Category: Campaign 2016 – President

Thoughts on #StandWithRand

I’ll admit it: last night I stayed up until almost 1 in the morning to the point where Rand Paul’s filibuster of CIA Director nominee John Brennan finally came to a close after 13 hours. That’s a lot of standing around and a study in endurance, and as one observer noted was all about policy – no one was reading out of a phone book.

It’s the longest filibuster since the civil rights era, but the important difference between Paul’s effort and the 24-plus hours Strom Thurmond held court was that there was no live television coverage of the Senate at the time. Back then, there were plans if need be to set up a bucket in an adjacent room for Thurmond, who spoke for practically the entire 24-hour period. This wasn’t the case last night, as several other Senators were yielded time to ask questions or otherwise pontificate on the subject while Paul held the floor.

But I came home and read today the Senate had indeed confirmed Brennan as CIA head, and as far as I know there was no answer provided by the White House on the drone question. Now perhaps that silence speaks volumes enough, but if you consider what the aim of the filibuster was I’m not sure it can be considered anything but a failure in the immediate aftermath.

Then again, Strom Thurmond had a pretty lengthy career in the Senate after his long-winded soliloquy so we don’t know what the future might bring for Rand Paul. Could he have vaulted himself into the 2016 Presidential race with this performance? A run for the Oval Office would mean Paul would likely have to give up his Senate seat; then again, Republicans and conservatives have rarely been as inspired as they were last night since the early Sarah Palin days and the eventual rise of the TEA Party. It may be a gamble worth taking, although liberals will surely try to equate father and son in that race just as they did the Bushes.

Again, though, I have to ponder the idea that I stayed up until nearly one in the morning to see how it came out. When was the last time a riveting political event (aside from an election) took place at that late hour? They don’t even do document dumps that time of night.

Update: This is what happens when you’re out of the loop during the day, as I was yesterday. An e-mail from the TEA Party Patriots quotes Attorney General Eric Holder as saying, “It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil.’ The answer to that question is no.” This is based on a Fox News story from Thursday.

A push from the top?

Indications are that Maryland’s emboldened gun control proponents will receive a boost Wednesday through a Presidential visit. As one legislator, State Senator Joe Getty, stated:

There is lots of chatter in the hallways of Annapolis that President Barack Obama will be visiting Annapolis to endorse the gun control legislation proposed by Governor Martin O’Malley.

That would make lots of sense on behalf of both politicians.

For Obama, it is unlikely that his gun control proposals will pass the U.S. House of Representatives, so positive benefits can be derived for him by aligning himself with the gun licensing requirements and weapons ban on the fast-track in a Democratic-controlled state.

For O’Malley, he not only get increased national exposure from the stature of a presidential visit but also the advocacy to bring potential recalcitrant Democrats into line with a presidential plea for party loyalty in the gun control debate.

Further credence is lent to the prospect through a note passed to me by a friend. This is a notice from the FAA regarding next Wednesday, February 6:

VIP Notice – Annapolis, Maryland

Notice Number: NOTC4556

Notice: Expect VIP movement February 06, 2013 in the vicinity of Annapolis, Maryland.  Pilots can expect airspace restrictions in conjunction with this VIP movement.  The FAA recommends that all aircraft operators check NOTAMs OFTEN for  mandatory airspace restrictions prior to operations within this region.

Specific instructions and restrictions are available at http://tfr.faa.gov once the NOTAM has been issued. (Emphasis in original.)

The February 6 date is significant because the governor’s pet gun control bill, SB281, is being heard that day by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. Among other things, the 38-page bill requires registration of so-called “assault weapons” by November 1, 2013, reduces the allowable magazine capacity to 10 rounds, and establishes “handgun qualification licenses” (read: a series of expensive and intrusive hoops to jump through in order to possess what is supposed to be granted you through an inalienable right to self-defense.)

So how will the President’s visit affect the proceedings? Well, as Getty notes, the President’s appearance could bring a few more House Democrats to the gun grabbers’ side (this term is literally used, based on the bill’s requirements.) The conventional wisdom is that it has enough votes to pass in the Maryland Senate but its fate is much more iffy in the House of Delegates.

But there’s the pro-Second Amendment side to consider as well. If downtown Annapolis becomes a security zone, particularly if Barack Obama chooses to speak at Lawyers’ Mall, it may well leave protesters nowhere to go. They’d be scattered around and scattered is not newsworthy nor is it strength in numbers. Of course, it wouldn’t surprise me if busloads of fawning Obama supporters are brought in to provide the President with a supportive crowd.

And let’s not overlook another calculation made by the Democrats. Two of the biggest pet issues pro-liberty forces are concerned about in this legislative session are the onerous (and ultimately futile insofar as preventing crime goes) gun control measures being pushed by Martin O’Malley and the Tier Map repeal bill (HB106) proposed on the House side by Delegate Mike McDermott. It’s not for nothing that both the SB281 and HB106 hearings are being held at the exact same time in a brilliant piece of divide-and-conquer strategy. Bad enough that many working people (like me) can’t get to the hearings because they’re held during normal business hours in Annapolis, but to have two bills strongly opposed by pro-liberty citizens go through a hearing process at such an inconvenient time is a huge obstacle.

A suggestion I’m making to counter that is to submit written testimony. I’m speaking off the cuff here – so input would be appreciated – but having submitted written testimony before, I seem to recall the idea is to keep it to a length where, if spoken, it takes about 3 minutes to deliver – about 600 words, give or take. I plan on devoting part of my weekend to submitting written testimony for both bills, whether it will be on behalf of the entire Wicomico County Republican Central Committee or my own personal viewpoint.

One final word. The last thing we need with a Presidential visit is for someone to go off-message by making this a personal vendetta against Barack Obama. We can – and should – say that the President is wrong in trying to usurp our inalienable rights and continues to go to the extreme of emotional appeal as a knee-jerk reaction to a problem where guns were the tool but not the cause. Our side has proposed common-sense solutions that don’t involve making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens, such as allowing willing teachers who go through a prescribed and recommended gun safety course – a monetary and time investment they are willing to voluntarily make – to carry their weapons in schools. Note again that mass shootings tend to happen in so-called “gun free zones” and stop once authorities with firepower arrive.

We can win this fight, despite the obstacles and star power placed in front of us. Obviously the other side is worried, for if it were a slam dunk fait accompli that the gun bill would pass there wouldn’t be a visit from Barack Obama until the bill was on Martin O’Malley’s desk. So let’s get out there and fight!

Opening a door – but will they walk through it?

After the Republican National Convention last August, liberty-minded party regulars were chagrined about changes in the party rules that they felt enriched the party elite at the expense of the grassroots, not to mention the controversy surrounding their very enactment. That bitterness extended through the campaign and was among the many reasons blamed for the demise of the Mitt Romney effort.

So this news was welcome, and it comes in part from Maryland’s National Committeewoman Nicolee Ambrose:

In response to the concerns expressed by grassroots Republicans surrounding the changes in the rules that govern the party, the RNC today made a decision to bring together the members of The Standing Committee on Rules to revisit the amendments that some believe weaken the GOP.

“Our concern is that these rules will centralize power with the top leadership, and diminish both the influence, and the diversity of ideas and experiences, that the grassroots offers to the party,” said John Noisy Hawk, a member of the elected Maine Delegation to the Republican Convention in Tampa, Florida where the rules were adopted. “The GOP believes in empowering the little guy, and we want to see that happen both in our party, and nation wide.”

At the conclusion of the meeting, Maryland Committeewoman Nicolee Ambrose of Baltimore rose to praise the committee members and their newly reelected Chair Reince Priebus for the move.

“I’m grateful to be both a grassroots activist and a member of the RNC. In our deliberations it’s important to recognize the many questions we’ve received from activists and donors about our Rules passed at this past convention.

“I congratulate our National Committee, our Resolutions Committee, and Chairman Priebus on hearing this message from the grassroots. Today, we unanimously passed a resolution supporting the formation of a Standing Committee on Rules to examine these concerns. This is exactly the kind of work this committee can do to be most effective in partnering with the grassroots in each of our states.

“We are hopeful about the future and grounded in the belief that every mom and dad, son and daughter are the grassroots who make this country and our Republican Party great.”

Chairman Reince Priebus responded, “Perfect. And to that point… we will have a rules committee constituted at the spring meeting. We will have that meeting the earliest than we have ever done it before… We will have a rules committee to hear any and all amendments, any and all suggestions. And then we are also going to have an official meeting of the RNC at our spring meeting, something we have not done in the past. So that if there are matters and business and rules amendments that are passed out of the rules committee, we can hear those amendments and those suggestions, in the formal body to make them formal amendments under Rule 12.”

The resolution reads as follows:

WHEREAS, many people are concerned about the rules process at the Convention Rules Committee;

WHEREAS, Rule 12 allows Rule 1-11 and 13-25 to be amended by a majority vote of the RNC Standing Committee on Rules (“Rules Committee”) and a seventy-five percent (75%) affirmative vote by the members of the RNC; and

WHEREAS, the Standing Committee on Rules of the Republican National Committee has not been constituted and therefore cannot consider proposed amendments under Rule 12 of The Rules of the Republican Party (the “Rules”); therefore, be it

RESOLVED, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee 1) will ask all states to submit their Rules Committee member by March 1 and 2) will call a meeting of the RNC in April of 2013 and conduct a Rules Committee meeting during this meeting for the purpose of considering amendments to Rules 1-11 and 13-25.

However, you should color me skeptical until I see action on these concerns, particularly the high barrier to change required. By my count, it would only take 43 “establishment” Republicans to keep the party rules as they are. (Although 125-43 is an overwhelming consensus, it’s less than 3/4 of the group.) That’s a fairly low hurdle for those who resist change to overcome, and as we saw in the fight for two of Maryland’s three National Committee posts, there is significant inertia in the party which needs to be surmounted. Indeed, some will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this new paradigm which considers the party as a bottom-up rather than top-down structure; something based more on a TEA Party model but with the significant advantage of easier ballot access.

I will caution readers this post is a work in progress. I’ve played phone tag with Nicolee ever since this issue came up, probably because a) she knows I’m passionate about such things, and b) I’m going to hold her and all my other party leaders accountable. But because I’m working on a deadline – one which is self-imposed, but still tight because I have limited free time – I needed to run with this post today. I would encourage Nicolee, Louis Pope, or any of our Maryland Republican leaders to feel free to add their reactions to the comments section, or I can append as needed.

Here comes the judge

Since Ron Paul is getting too old for electoral politics – the soon-to-be-former Texas Congressman and three-time Presidential candidate will be 80 years old before the 2016 election – there is a clamor to select a new standardbearer for what those involved call the liberty movement. One choice is perhaps a curious one, but has the requisite amount of celebrity attached since he is a television personality.

Ron Paul has been the inspiration and mentor of the Liberty Movement for many years, and he always will be.  But now he has stepped aside as the Liberty Movement’s candidate for President of the United States, and he has singled out one person who is capable up picking up his mantel (sic), Judge Andrew Napolitano.  Judge Napolitano is the one person best suited to assume Dr. Paul’s role as presidential contender in the Republican Party and to become the intellectual leader of the Liberty Movement. (Emphasis in original.)

At this point, the drive is simply a petition drive, the success of which is so far unknown since I can’t verify how many have signed without signing it myself. But a Facebook page devoted to the subject has just 168 likes, so the petition numbers are probably in the low three-digits presently.

And how successful could a draft effort be? There’s this historical guide:

Successful presidential drafts are rare but not unheard of. The two most successful modern efforts to draft candidates for the presidency both occurred in the 1952 campaign. There had been an effort within both political parties to draft five-star general Dwight D. Eisenhower to run as a candidate for President as early as 1948 and then again in 1951. Eisenhower studiously ignored both efforts. He was, however, finally compelled to pay attention after Henry Cabot Lodge entered him in the 1952 New Hampshire Republican primary without the general’s authorization. Eisenhower won the entire slate of Republican delegates in the New Hampshire primary without even campaigning. (Emphasis in original.)

The piece on the Revolution PAC website (the parent of the Draft Napolitano site) goes on to point out Democrat Adlai Stevenson was drafted by Democrats disappointed Eisenhower didn’t choose their side.

But could a draft work in 2016?

There are a number of hurdles in place for 2016 that weren’t there in 1952; moreover Eisenhower was a special case due to his popularity and the fact the military was held in high regard as a training ground for office. Troops who admired Eisenhower’s leadership the decade before in World War II were his natural support base.

There’s also the fact that being a judge is rarely a proving ground for a presidency, with the last President to serve as a federal jurist being William Howard Taft. (Taft became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court eight years after his Presidential term expired, but served on a federal appellate court beforehand.) Few have attained office without electoral experience, either – although the aforementioned Eisenhower is an exception.

More importantly, Napolitano would be sponsored by a political wing which exists without a party. Undoubtedly the mainstream Republican party voter looks askance at liberty supporters, preferring instead those who hew closer to the established party line. Given Ron Paul’s lack of success in terms of popular votes, it’s not a large base from which to work; moreover, the adoption of new party rules will make it far more difficult for a non-establishment Republican candidate to succeed.

Nor is there enough of a bloc to support an independent bid – see Ross Perot, 1992.

But the advantage Napolitano has is one of no paper trail. We can’t find fault with the voting record he has, so the only guides we have to his political positioning are his books. Obviously he’s a believer in the original intent of the Constitution, so that’s generally a plus; however, he’s also made known his unconventional approach on same-sex marriage and controversial thoughts on 9-11 which go against the grain and generally accepted narrative.

Still, there is the possibility that a nation may be sick enough of both the liberal excesses of the Obama years and the party politics played on both sides to want a new, fresh face. Then again, the election of Obama was supposed to bring a new, fresh face to the White House and we’ve seen how that works out. And unlike the draft effort we have here in Maryland for a particular potential gubernatorial candidate, the final result could be a polite refusal by the subject at hand.