I attended the Lobby Day in Congress on Monday, and my state’s Republican senator was dismissed by my state director as something along the lines of “awful, absolutely terrible” on Humane Society issues, yet he was the sponsor of The Great Ape Protection Act in the last Congress and apparently has signed on to many of the Humane Society’s bills. His legislative assistant practically cried when she was told about the horrors of puppy mills.

The new Democratic Senator, by contrast, sent a representative who didn’t flinch an eye when told that horses are being exported for food, that puppies are being abused horribly by breeders, and that companies selling dog fur from China mislabel their products as faux fur. She seemed slightly concerned when told that many chimps have been held in cages for 50 years, without even being experimented on, just to get federal research dollars (the last is my own editorializing, however true it is– the Humane Society of course doesn’t say this). Yet her senator was praised just for being, well, a Democrat.

That’s the kind of attitude that turns a lot of groups– the NRA, the AKC, etc.– away from the Humane Society’s bills. When a Republican does everything but jump up and down and yell, “I love the Humane Society and all legislation it puts forth!”, yet a Democrat gets praised just for deigning to meet with the proles making the rounds on Lobby Day, it kind of shows you why some might oppose the Humane Society’s “agenda” (in quotes because some people seriously think this whole Humane Society thing is one huge conspiracy.) There is absolutely no reason from what I observed for the Humane Society to have such a pro-Democrat, anti-Republican view. Two of the four current Great Ape Protection Act sponsors are Republicans. John Ensign is a huge supporter, as are many Republicans in Congress.

Of course, opposing these bills doesn’t mean you aren’t supporting animal rights, either– more on that in a later post. Stay tuned.

So, that’s my open letter to Humane Society speakers, state directors, and citizen lobbyists. At least try to act non-partisan. Your bills are, and it would benefit your group.

Speaking of which, over the next week, I’ll be blogging about how libertarianism, not Democratic Party-ism, is the solution for helping animals, and how much more would actually get done if we just took a more libertarian approach to helping the animals.

Arlen Specter is the least likable type of politican– the one who switches positions based strictly on polling and whimsy (most of Congress does this in some form, but not as blatantly).

In addition to his long list of other embarrassing blunders (claiming the Military Commissions Act was one of the worst laws to ever be proposed before Congress and unconstitutional, then voting for it is one low point), we now have this: Specter proposing a law banning party changes by Senators after Jim Jeffords turned independent in 2001. As we all know, Specter switched parties on Tuesday after polls showed he had no hope of winning the Pennsylvania Republican Senate primary next year.

Who, eight years ago, could have predicted that Al Gore’s right-hand sidekick Lieberman would be one of the biggest backers of the GOP ticket in 2008, with Powell not far behind espousing how great the Democratic nominee is? (Meanwhile, Joe Biden doesn’t know what he’s saying, as usual.)

It’s too bad that the Powell-Obama and Lieberman-McCain non-partisan lovefests have come about for the pettiest of reasons: Powell is upset that Bush made him look like a fool in front of the world at the UN. Lieberman is upset that Democrats didn’t support him in his primary race against Ned Lamont in Connecticut after he came out and supported the Iraq War so strongly. Does either really have America’s best interests at heart, or are each looking forward to their respective Cabinet appointments in Obama and McCain administrations?

(I long ago lost most of my respect for Colin Powell– who couldn’t have with his appearance before the United Nations? This is also the man keeping gays out of the military.)

If I were Obama, I would therefore be less proud about getting Powell’s endorsement and revel in the endorsement of London mayor Boris Johnson, who is a libertarian (on some issues, at least) and a former Tory member of Parliament. In other words, this is not necessarily an obvious person to stump for Obama. Johnson defeated “Red Ken” Livingstone for the office of mayor earlier this year, and that’s enough for me to love him forever. But he’s also one of those politicians I wish America had, one who can say what he really thinks and still get elected. What a concept.

Anyway, what Boris thinks now is that Obama should be elected for many of the same reasons I’ve mentioned in favor of Obama’s candidacy: the rest of the world will respect it, the Republicans haven’t earned it, McCain has offered little reason to think he can do better, and electing a black man would show the rest of the world that America is truly an accepting place. I agree these are good reasons, but none of them have to do with Obama directly. Johnson obviously respects McCain, but is mostly basing this on the current Republican administration in general. He doesn’t like Obama’s policies and says he hopes that his tax plan is blocked by Congress (I wouldn’t count on that). Melanie Phillips of The Spectator responds that Boris has succumbed to “Neocon Derangement Syndrome”:

How else to explain the fact that for paragraph after paragraph he exults that an Obama victory will be a triumph for black people because he is black – only to conclude that such a victory will demonstrate that being black is a total irrelevance?!

Johnson writes in his Obama endorsement:

It would be tough for any candidate to receive the Republican baton from Dubya, and McCain can be proud of doing as well as he is.

His chief problem is that he does not seem to offer any hope of repair to those American ideals.

Or, to put it another way, it is not clear how America under McCain would recover her standing in the eyes of the world.

Since Hillary gave up, Obama has lost his luster for me. He doesn’t bring any sort of change I or any self-respecting libertarian can really believe in. The Wall Street Journal lays out some of the reasons succinctly.

Now, of course we also come to the other side of the coin. History teaches us that George W. Bush talked a good game in 2000 (no nation-building, Americans aren’t the police officers of the world, smaller government is good, etc.) and if you went on substance rather than style and voted for the idiot, you were voting for someone who immediately jettisoned his campaign promises and increased the size of government more than any Democrat in at least 40 years. He doubled the size of some government agencies (including the Department of Education), introduced the largest entitlement program since the beginning of Medicare with the Medicare prescription drug “benefit,” and wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars using America to act as 911 for the world. Al Gore is a real small government guy compared to W.

So now, do we trust Obama- who seems like he can think through things and maybe listen to the other side, although he never actually votes that way– or McCain, whom some have called “the most reliable Democrat” in the Senate and someone who thinks we should spend 100 years in Iraq, someone who actually has reached out to the other side, even if a little bit too much.

McCain once said he didn’t know as much about economics as he should, something that is true about almost all Americans including myself; Obama doesn’t know that much about economics, either, but he doesn’t admit it, so on that respect I think McCain seems more forthright about his weaknesses and more willing to surround himself with advisers who do know what they’re talking about.

Is Obama going to “reach across the aisle” as he likes to say and give us libertarians anything to cheer about? Is McCain going to reach across the aisle too much and give us nothing?

This is why a libertarian– even in a swing state– might be better off keeping a clear conscience and voting for Bob Barr.

Congressman David Price of North Carolina’s 4th District has:

• Voted for a $700 billion taxpayer-financed bailout of Wall Street billionaires. That’s reason enough right there to vote Mr. David Price out of office, but I will continue.
• Voted for the PATRIOT Act, oy vey! And just when you thought he couldn’t get any worse…
• Voted to raid the Social Security trust fund to spend money this country doesn’t have on various projects, including other members’ (and his own) incessant pork barrel requests.
• Votes for war funding.
• Thrown civil liberties to the wind when he voted for FISA, the bill that gave immunity to telecom companies that spied on their innocent customers for the government, unconstitutionally.

One of Lawson’s county coordinators is Rev. Ray McKinnon, a hardcore Democrat who met Dr. Lawson while campaigning for Hillary. No, BJ Lawson is not your typical Republican. While Price usually wins the district by 65%, polls have him at less than 50% with 10% undecided. Meanwhile, while Price hid from his constituents during the bailout fiasco, Lawson was bringing serious money in from Americans angry at the bailout, to the tune of over $170,000 in ONE DAY, which simply must be a record for North Carolina.

Because I am “Libertarian Girl,” some people assume some things about me. I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, and I go across partisan rhetoric to support issues, not groups. I receive solicitations in the mail from both Republicans and Democrats due to the wide range of causes I support and organizations that I’m a member of; I’ve gotten signed photos of McCain and Palin and letters begging support from Hillary.

I’m not a Libertarian, a Republican, or a Democrat, but I’ve voted for all three at times. As an election judge in this district the last primary cycle, I noticed that many voting Democratic took care to maintain their independent status, not wanting to be listed as a Democrat. This is a stance I can respect, voting for the person and the issues, not the party. According to an interview on Live Free Radio earlier this week, Lawson said an Orange County Democrat was hesitant to give her support, but came back the next day at Festifall and said, “After reading about you and your stance on the issues, I’d vote for you even if you were a member of the Communist Party.” Who could say the same about David Price, the disappearing act who won’t answer a simple question of: Does he read bills before he votes on them?

I hope there are many Democrats in the Fourth District who vote for who will really represent them and their interests in Congress, and that would be a vote for BJ Lawson.

I voted for David Price the last time he was up for re-election, but this time I will be glad to vote for a true man of the people, for a man who is not red or blue but American… BJ Lawson.

Therefore, I officially endorse BJ Lawson for the Fourth District congressional race, if you have not already figured this out. And it’s not because his kids are so darn cute, it’s because of the Constitutional principles that he is running on.

There is no doubt that Joe Biden is more articulate than Sarah Palin. However, almost nothing he says makes any actual sense.

Biden doesn’t know basic economics, history and doesn’t give a donkey’s arse about the Constitution. Biden misrepresents himself and what he stands for habitually: this is a guy who was all for invading Iraq if the UN had gone for it (and cheered Bush on with early invasion plans) and now pretends he’s Bush’s worst enemy and implies he was against it all along. This is the Joe Biden who created the completely unconstitutional position of the drug czar, which has spurred the growth of an agency which takes billions from those middle-class people Biden says he loves so much. It’s also put many of them in jail. This is the guy who may want to keep the vice-president’s office in the executive branch, but doesn’t care about expanding federal power over everything in your life under the auspices of “interstate commerce.”

As I always say, if you’re articulate and can speak well, you can get elected to office in this country even if you’re mentally insane, a habitual liar, a serial exaggerator or even a murderer. Voters simply go by what feels good to them at the moment, and a good speaker will fool them every time. Someone with real intellect and substance but no speaking ability won’t get out of the gate. Biden is a plagiarist, but it doesn’t matter because he’s “cool, calm and collected” after 30 years of taxpayer-funded practice, and his staffers can filter the facts on Wikipedia.

I also object to those who have stated that Gwen Ifill was perfectly objective despite her forthcoming Obama book. One of her first questions concerned whether “greedy lenders” or “risky homebuyers” contributed more to the subprime mortgage mess. That is a Hillary Clinton stump line if I’ve ever heard one. The home buyers who were buying houses way out of their leagues were also quite greedy in wanting to live in McMansions they couldn’t afford, and the lenders who were “trying to let people live the American Dream” (as Obama and Biden would put it) were also just being “risky.” That wasn’t the only completely partisan question she asked that night, although she did criticize Joe Biden at one point, a decision I’m sure came into play after she received so much criticism in the run-up to the debate. Another question talked about “debt-strapped mortageholders” and “some people have said that mortgageholders paid the price”– in other words, people who (like the Wall Street billionaires) made bad decisions and are now suffering for it who want other people who didn’t make those bad decisions to give them money.

Palin was excellent in her answer to that question, using a light touch to tell people that they need to learn lessons and not be taken advantage of again and pay attention to their parents’ admonitions to not live beyond their means. She also said that government needed to be more efficient, something Obama is big on but Biden didn’t mention this time around. Tax raises mean that jobs will be cut and the private economy will suffer as the public sector becomes more bloated and inefficient.

Biden’s mantra for the night was “John said, ‘Deregulate, deregulate.’” That alone is quite enough to turn someone away from voting for his ticket, as if deregulation is the problem and as if deregulation is a bad thing. Obama says the same thing, but not to this extent.

Biden did get one hit in when he said that he agreed with Palin’s tax raises on oil companies and McCain wanted to get them tax breaks. I give him props for that, but she got back at him when she said that Biden had offered to run on McCain’s ticket. She made the point that raising taxes on oil companies was good and set Biden up to hit his home run. Palin missed a chance to deliver a knockout when she talked about what she’d done in Wasilla, Alaska to improve it and Biden talked about how Wilmington, Delaware was hurting right now. She could’ve pointed out that she’d improved her hometown but after 30 years in Congress, he hadn’t done much to help his.

I am starting to finally buy into this “liberal media bias” thing. Here are two egregious examples from a quick search of the news.

According to The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Biden provided “oodles of details, numbers and records in his answers” which “might win over intellects,” which ignores the fact that many of his “oodles of numbers and records” were completely wrong. Why would intellects fall for that, and why would intellects be any less into Palin’s arguing that people, for instance, should be smart enough next time not to fall for predatory lenders, rather than flocking for Biden’s argument that these mortgage-holders were too dumb to figure it out for themselves and therefore need to be “saved” by taxpayers?

The Baltimore Sun television critic believes it “is hard to imagine any rational human being not thinking Joe Biden delivered one of the most solid and winning debate performances in recent presidential history… the question is whether facts, reason and logic can win out on TV over attitude and image, which is what Palin’s performance was all about.” Hmm, so Biden is all facts, reason and logic while Palin is all image? I’m beginning to believe that there is a mainstream media liberal bias. Rather than even giving Palin credit for being tolerant of same-sex couples, he says she doesn’t know the Republican position on gays and that evengelicals must have fallen “right out of their seats” when they heard. What the hell?

Ways in which Biden stretched the truth (and ways in which they both did):

McCain did not say he was “surprised” by subprime mortgages last December.
McCain did not say he wants the health care deregulated, only that insurance should be allowed to be bought over state lines.
McCain did not vote the same way Obama did on the tax-raising vote– he didn’t vote at all.
McCain does not only want to give Exxon Mobil a tax cut, but he wants to cut the general business tax rate for all corporations.
Obama has said that he would consider meeting with Iran’s president without precondition; Biden claimed Obama had not said this. It’s not a bad thing, anyway.
We didn’t kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon, and neither did France. Nobody has.

I have two thoughts.

1.) Good riddance.
2.) Who cares?
Most of our members of Congress do worse things than this on their jobs every day. Shouldn’t voting for unconstitutional bills and amendments be an indictable offense in and of itself?

This is certainly not the worst thing Stevens has done during his reign of terror in the Senate. It’s not even the next-to-worst thing or anything approaching the median. Stevens is the guy responsible for the Bridge to Nowhere, which means you’d be hard-pressed to find a worse traitor to the founding principles of our country.

Some Americans may hate our country. They may even want to do things to destroy it, but few get the chance. Ted Stevens has taken his chance and seized it. The policies he has stood for have bankrupted the United States, and he is a disgrace. There are many Senators and members of Congress just like him.

It goes far beyond the $136 million-plus Bridge to Nowhere.

The name of the case is United States of America vs. Theodore Stevens.

How apt.

Good riddance.

He’s hard to pin down as the governor of California, and to be honest I haven’t really liked his policies that much. Whatever the case, though, I found this video of him discussing Milton Friedman’s Free To Choose entirely fascinating.

It’s changed his life and he can’t keep it to himself! He gave it to everyone as presents! (Does that include his uncle-in-law Ted Kennedy?) He is against government intervention due to the oppressive socialist government of his native Austria, where little children already talk about the pension they’ll receive when they retire from their inevitable “civil servant” job! He’s personal friends with Milton Friedman and his wife Rose! It’s Arnold Schwarzenegger talking about economics! It’s amazing.

Kent Snyder would understand that. He left a lucrative career to return to Congress when Ron Paul did in 1996, but that’s not his greatest accomplishment. That came in the twilight of his life last year, when he convinced Dr. Paul to run for president, leading to the “wildest libertarian campaign in American history.” In fact, it’s because of Kent Snyder that this blog exists, because I was inspired to begin it after getting excited about Ron Paul’s campaign and then realizing that someone actually had not yet taken the libertariangirl.com domain.

It’s terribly sad news. One of my favorite Ron Paul stories is one Kent told Texas Monthly last year. Working for Ron Paul’s 1988 Libertarian presidential campaign, Snyder was stopped in the halls of the capitol building by John McCain, who told him: “You’re working for the most honest man in Congress.” McCain isn’t really one to tell the truth, but he certainly was in that case.

If you never got to see Kent Snyder in action during his lifetime, here’s a long video of him discussing the campaign and issues that were close to his heart. In addition to working for Congressman Paul (who even served as the subject of Snyder’s master’s thesis), Snyder was the head of the Liberty Committee and against such government intervention as TeenScreen (“No Child Left Undrugged”), the subject of this video.

“This is more comprehensive than even Orwell’s creative mind could conceive.” — Kent Snyder on TeenScreen

I remember a few people commenting about Dr. Paul’s age during his campaign– not realizing that the person who would not live to see another year was his younger campaign manager and friend, Kent Snyder. He was 49 years old.