[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] If you need commentary

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I'm not live tweeting, but I'll be tweeting anything major and commenting. Feel free to use. Can't promise I'll catch things since I'm arty work. I think it's important we be on top of this.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

What am I missing here?

Whitney

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Joshua Katz <planning...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not live tweeting, but I'll be tweeting anything major and commenting. Feel free to use. Can't promise I'll catch things since I'm arty work. I think it's important we be on top of this.

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I hear live tweeting from my open windows in the Spring.  Otherwise, not much.

Sam

Sam Goldstein

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 Phone

317-582-1773 Fax

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Comey testimony

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

    Ha ha ha... nice one, Sam.    :-)   Reminds me of how I got Facebook way back in the '90s – when I fell asleep while studying.

     On a more serious note, what do you think the LP ought to be saying about James Comey's testimony, Joshua (or others)? What the pro-freedom angle is doesn't seem immediately obvious to me, as the situation is fluid and politically complex and there are bad actors on both sides. Is it that Trump has lied about the content of his discussion with Comey and tried to get the FBI director to stop his agency's investigation of General Michael Flynn? I think those things are probably true. Like his predecessors, Trump deserves to be impeached for various actions including his unconstitutional anti-immigration measures, but is this the best way for that to happen?

     I think the president firing the FBI director before the conclusion of his informal 10-year term in office was constitutionally legal, and to my mind a positive precedent. As I heard one commentator observing today, having an "independent" FBI director isn't necessarily so great – J. Edgar Hoover was a very independent FBI director. I'd rather see any investigations pointing toward the Oval Office conducted by truly independent prosecutors not appointed by the occupant of the White House, not by somebody like the head of the FBI or the attorney general, who serves at the president's pleasure. Interestingly, Trump's relationship with attorney general Jeff Sessions has reportedly been frosty since March, when Sessions – who is no friend of freedom either – without first notifying Trump, recused himself from any investigation of collusion with "the Russians" (read: the Putin regime).

     I've also heard reporting to the effect that members of Congress are afraid to go up against the intelligence agencies, because they've got stuff on everybody. That would be a particularly scary and unacceptable situation. And supposedly all 17 of those intelligence agencies were in agreement that "the Russians" were trying to tamper with the U.S. election. What is their evidence, one wonders, and if there's such unanimity among them (somewhat troubling in itself), why hasn't it been produced?

     Then there is this damning recently declassified report on the agencies' unconstitutional spying during the Obama administration – http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2253658-declassified-top-secret-report-details-spying-on-americans/ . Its contents seem perhaps more worthy of LP comment than the media firestorm over the Comey testimony and related matters – although if we do comment, I hope the point will be made that the spying is almost certainly continuing under Trump, as he has not taken any steps to stop it or to hold anyone accountable for it that I'm aware of, and has exhibited a frightening tendency to praise authoritarian leaders, from Putin to the Philippines' Rodrigo Duterte, whose draconian anti-drug crusade has caused thousands of murders, but according to Trump is doing a "great job".

Love & Liberty,

                               ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                      RealR...@earthlink.net
                             (415) 625-FREE              
                               @StarchildSF
               

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Goldstein
Sent: Jun 8, 2017 7:58 AM
To: lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] If you need commentary

I hear live tweeting from my open windows in the Spring.  Otherwise, not much.

Sam

Sam Goldstein

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 Phone

317-582-1773 Fax

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I don't have a lot of time to write tonight since I've gotten home late.  Here, briefly, is what I see from the LP perspective.

First, the image of Trump that emerged.  You might know that Bill Cosby's trial is going on.  I think there are issues with that prosecution, but that's another story.  I remember hearing an interview with him a few years ago that, I think, really sealed his guilt in many people's minds.  He didn't admit a thing - instead, in response to questions about his behavior, he said something to the effect of, if the reporter valued his career and his future, he wouldn't ask those questions, and he'd delete that tape.  That is exactly what I felt when I heard Comey talk about what Trump "hoped" for, and, regardless of how it plays in court, I think it played that way for many, many people.

The image of Trump is a President entirely indifferent to the success of his country, interested only in building his brand, thinking only about how his position plays into his personal wealth, and approaching foreign policy like a middle-schooler choosing friends.  Now, you might object that other politicians do the same thing.  I don't think they do, but it's irrelevant - the voters don't see other politicians that way.  Trump let himself be seen.  

His voters wanted someone who cares about them.  They elected a man who cares only for himself - whose mind the national interest never seems to cross.  Whether he's turning FBI directors into loyal servants (or at least trying), whispering creepily in their ears, or turning our foreign policy in favor of brutal dictators because they play with him while the leaders of democratic nations are mean to him (the Kaiser suffered from much the same treatment, and based some of his foreign policy decisions on people calling him "wet Willy" when he went to Britain for a funeral) it's all about him, all the time.  

So let's see.  What reasons do people give, exactly, for putting Trump, not Johnson, in the White House?  Let's count off the usual complaints about Libertarians:

Safety and security.  Are we safer with a President who actively colluded with a hostile foreign power, led by an autocrat?  Ignore our position for a moment, and focus on them.  If you want safety, this is not how you get it.  How do you get it?  An experienced team of Governors approaching foreign policy as realists, not neocons, and not for personal aggrandizement.  (It is revealing, by the way, to read what Carrol Quigley had to say about the Orthodox and Western civilizations in the 1970's, and to think about what Putin is trying to do now.  I think he's trying to rebuild the Russian Empire, and the United States is paving the way for him through our inept policy.  Consider the mess in Qatar last week.)

"National interest/America First."  Has he put America first?  He most assuredly has not.  He has made decisions about trade with the goal of benefiting Russia's position in the world.  He is allowing Russia to set the terms of Asian trade.  He actively engages with nations that harm our interests, and he harms our interests here at home to enrich himself and his family.  No one can get away any longer with saying that free trade and open immigration harm our national interest, when this is the alternative.

What's left?  "What's Aleppo" and "he stuck his tongue out."  And every time those who played up those moments, the media, complain about what a monster we are saddled with, they should be nicely (and indirectly) asked to justify the idea that forgetting the name of a city in Syria, or sticking your tongue out to make a point (or that heart attack thing), were worse.  This is a monster of their creation, and the only serious challenger was purposefully sidelined.  

Our theme should be - restore competence, restore trust, restore integrity.  The Democrats can't run on that effectively, they're too busy worrying that they didn't do enough for coal workers, the less educated, Bernie Sanders fans, and the intolerant left.  They can't possibly please all those constituencies, but they certainly can't position themselves as the opposite of this small, sniveling child in the White House, this creep who sees nothing but personal gain.  

We don't need to talk about the testimony, we just play off the negative image of Trump that was created, in a way that we can and they can't.

Paul Ryan says we should cut him a break because he's new at this.  The world won't wait.  Who could hit the ground running, and know already about operating with integrity, about not seeking personal loyalty from law enforcement?  Two Governors.  

Granted, the campaign is over, and we shouldn't talk directly about Johnson/Weld because that's not an alternative we're putting forward any more.  But it can form a theme for how we approach the Republican party when we need to address them in the media.  They're unprepared, they're selfish, they use political positions for personal patronage.  Again, you might think all politicians do, but this is what the voter is thinking right now.  Find ways to turn what they're thinking to our advantage.  Who won't sell off the office?  We won't.  Who won't use office to pursue a personal agenda?  We won't.  Who will approach foreign policy by seeking those things that maximize freedom and avoid war, rather than soothe the ego of the leader?  We will.  

Joshua A. Katz