Wayne Allyn Root Predicts Mitt Romney Landslide

It's been a while since I posted. I'm losing interest in electoral politics. I've also lost much interest in Wayne Allyn Root, ever since he left the Libertarian Party to support Mitt Romney.

But here's something funny...

On November 1, 2012, Root wrote an article for his website, entitled: WAYNE ROOT’S ELECTION PREDICTION IS LOOKING LIKE MOST ACCURATE IN NATION, in which he wrote:

"The media frenzy created by a Las Vegas oddsmaker (Wayne Allyn Root) predicting a Romney landslide…might be of interest to your viewers.

"Wayne's prediction (below) was made at a time when Obama led in EVERY poll in the country. His exact prediction (as you can read below) was Romney by 5 to 7 points and 100 to 120 electoral votes.

That's Root, writing about himself in the third person. Self-proclaiming himself as "a Las Vegas oddsmaker" (i.e., an expert), whose prediction of a Romney landslide is looking to be the "most accurate in the nation."

Now that Root is no longer in the LP, one can laugh at his hilariously hyperbolic bloviating.

If you're in the mood, read the rest of Root's article.

My 2012 Write-In Vote for Ron Paul

If you write-in Ron Paul's name for president in 2012, your vote WILL count -- at least in Alabama, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, California, Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Maine (so far -- more states may yet be on the way).

That's according to an October 5, 2012 posting on The Daily Paul.

I live in California, and I cast my write-in vote for Ron Paul this past week!

Even if my vote didn't count, I'd still vote for Paul. A vote that's not counted is like not voting -- and not voting is better than voting for one of the lesser evils on the California ballot.

Politico.com quotes Libertarian Party candidate Gary "lesser of three evils" Johnson as saying that a write-in vote for Paul is "meaningless."

Thanks for the tip, Gary. But how "meaningful" would a vote be for your confused and contradictory message, including your support for wars.

Sure, Paul won't win. But neither will Johnson. It's likely that Johnson won't even get 1% of the vote. Contrary to the LP's big hopes and daydreams, Johnson didn't get into the debates, and the race tightening such that Romney looks to have a fighting chance of beating Obama.

Since this is "the most important election in history" and "too important to lose," Americans will once again be "going home" to the major parties that actually have a chance of winning.

If I'm going to vote for a candidate who can't win, I'd rather vote for someone who is uncompromisingly antiwar -- or even not vote at all -- than vote for Gary "lesser of three evils" Johnson.

2012 California Ballot Propositions -- Libertarian Recommendations

Here's something from the LPLAC [Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County] Yahoo Group:

I realize that Tom McClintock is not a big el Libertarian, but his philosophy is very close. Here is his take:

Prop 30: Your Wallet or Your Kids -- NO

Either approve $36 billion in higher sales and income taxes or else Gov. Brown threatens to shoot the schools. Don't worry, the income taxes are only on the "very wealthy," but it turns out the "very wealthy" include many small businesses filing under sub-chapter S, meaning lower wages, higher prices and fewer jobs. California already has one of the highest overall tax burdens in the country and yet has just approved a budget to spend $8 billion dollars more than it's taking in. Moral of the story: it's the spending stupid.

Prop 31: Rotting Mackerel by Moonlight -- NO

This one shines and stinks. On the shiny side, it moves us toward performance-based budgeting, restores certain powers to the governor to make mid-year spending reductions and requires new spending to be paid for. On the stinky side, it provides a two-year budget cycle that makes fiscal gimmickry all the easier and locks into the Constitution an incredibly anal process for local communities to adopt "Strategic Action Plans" serving such open-ended new age objectives as "community equity" and nudges them into establishing regional governments to push this agenda. The purpose of local governments is to provide basic services, not to pursue utopian four-year plans.

Prop 32: Cutting The Piggies Off From The Trough -- YES

In the "It's About Time" category, this measure would finally prohibit unions, corporations, government contractors, and state and local governments from deducting money from employees' paychecks for political purposes without their express written consent. As Jefferson wrote, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." This puts an end to this despotic practice.

Prop 33: Rewarding Responsible Drivers -- YES

Here's a no-brainer: should car insurance companies be allowed to offer a discount to drivers who maintain continuous coverage? No, it's not a trick question. Under California's convoluted law, if you switch auto insurers you can't qualify for the continuous coverage discount. This measure says you can.

Prop 34: Lifetime Room and Board (and Sex-Change Operations, too) for Murderers -- NO

This abolishes the death penalty for first-degree murder. Enough said.

Prop 35: Red Light on Human Trafficking -- YES

Prop 35 greatly expands the definition of "Human Trafficking" (already illegal), and greatly increases existing penalties. The problem is real and growing and needs stronger sanctions, although there are some provisions in Prop 35 that make it ripe for prosecutorial abuse, including limiting the ability of defendants to cross-examine witnesses and broadening the definition of trafficking to include those who never had contact with the victim. On balance, though, the good outweighs the bad.

Prop 36: Gutting Three Strikes -- NO

After many years of rising crime rates, Californians finally struck back with the three-strikes law. It is actually a two-strikes law: after two serious or violent felonies -- in which one has murdered, assaulted, raped, robbed or pillaged his fellow citizens -- he is on notice that any further misconduct will remove him from polite society. Prop 36 would require that the third strike also be a serious or violent crime, giving dangerous criminals yet one more opportunity at atrocity. The Left predicted that "Three Strikes" would have no effect on crime -- in fact, crime rates have plummeted. When it ain't broke, don't try and fix it.

Prop 37: Spit it Out - NO

This is the latest effort of the Nanny Left to tell us what to eat. It requires foods that contain any ingredients resulting from biotechnology advances to carry the scary warning: "GENETICALLY ENGINEERED." There is not a shred of evidence that biotechnology is the least bit dangerous -- it often reduces the need for pesticides. To avoid branding their products with the Scarlet Warning, food processors would have to prove that every scrap and crumb in their fare is devoid of biotechnology or face crushing lawsuits. Grocery prices high enough yet?

Prop 38: Pay More, Get Less - NO

Not to be outdone by Prop. 30, this measure heaps $120 BILLION of new income taxes on those earning more than $7,316 (the new millionaires and billionaires of California's impoverished economy). It's for the schools, of course. No doubt these dollars (which families would just waste on necessities) will be as well spent as the staggering fortune that we're already shoveling into the sclerotic school system.

Prop 39: Tax Us Before We Hire Again - NO

This is a $1 billion per year tax increase on California businesses to subsidize a whole new generation of Solyndra scams. But remember, businesses don't pay business taxes; they only collect them from employees through lower wages, from consumers through higher prices, or from investors through lower earnings. Prop 39 might be bad news for California's employees, consumers and investors, but it's great news for the Nevada Chamber of Commerce.

Prop 40: Your GOP Donations At Work -- YES

This is a monument to the stupidity of some Republican Party leaders, who spent nearly $2 million of party funds to qualify -- and then drop -- this referendum to overturn the Senate reapportionment because several state senators didn't like their new districts. They had hoped to run in their old seats, but after qualifying the initiative found out they couldn't anyway. A "Yes" vote affirms that the new non-partisan Citizens Redistricting Commission works.

BUT WAIT A MINUTE!

NOT SO FAST!

Los Angeles County Libertarian activist Ted Brown differs with some of McClintock's recommendations. Brown writes:

Prop 34 -- YES on getting rid of the death penalty; the government has no right to kill people, as far as I am concerned.

Prop 35 -- NO on the sex trafficking measure; this will pass with 75% but it still has many bad provisions; our own Cop to Call Girl author, Norma Jean Almodovar, is one of the opponents.

Prop 36 -- YES on modifying 3 strikes, so that the 3rd strike must be a serious or violent one.

Measure B on the L.A. County ballot should be a resounding NO -- especially since my wife and I wrote the argument against it. This measure would force adult film actors to wear condoms.

The Lesser of Three Evils Is Evil

Libertarians often say that The Lesser of Two Evils Is Evil.

The phrase is aimed at people who believe that the Democrats and Republicans are both evil, but that one is less evil. And so they'll vote for they party they consider the "lesser evil." One of the two major party candidates will win, so it's pragmatic to lessen the damage they'll do in office by voting for the less evil candidate.

Libertarians have long countered that people should not vote for a lesser evil, but for a candidate that's actually good. The implication being that the LP candidate is good.

But how often is this true?

The LP's 2012 presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, has his good points. He's better than the LP's Bob Barr or Wayne Allyn Root in 2008. Yet for all that, Johnson remains a lesser evil.

Johnson waffles on foreign policy, making confused and contradictory statements. Yet despite his foggy ramblings, one discerns that Johnson is weak on peace, supports Gitmo, supports aid for Israel, and is pro-intervention.

Johnson also advocates a Fair Tax, which offends some libertarians, but doesn't bother me -- I support the Fair Tax if it means replacing the current system. So for me, the Fair Tax is a "lesser evil" I can live it -- but war and empire are no-compromise issues.

I think most libertarians agree that Johnson is imperfect. But they'll add that Johnson is still "much better" than are Obama or Romney, and so we should vote for Johnson.

Essentially, defenders of Johnson are saying that we should vote for the lesser of three evils.

But if it's now okay to vote for a lesser evil, why not vote for a lesser evil who can actually win?

At the very least, to avoid hypocrisy, defenders of Johnson should stop telling Americans that the lesser of two evils is still evil. Instead they should say, Please vote for the lesser of three evils.

As of now, I plan to write-in Ron Paul for president, as will many other Americans.

Mormons on Israel and the Palestinians

Since Mitt Romney is the likely GOP presidential nominee, his Mormon faith, and how it might influence his policies on war and peace in the Mideast, will likely be key issues in the 2012 race.

There is reason to believe that Romney, like most past U.S. presidents, will be blindly pro-Israel. The New York Times has reported on the close friendship between Romney and Bibi Netanyahu ("A Friendship Dating to 1976 Resonates in 2012," by Michael Barbaro, April 7, 2012):

[I]n 1976, the lives of Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu intersected, briefly but indelibly, in the 16th-floor offices of the Boston Consulting Group, where both had been recruited as corporate advisers. At the most formative time of their careers, they sized each other up during the firm's weekly brainstorming sessions, absorbing the same profoundly analytical view of the world.

That shared experience decades ago led to a warm friendship, little known to outsiders, that is now rich with political intrigue.

Mr. Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is making the case for military action against Iran as Mr. Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, is attacking the Obama administration for not supporting Mr. Netanyahu more robustly.

That's not good news for peaceniks.

But if Romney is elected, I hope he will recall that the Mormon faith advocates an even-handed approach to Jewish-Israeli/Muslim-Arab relations.

I'm no expert on the Mormon faith, but I was pleased to find this on an LDS website ("Orson Hyde's 1841 Mission to the Holy Land," by David B. Galbraith, October 1991):

It was perhaps inevitable that the gathering of the Jews and the creation of their modern nation would lead to a clash between political zionism and Arab nationalism. Few members of the Church fully appreciate the dimensions of this confrontation. In what has become a classic address, President Howard W. Hunter observed:

"Our Father loves all of his children. He desires all of them to embrace the gospel and come unto him. Only those are favored who obey him and keep his commandments.

"As members of the Lord's church, we need to lift our vision beyond personal prejudices. We need to discover the supreme truth that indeed our Father is no respecter of persons. Sometimes we unduly offend brothers and sisters of other nations by assigning exclusiveness to one nationality of people over another.

"...Both the Jews and the Arabs are children of our Father. They are both children of promise, and as a church we do not take sides. We have love for and an interest in each. The purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ is to bring about love, unity, and brotherhood of the highest order."

Some of our Arab/Palestinian friends express concern about Elder Hyde's prayer because they feel anything that favors the Jews must oppose them. On the other hand, some of our Jewish friends have a tendency to interpret the prayer as conferring political support for their cause. Even members of the Church are sometimes confused as to how the prayer is to be understood.

The scriptures and the modern prophets clearly teach that all father Abraham's children have a place in the Lord's plan, and our Arab/ Palestinian friends are a part of this group.

Latter-day Saints need to be more sensitive to the hurt, disappointment, and even anger created among our Arab/Palestinian friends when we blindly attribute divine approbation to all that takes place in that part of the world we call the Holy Land.

Also read the Catholic Church's position on Islam.

How Political Third Parties Can "Win"

I've long argued that political third parties should not worry about offending voters with "extremist" positions -- because (barring societal collapse) no third party will ever supplant one of the two major parties in the U.S.

There are structural reasons why this is so. For one thing, if a third party's position on an issue becomes popular, then one or both of the major parties will co-opt that position. The Democrats and Republicans both began co-opting the various socialist parties' economic policies after 1933.

If third parties wish to influence public policy, they must focus on changing the culture. On changing attitudes and opinions. This means fearlessly promoting their principles (i.e., the dreaded libertarian macho flash). Once such uncompromising promotion influences enough voters, one or both of the major parties will implement that third party principle into a concrete policy position.

I've cited the socialist parties' successes as an example. Richard Winger, at Independent Political Report (comment 18), offers the Prohibition Party as another example:

In the period 1872-1920, all political observers agreed that virtually all people who voted for the Prohibition Party would have voted Republican if the Prohibition Party had not been running.

Prohibition Party cost the Republicans two presidential elections, 1884 and 1916. After the 1884 election the Prohibition candidate, John P. St. John, was hung in effigy or burned in effigy all across the north, but angry Republicans.

But after the 1916, when the Republicans again lost the election due to "spoiling" by the Prohibition Party, the Republicans in Congress decided to pass the prohibition amendment, which had been pending in Congress since 1875 but which had made no headway. The Republicans were sick of losing over the prohibition issue.

This shows the power of minor party voters. "Spoiling" is a stupid name but it is a potent weapon and voters should not be intimidated into being afraid to use it. It is one of the few ways a small minority can have some leverage.

Also never forget, in 1776 only a minority of Americans supported independence from Britain. You don't need a majority to change history.

When George Bush Was a Man of Peace

Back in 2000, I made the mistake of voting for George Bush when he ran for president. I did so because I was sick of Bill Clinton in general, but mostly because of Clinton's many wars and military invasions (e.g., the Balkans, Haiti, Somalia, Iraq, Sudan).

Sure, I preferred Harry Browne. But I didn't want to "waste my vote" on a third party. (Although I was long a card-carrying Libertarian Party member, I wasn't active in the LP -- apart from supper clubs -- until 2004, when I attended my first Libertarian convention.)

People forget how good Bush sounded on foreign policy in 2000. Here, take a look:

Seems silly now to have voted for Bush. Possibly the worst vote I ever cast.

Yet Al Gore was of the Clinton regime. Clinton, whose Secretary of State, Madeleine K. Albright, said in 1993, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

But what cinched it for me was that both sides claimed that Bush would ignore foreign policy. Progressives like to forget that today, but in 2000 they attacked Bush by saying that he would be a "do nothing" president.

I figured if both Democrats and Republicans claimed that Bush would be a "do nothing" a president, then it was likely true.

Yup, progressives meant that as an insult.

Unfortunately, Bush did what progressives originally wanted, and took an active foreign policy. Ironic, no? Someone should have told those progressives to be careful what they wish for.

Consider that C-SPAN clip, above. Bush sounds almost like ... a radical libertarian.