contender if you haven’t helped Bob yet!  Look at this list (thanks to GOP 12):

With Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour scheduled to stop in Virginia Beach and Richmond to rally VA Gov candidate, Bob McDonnell, The Richmond Report asks the question: When’s Sarah Palin going to show up?

After all, the list of Stumpers for Bob, so far includes Jindal, Rudy, Steele, Fred Thompson, Romney, Huckabee, and McCain.

I’ll watch for Gov. Palin.

I will have more details on the Jindal op-ed in Politico but trust me for now – it’s great!  Also read the Cillizza piece in the Washington Post. 

Keep an eye out for the Governor tonight and tomorrow on CNN and Fox!

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states.

So why is Gov. Jindal doing this? He says it’s because he’s concerned about future increases in taxes in this area and want to be fiscally responsible. Critics, I’m sure, will say this is political posturing.

I’m just glad someone in power with authority is standing up to this stimulus and refusing to take part. Definitely impressed with this stance. What do you think?

From the Ross Douthat (via Andrew Sullivan from The Daily Dish):

“A multicultural prince who channels Ronald Reagan, and whose nomination would at least reduce the taint of racism that clings to the American Right.”  (

From the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Let the 2012 presidential race begin — or at least the speculation about it.

From their travel schedules to their public comments, several Republicans seem to be testing the waters for potential White House runs. At least two are on tap for visits this month to Iowa, which traditionally opens the nominating season with its presidential caucuses.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, considered a rising star in the GOP and thought to be on John McCain’s short list of potential running mates, is slated to deliver the keynote address on Nov. 22 to the Iowa Family Policy Center, a prominent Christian conservative group.

From Politico:

“Jindal, elected governor of Louisiana in 2007 after serving in Congress and holding health care posts in state and federal government, makes his first trip to Iowa on November 22nd.

He’s keynoting the statewide banquet of the Iowa Family Policy Center, a Christian conservative group, in suburban Des Moines and will tour flood-ravaged Cedar Rapids, offering his insights as a hurricane-state governor to state and local officials.

Though only 37 and in his first year in statewide office, Jindal is already drawing rave reviews.

Asked in a post-election chat which Republican office-holders impressed him during the campaign, McCain campaign chief Steve Schmidt didn’t hesitate: “Bobby Jindal, no question.”

Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, who wanted Jindal to be McCain’s vice-presidential nominee this year, said flatly: “Jindal will be president. I don’t know the year.”

From The Washington Post:

Will he run? That remains to be seen. But in an interview with the David Broder of the Washington Post for the Dean’s Sunday column, Jindal certainly sounded like a candidate.

“To succeed,” Jindal told Broder, “we have to be the party of change, we have to root out corruption in our own ranks and we have to be the party of solutions.”

That sounds suspiciously like the foundation of a national platform centered around reform, no? We have said for months — keep an eye on Jindal. He is a comer.

From WWLTV.com:

“This smacks of a guy who is laying the groundwork to run for president,” said Eyewitness News Political Analyst Clancy DuBos. “That’s what you do if you’re running for president. If you’re just the governor of Louisiana, you don’t go to Iowa because you want the corn.” Video

There you have it. The latest and greatest on speculation about Bobby Jindal and a potential run for the office of President of the United States of America.  Do you think he’ll run?  Let me hear from you in the comments below.