For 2012 and the GOP presidential primaries, I’m hesitant to enthusiastically support any candidate who has unapologetically embraced the earmark culture or other wasteful spending habits, especially if it’s to the level of refusing to ever change the culture (as opposed to the perhaps more common among the GOP Congressmen, “Yeah, it’s ugly, but right now everybody does it and I’m going to get my share”).
While “a big and wasteful federal government” is certainly central to what is wrong with the GOP, I’m going to label eminent domain abuse as more of a black-and-white issue. Though, I concede I find myself questioning whether I should be more principled with regard to federalism (meaning, on the two issues, should I be equally outraged and equally willing to draw a firm line in the sand?); after all, the 5th and 10th amendments are both in the Bill of Rights.
Perhaps it’s that eminent domain abuse so much more clearly, more entirely, and more immediately takes away freedom from an individual private citizen, when compared to the much more complex negative effects of Big Government (which both redistributes and causes opportunity costs for the private economy in ways that are difficult-to-clearly define).
And perhaps it’s that voters are quite hypocritical when it comes to pork (love-hate relationship on the local level), while with earmarks, the issue is about as close as we can get to a near-univerally-accepted point of view among the overall electorate (meaning, it just might be politically obtuse not to adopt that viewpoint).
Because of McCain-Feingold alone, John McCain never should have been nominated to be the GOP nominee. Of course, McCain didn’t clearly win the nomination; he merely came the closest to 50% of the remaining three candidates, when one of them — Mike Huckabee – had remained in the race for reasons I’m not sure anybody fully understands.
McCain is no doubt a fine man in many ways, but character alone does not qualify a person to be the leader of the free world; particularly when that person is suspicious of the very notion of freedom.
Newt Gingrich has declared that Speaker Pelosi — because she has without sufficient evidence shows tremendous disrespect to an important level of government, arguably risking national security — has “disqualified” herself from the position of Speaker of the House.
I’ll argue that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has disqualified himself from ever deserving the GOP nomination because of his veto of property rights legislation.
In a piece at Reason Online titled, “Sold Down the River: How Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour sabotaged eminent domain reform,” associate editor Damon Root writes:
In addition to enjoying strong bipartisan support in the statehouse, this piece of long-overdue reform was backed by groups as politically diverse as Americans for Tax Reform, the Southern Christian Leadership Council, and the Mississippi Forestry Association.
But none of that mattered to Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, who promptly vetoed the bill, claiming it would cripple his ability to lure large corporations into the state. As Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, admitted in his veto statement, had he not promised Toyota that he would use eminent domain to secure a piece of contested land for its Blue Springs facility, “Toyota would have broken off negotiations with us and chosen one of the other states competing with us for the project.”
I will give props to Barbour for his candor and honesty. But I’m of the opinion that an honest person who will give up basic American freedoms for the short-term economic benefit of a private company — in this case, a foreign-based private company — has disqualified himself for deserving the title of US President.
Root concludes his article:
Christina Walsh, the director of activism and coalitions at the Institute for Justice, the libertarian legal firm that represented Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court and has since spearheaded many state-level eminent domain reforms (including this one), urges Mississippi lawmakers to reject Barbour’s bill and “to stand behind the constitutional principles they voted for earlier this year and behind the constituents that voted them into office.”
In March 1792, James Madison took to the pages of the National Gazette to explain why property rights were essential to the preservation of a free society. “Where an excess of power prevails,” Madison observed, “property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” Here’s hoping those lawmakers do the right thing and stand up one more time for Mississippi’s victimized property owners.
May 21st, 2009 at 7:40 am
[...] Benjamin Hodge writes at Race42012.com: Perhaps it’s that eminent domain abuse so much more clearly, more entirely, and more immediately takes away freedom from an individual private citizen, when compared to the much more complex negative effects of Big Government (which both redistributes and causes opportunity costs for the private economy in ways that are difficult-to-clearly define). [...]
May 21st, 2009 at 8:20 am
“Perhaps it’s that eminent domain abuse so much more clearly, more entirely, and more immediately takes away freedom from an individual private citizen”
How true. Eminent domain abuse is a perfect lithmus test to determine if someone is a true freedom-first conservative or nothing but a shameless corporatist republican.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:13 am
I’m with you on this one Benjamin. Eminent domain has gotten way out of hand.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
At the risk of causing a snow storm in Hell, I agree as well. Its time to
stop development at the point of a gun.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Since this is a slow post with hardly any comments, thought it could be spiced up by showing the new ppp on republicans:
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/05/obama-looking-strong-for-2012.html
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Obama looking strong for 2012
PPP’s monthly look at how Barack Obama fares nationally against some potential 2012 rivals again shows him in solid position, with Mike Huckabee coming the closest for the second time in a row.
Obama leads Huckabee 52-39, Newt Gingrich 53-36, Mitt Romney 53-35, and Sarah Palin 56-37. Any of these match ups, at this point in time, would give him a margin of victory far exceeding what he won against John McCain last November.
Although that’s certainly somewhat attributable to Obama’s popularity it’s also an indication that the GOP- like the Democrats last year- might end up better off if a fresher candidate emerges than the ones currently most well known and discussed.
Huckabee has the best favorability rating of the GOP quartet, at 44/32. That’s followed by Romney at 40/36, Palin at 42/50, and Gingrich at 30/47.
Palin is actually the most popular among Republicans with 76% viewing her favorably, compared to 67% for Romney, 64% for Huckabee, and 57% for Gingrich. But she also has the weakest numbers among Democrats and independents, with 74% and 58% respectively viewing her negatively. All The GOP contenders get unfavorable reviews from independents with the exception of Huckabee, who manages a positive 44/36 spread.
Palin is also the best known of the group with fewer than 10% of the respondents having no opinion of her. About a quarter didn’t know enough to take a stance on the other three.
Obama’s approval rating is at 55%, a finding pretty consistent with where he was in April (53%) and March (55%). His reviews continue to be very polarized along partisan lines (84% approval from Democrats but just 19% from Republicans) and he’s at a solid 55% with independents.
May 21st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
#5, Another poll showing Huckabee in the lead!
I don’t support him, but he’s clearly the frontrunner.
Romney’s numbers are terrible, his favorability barely exceeds his unfavorability, and even Gingrich does better against Obama!
Rom-bots, it’s time to hang up the mittens and the flip-flops and support another candidate who actually has a chance of winning.
May 21st, 2009 at 3:15 pm
6,
No. He’s not the frontrunner. He still loses by double digits. I’ll recopy this from another thread since clearly it appears that Tommy Boy’s M.O. is tout any news at all that puts Huckabee a cut above the rest.
The Republican Party needs to be held in higher esteem before any of our guys or gals have any chance of picking off the Messiah.
The debate over who loses to Obama NOW by “only thirteen instead of eighteen” means exactly jack shit. The more important question is, “Which of our candidates, current or future, is best equipped to SELL CONSERVATISM???” That may or may not be Huckabee or Romney or Palin – I certainly have my preference – but THIS is the question Republicans need to ask. The highlighted poll is meaningless.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:42 pm
#6
Well, this should save you the trouble of having to write that anti-Romney — whoops, pardon me — balanced-look-at-Romney website.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Flip,
Anybody who is less than a handful of percentage points away from their closest rivals (note the plural) a whole three and a half years out from the election is hardly in a position to be planning their acceptance speech for the convention.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:07 pm
#8, Romney website going as planned.
Preliminary title: DIRTY MITTENS.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
#10:
Well, if you must, you must.
I am reminded of Mike Huckabee most of last year. Mike complained bitterly almost all year long about how terrible Mitt Romney was. Mitt just ignored him. All his rantings and ravings were like water off a duck’s back to Romney. Huckabee was completely powerless to affect him. The result was Huckabee got madder and madder and madder. Mitt refused to allow Huckabee control over his life, yet Huckabee surrendered control over his life to his antipathy towards Mitt. It was a sad sight to witness.
Yet you want to make the same mistake. Why?
May 21st, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Maybe I should retitle my website ROMNEY DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.
May 21st, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Maybe.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 am
With this number of front runners, the party appartachuks are likely to be
picking a candidate ahead of time, who will magically have momentum.
They will either decide that someone actually has a shot or that someone
deserves their place in the history books (to be gone in time for 2016, if
there is a party). Does Mitt deserve a place in the history books for his
career so far?
(I’m going on, so no)
Huck?
Pawlenty? Sanford?
keep going
Barbour?
Actually, even though his position on liberty and Emminent Domain sucks,
his two terms as party chair and his fairly successful terms as governor,
plus his ability to put a stake in Huck’s heart (which the bosses would love)
may have the GOP elite putting resources his way – especially if facing a lost
cause.
Palin? Maybe, for history and to not look like the angry white man party.
Mr. Newt? A hard sell. It depends upon whether there is any lingering
connection to Jack Abramoff. He and Jack know too many of the same people
for the question to remain unasked by the MSM should he run. Of course,
Haley may not be without taint either. Newt’s recent Catholicism may turn
some off while energizing the midwestern base. A Catholic Newt might have
more of a chance in Ohio and Pennsylvania than Barbour, no matter his current
disapproval rating.
May 26th, 2009 at 10:47 am
[...] think the property rights legislation he killed casts real doubt on whether he’s serious about running for President, but he is going to [...]