By Jeremy Barr

In every election cycle, it seems that one or two previously unimportant procedural terms enter the popular lexicon. In 2000, it was “hanging chad” and “butterfly ballot.” In 2008, “superdelegates” have become one of the most talked about factors in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Because neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can mathematically win the Democratic nomination with purely pledged delegates, the 795 unpledged party officials and representatives known as superdelegates will make the difference.

In the past weeks and months we have heard stories about the attention thrust upon these superdelegates by the respective candidates. Much has also been written about the less “super” of the superdelegates, such as 21 year old Marquette University student Jason Rae, a Wisconsin superdelegate who recently announced his support for Barack Obama. Rae was wooed by representatives from both campaigns, and even had breakfast with Chelsea Clinton before making his decision. I guess the breakfast didn’t go too well.

Courting superdelegates (330 remain uncommitted) has become such a priority for the campaigns of the Democratic nominees that specific staff have been assembled solely for that task. For the Clinton campaign, that means a staff of 10 working directly under strategist Harold Ickes to try to stop or stall future declarations of support for Obama .

While no one can fault the Obama and Clinton campaigns for playing within the system and doing what it takes to win the nomination, it is a shame that such time, effort, and money has to be spent on trying to woo the superdelegates. In a campaign that should be about who has the best plan for the country, it is unfortunate that one of the most talked-about “issues” has been who has assembled the best staff to call officials and tell them that they are special. As with much of the drama and politicking that has accompanied the Democratic nomination contest, the end of this practice cannot come soon enough.

By Kelse Moen

Former Georgia Representative Bob Barr gave this interview Wednesday on Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton. Barr, a prominent conservative who led the Clinton impeachment, has in retirement changed his party affiliation to Libertarian, come out in support of marijuana legalization, and become an increasingly vocal opponent of our post-9/11 Leviathan. He created the American Freedom Agenda, a 10-point plan opposing the growth of executive privilege, NSA wiretapping, and the secret renditions, torture, and loss of habeas corpus that have all emerged under the banner of counter-terrorism.

Yet the first thing Horton asked was “Are you running for president?” Barr’s answer should give hope to anti-statists of all stripes. While not giving a definitive answer, the congressman said he takes the possibility “very seriously,” and he certainly sounded like someone preparing to run. Of course, he would be running as a Libertarian, meaning he has no realistic shot at winning the White House. But with Ron Paul essentially out of the race, and that movement in search of a new voice, a Barr candidacy would be just what the philosophy of small government needs.

Barr describes his time as a United States attorney as a formative experience, showing him how much power the State really has, and convincing him that the Bush administration is lying when it claims it needs even more power to combat terrorism. The State, able to crush any of us at any moment, has no need for more power. And despite the fact that he used to support the Drug War and voted for the PATRIOT Act, such statements seem genuine. After all, no politician joins the Libertarian Party to advance his career.

According to Horton, Barr represents a union of ”the best of both the left and the right.” He is a supporter of the American Conservative Union, the ACLU, the Marijuana Policy Project, and the NRA. But Barr is no bland moderate like Lincoln Chafee. He is a radical–at least in the parlance of the day where the “moderates” can tolerate all aspects of government and the “radicals” stick to quaint notions of laissez-faire and individualism.

It is time, as Horton put it, to choose between an Emperor and the Bill of Rights. Accepting one can only mean rejecting the other, and we have spent the last century accepting the wrong one. This is an age where countless politicians clamor to be a Caesar when what we really need is a Brutus, someone who will take on the empire in the name of the republic. Ron Paul was such a figure. So too is Bob Barr. We can only hope that he will strike the next blow.

In addition to independent voters, swing states, a slam-dunk in the general election, and relationships between political operatives, one of the biggest casualties of the Democratic primary contest has been substance.

Although Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton differ only narrowly on policy, there was a time when nuances in health care and the economy were the focus of the campaign. Now, with a few months and many miles left to go before we might finally have our nominee, the contest has turned into just that, a contest.

Rather than making a case for who would present our best chance against John McCain in the general election campaign, both Hillary and Barack have been forced to focus on responding to the most unimportant of things: past sermons given by Obama’s pastor, travel logs from 14 years ago, and countless ill-advised comments by supporters of the respective candidates.

While I understand that both Clinton and Obama firmly believe that they would be the stronger nominee, there comes a point where they have to realize that they are members of the same party.

The most troubling statistic to come out in the last few weeks is the number of each primary candidate’s supporters who wouldn’t support the other candidate in the general election if he or she became the nominee: 20%. It doesn’t get much worse than losing members of your own party.

As a strong supporter of Barack Obama, I have to admit that there have been times when I have questioned whether I would support Hillary Clinton if she became the nominee. Some days, her attacks become too vicious, too insulting, too…Republican. But then I remind myself that the other option is 4 more years of George Bush’s policies in McCain, and I come back down to earth. As a Democrat, I am praying that the rest of my party, Clinton and Obama supporters alike, will do the same.

By Kelse Moen

Nothing quite kills a word’s meaning like tossing it into the fray of popular political dialogue. The word “liberal” was co-opted by FDR and his collectivist acolytes, who had virtually nothing in common with the nineteenth century laissez-faire liberals. “Fascist,” which once corresponded to a particularly virulent breed of statism, is now an all-purpose smear for anyone disagreeable, even a libertarian like Justin Raimondo. Another, which was quite prevalent this primary season, is the epithet “isolationist.” It was hurled particularly at Ron Paul, due to his opposition to military intervention overseas. But, as Fareed Zakaria revealed in a recent article in Newsweek, the real isolationists are Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who continually preach the false gospel of economic protectionism, even while they bloviate about the need for better international relations. Says Zakaria:

For the rest of the world—particularly poorer countries—nice speeches about multilateralism are well and good. But what they really want is for the United States to continue its historic role in opening up the world economy. For a struggling farmer in Kenya, access to world markets is far more important than foreign aid or U.N. programs. If the candidates think they will charm the world while adopting protectionist policies, they are in for a surprise.

Indeed. The article (unintentionally?) exposes how hollow the old isolationist accusation really is. Ron Paul, and his intellectual predecessors like William Graham Sumner and Murray Rothbard, would love to see the US military withdraw from the world stage. But none of them would ever support state-imposed barriers to trade. Clinton and Obama, by seeking to protect American jobs from overseas competition, are the true isolationists; they seek to distort the free market for the benefit of one group of Americans at the expense of the rest of the world. All the characteristics attributed to the Paulian isolationist–selfishness, xenophobia, an inability to face present realities–are out in full force.

Hillary Clinton voted for war with Iraq. Barack Obama mentioned the possibility of deploying troops to Pakistan and proclaimed that he is not opposed to war per se, but only against “dumb wars.” Both support the UN and want to open better dialogue with previously spurned countries. But when it comes to free trade, without which Hong Kong would be an isolated backwater and eastern Europe would have been crushed under the weight of socialism, they would isolate the world from US markets and deny Americans the benefits of cheap imports.

The gospel of the new isolationists is big government. They will “help” the world with bombs and taxpayer subsidies. The old isolationists treat foreigners as equals; they meet them in the boardroom, not on the battlefield. So who are the real humanitarians and who are the xenophobes?

By Kelse Moen

Yesterday, the Iraq War turned five years old. The past five years have left nearly four thousand Americans dead, as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and have so far cost the American taxpayers over 5oo billion dollars. They also show a remarkable ebb and flow concerning the war in popular opinion. First there was the widespread flag-waving and French-bashing–a time when John Kerry needed to downplay his anti-war opinions for the sake of electability. This was followed by a steady erosion of support, culminating in 2006′s rout of the Beltway Republicans, when popular belief held a pro-war Republican would be unelectable in 2008. But now, with the economy headed into a recession, people are turning their focus primarily to economic concerns. This is great news for John McCain, the fiercest hawk in the race. But is it possible to separate war from economics? Can we, as it were, have our cake and eat it too?

For John McCain, the answer is clearly yes. The senator who, as Matt Welch described, thinks that the US doesn’t bear enough cost in policing the world and should engage in a widespread policy of “rogue state rollback” (think Iraq repeated ad nauseam) nevertheless promises to cut taxes and spending. The advocate of what will likely one day be a trillion dollar war takes pride in his opposition to congressional earmarks, which in comparison constitute a trifling cost.

As many commentators have already realized, our economy is suffering from what could be called “the Iraq recession.” Though John McCain claims to hold Ronald Reagan as a role model, he could learn more from the eighteenth century economist Adam Smith. That luminary of intellectual conservatism opposed the British Empire for diverting money from the domestic economy and into the government and military. This led him to support the fledgling American Revolution. Yet the old maxim of peace and commerce with all nations has given way to the imperial mercantilism that Smith despised.

The American people have spent the last five years paying, in blood and treasure, for an ill-founded war. Now the economy is finally buckling under the pressure, as it inevitably would. The Republicans need to remember–and quickly–that freedom at home is inimicable to imperialism abroad. Unfortunately, in John McCain’s world, big government may be reprehensible in America, but it does wonders everywhere else.

By Jeremy Barr

With students now back from spring break, we can re-focus our attention back onto the campaign for the presidency. But first off, what was accomplished last week besides the consumption of large amounts of mixed drinks? Short of a few small scandals and one big one involving a certain governor from a certain Northeastern state, not too much.

Barack Obama still maintains a large pledged delegate lead and is closing in on Hillary among superdelegates, uncommitted party leaders and officials who will cast their vote at the convention in August. Looking at the primary calendar, Pennsylvania (April 22^nd) and North Carolina (May 6^th) loom ahead, with the possibility of a Michigan primary (June 3^rd?) looking all the more likely.

A common sentiment among my fellow Democrats is that this prolonged contest is hurting our chances in the general election; the longer Republican nominee and senior citizen John McCain is able to slide by unharmed, the better his chances in November. I disagree. Whether it is Obama or Clinton on the top of the ticket, I firmly believe that we will have plenty of time to pull off the curtain and show the American people what John McCain is really about.

While the dream ticket (Obama & Clinton) may not be a possibility, I hope that the two will come together (at least figuratively) to support the party and to make a case for why there should be a Democrat in the White House. With McCain’s strong support of the failed effort in Iraq, his flop-flops on immigration and tax cuts, his ethical shortcomings, his contentious nature, and his general persona as a politician of the past, we will have plenty to work with when the time comes.

By Kelse Moen

In my last post (below) I scoffed at the notion that John McCain would choose Mitt Romney as a running mate, noting that “a liberal northeasterner” who was “repeatedly repudiated” by the voters would add little value to the ticket. But in the days since, fueled by Fred Barnes’ article in the Weekly Standard and Romney’s statement of the obvious on Hannity & Colmes, a flurry of speculation has emerged over whether he will be McCain’s VP. I still stand by my original conclusion, but nevertheless, the week’s events warrant a deeper analysis of Romney’s VP potential.

 Barnes mentioned that Romney has been the favored candidate of the Bush administration, which just recently gave McCain its official endorsement. This plays in to the belief among many on the right that Romney is, in the words of Laura Ingraham, “the conservative’s conservative,” someone who can energize the party base. But if this were true, why didn’t Romney win solid conservative states like Iowa, Georgia, or South Carolina? And how does it account for his various declarations of support for gun control and abortion rights, or his healthcare plan that used the coercive apparatus of the Massachusetts state government to command all citizens to buy healthcare?

Romney could only cast himself as the true conservative in this particular election, when more authentic ones like Fred Thompson and Sam Brownback suffered from a lack of structure, drive, and enthusiasm, and when all the other front-runners somehow kept finding new ways to infuriate the right. If McCain wants to choose a conservative, he could do far better than Romney.

McCain should also not base his decision on what the Bush administration wants. Most of his appeal is based on his willingness to stand apart from the Republican establishment and forge his own path. By kowtowing to Bush he will only further alienate the independents and moderates that he sorely needs in November.

This is not to say Romney is all bad. As governor of Massachusetts he was generally quite fiscally responsible, especially when compared to the Democratic legislature and Deval Patrick, his Democratic successor. Romney would bring an emphasis on economics and fiscal responsibility that McCain sorely lacks. (Though McCain is a principled opponent of congressional earmarks, he also supports a drastically increased role for the United States as world policeman, remember, a job that will not pay for itself.)

Romney is not the worst person McCain could choose. But there are far better people out there. I believe history will look on Romney (if it looks on him at all) as an unimpressive politician who rose to prominence only because 2008 was an unimpressive year. The sooner we all realize that, the sooner we can all forget him.

By Kelse Moen

Forget NASCAR; endless speculation about John McCain’s running mate has become Republicans’ new sport of choice. The blogs and news media, who spent so many hours analyzing every slight permutation to the presidential election, had to realize that their fun would not last forever. Still, when John McCain clinched the Republican nomination, where were they to turn? Why, the second spot on the ticket, of course!

While combing through reams of conjecture and pipe-dreaming, one comes to see a certain consistency in conservatives’ thoughts here. The general wisdom goes that McCain will have to choose a conservative governor, preferably a southerner, to assuage Republican doubts about the unconventional senator’s candidacy. There are, to be sure, those who think he should pick Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani, but the wisdom of picking one of those liberal northeasterners, who voters have repeatedly repudiated, seems questionable at best.

Mike Huckabee is of course worthy of some attention. His campaign proved to be more durable and popular than anyone would have expected one year ago. He could clearly help McCain’s standing with the powerful Evangelical voting bloc, which McCain famously alienated in 2000 and which has never quite forgiven him. Yet Huckabee’s economic populism–consisting of tax hikes, increased spending, and market regulations–offers little respite from Clinton or Obama’s socialistic agenda. Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, both reliable conservatives, receive frequent mention as well. Picking either of them would be a safe move for McCain; he would strengthen the ticket’s conservatism while drawing little controversy or even, perhaps, attention.

Yet if I were to advise McCain (and seeing as I constitute one third of an influential blog, I don’t see why I shouldn’t), I would tell him to go for another popular option: South Carolina governor Mark Sanford. Sanford is one of the country’s leading advocates of fiscal conservatism and limited government. He has forcefully butted heads with South Carolina’s own tax-and-spend legislature. As a Congressman in the nineties he earned high marks from the American Conservtaive Union and voted against all the wasteful spending he could get his hands on. A McCain-Sanford ticket could remind our discarded Goldwaterites that Republicana still belong to the party of limited government, even after a decade of bloated spending and a unitary executive.

Choosing a running mate is not always important in a presidential election. Who really remembers Michael Dukakis’ choice anyway? But for John McCain, it is very important. He is too old to seek a second terms (or maybe even to survive his first), putting the would-be VP as the clear Republican candidate for 2012. And even if the Republicans go down in flames this November, the running mate will still be considered the party standard bearer, a designation of great importance to this hierarchical group.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Hopefully, when it comes to picking a VP, it will be McCain’s time to be right.

By Benjamin van der Horst

On Tuesday, John McCain clinched the Republican nomination for the White House.  After losing in 2000 and being considered politically dead last summer, it was probably a great feeling for him to finally seal the deal.  On Wednesday, he received the endorsement President Bush, the very man who beat him eight years ago.  While both of these things are great, McCain got even better news on Tuesday:

Hillary Clinton beat Obama in Ohio and Texas. 

This is good news for McCain because it means the Democratic race will continue with Obama and Clinton focusing on each other instead of him.  Clinton has started going negative on Obama and the Democratic race will get ugly.  Meanwhile, McCain can rally his base and start focusing on the general election.  The Democratic race may go all the way to the convention.  McCain has already won.   This is good news for the Republican Party in a year where they haven’t had too good news to talk about.

By Kelse Moen

2008 is not a happy time to be a libertarian. In the age of huge government expenditures, warrantless wiretapping, an activist Supreme Court, and overseas adventurism, advocates of small government have little reason to be optimistic. So when it seemed that Ron Paul, the new hero of the libertarian movement, could be unseated from Congress by a pro-war Republican who called Paul’s record of voting against unconstitutional bills “felonious at best,” the obvious reply could only be: “of course.”

But, much to his supporters’ delight, Paul actually won a landslide 70% victory over challenger Chris Peden last night. In the short term, we can be glad that Texas voters chose to keep such a principled man in office and to reject the Tamany Hall-style party line politics of uniformity. But what does this mean in the long run?

With John McCain by all accounts the Republican nominee and Huckabee out of the race, it is unclear what role Paul should play. He could continue to run as a Party gadfly and secure a speech at the convention this summer, but McCain isn’t in a position where he has to listen. Who else could the Paulites vote for, anyway? Paul could also decide to run as an independent or a Libertarian (and the LP would love to have him). This way he could siphon off enough votes to prevent McCain from winning the general election. The logic behind that would be that it would force the notoriously hawkish nominee to at least recognize libertarian concerns if he doesn’t want to go the way of Al Gore. Of course, it could easily lead to an Obama presidency which few libertarians really want. Finally, Paul could just return to Congress and do what he has been doing these last twenty years.

None of these options will really satisfy Paul’s devoted fans. It’s great to have him in Congress, but he won’t be getting the influence that he deserves, they’ll say. Or they won’t be content with any presidential run–Republican, independent, or Libertarian–unless it culminates in a Ron Paul White House.

My answer is that Ron Paul’s campaign was never about winning. It was about teaching, and showing a new generation that liberty can be alive and well in 2008. At the end of the movie V for Vendetta, the hero, about to die on the eve of his own revolution, spoke these words. I believe they can apply to Ron Paul as well, whatever his political future:

Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea and ideas are bulletproof.