Miss last night’s show?

Our show last night garnered media attention (Politico / PolitickerKY) yet again.  
Did you miss it?  Listen now!

CLICK HERE

Kotecki, Shuster to battle on Weekly Filibuster this Wednesday

Join us Wednesday at 10PM EST as MSNBC’s David Shuster and Politico.com’s James Kotecki bring their feud to our airwaves and duke it out on The Weekly Filibuster!  We’ll also talk to Mr. Kotecki about the current political landscape.  Live @ 10PM EST at www.WeeklyFilibuster.com.

Tonight’s Link for the Conclusion of the Sonny Landham Controversy!

To listen live starting at 10 PM, click here.

Sonny Landham and Sean Haugh, political director of the national Libertarian Party, will be with us live. We will be taking your calls at (347) 205-9993.

TONIGHT: Sonny Landham / LP Political Director Sean Haugh

Tonight at 10pm EST, we’ll have a special Monday edition of “The Weekly Filibuster”. Sonny Landham himself will join us to give his first reaction to the Kentucky LP’s decision. Also, to comment on the Sonny Landham controversy and his party’s slow response will be Libertarian Party Political Director Sean Haugh. Check back here at 10pm to listen to the show live.

PolitickerKY’s political cartoon for the day:

Missed Sunday’s Show?

Catch up what on our conversations wit Ken Molleman, Rick Noriega, and more here.

Rick Noriega Joins Us Tonight

Rep. Rick Noriega, Texas Democratic Nominee for US Senate

Join us tonight at 10:00PM EST as we talk to Rick Noriega, the Lone Star State nominee for United States Senate.  Log on to WeeklyFilibuster.com at 10:00PM EST to listen live.

Media Call with Ken Molleman, KYLP

The Kentucky Libertarian Party’s executive committee had a conference call this afternoon regarding national media attention over appearances by their nominee for US Senate, Sonny Landham.

Ken Molleman, Chair for the KYLP participated in a media call hosted by The Weekly Filibuster. Select members of the media were invited to participate in the call.

You can download the .mp3 file here. Media stations are free to use clips or the interview in its entirety and should quote The Weekly Filibuster (Radio Show) – WeeklyFilibuster.com.

We’ll play the interview tomorrow night during a special extended edition of The Weekly Filibuster.

Sonny Landham Returns

Our interview Wednesday with Sonny Landham made headlines on Kentucky television and in print across the United States.

Sonny returned Friday night for a FULL 90 MINUTES to take on critics, the media, and the Arab-American community. Listen here!

Our Talk With Dennis Shulman & Sonny Landham

Our talk with Kentucky Libertarian Senate Candidate Sonny Landham has been making some news today, so make sure to hear the entire interview here (it starts about forty-one minutes in). We also spoke with New Jersey Democratic Congressional Candidate Dennis Shulman.

We’ve got the entire rushed transcript of our exclusive radio interview with Sonny Landham, in the rest of this post.

Social Conservatism Cannot Come From Government Intervention

I am a social conservative. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman until death do them part. I believe that contraception is wrong, and that all sex outside of marriage, including pornography, masturbation, and premarital sex, is immoral. I believe that parents have a duty to raise their kids according to accepted social norms. I believe that God, not our human nature or anything else, is the sole source of our rights. I believe that the Church is the legitimate authority on moral matters. I believe that the traditional family is the most stable, healthy environment for people to bond together. I believe that burning your country’s flag is a sick act. I believe that disrespecting my religion’s central tenets, images, and authorities is patently offensive.

And I believe that using the government to enforce any of these beliefs is a gross abuse of the role of civil authority. That is why I will vote for same sex marriage should it ever appear on a ballot in my state, something I hope for. That is why I will stare on in amazement at the FCC for refusing to let parents alone decide what is appropriate for their children to watch. That is why I do not support DCF showing up in the middle of the night to take your kids simply because you are… uncouth in your lifestyle (Texas polygamists come to mind). That is why I fully embrace the First Amendment and the separation of church and state in America. That is why I will be mortified should the Constitution ever be amended to define marriage or prevent physical desecration to the flag. That is why I support your right to insult and blaspheme my faith however you please.

I will tolerate your actions so long as you do not harm other people or the society we share. I will love you as a person regardless of anything. It is not me that will succeed in changing the way you view the world. My role is to do the best I can to respect you as a human being and care for you, setting your actions aside and getting to know you as a person, gay, straight, single, hooking up, Christian, militant atheist, patriot, nationalist, or whatever else you choose to do.

Social conservatives do themselves and their causes a great injustice by seeking to politicize everything they find and seeking to criminalize the behavior of others. This is not the way that we are taught to bear witness to our choices as evidenced by Jesus, Gandhi, or whoever else we listen to. There is a reason that the prophets do not preach to the king. It is the people we must convince. To do this, we must show tolerance. Seeking to bring the forces of government to bear against people who live differently than us is more than just a poor choice of tactics: it is a contradiction of the very message we believe in.

We believe that there are laws regarding human conduct that transcend humanity itself. Why, then, do we insist that the government step in and side with us in our battles? Let others do what they please. Get to know them and interact with them. Do not try to use coercion to bring them into line with our ways. Be upright in your own ways. Be lights on posts, cities on hills. Do not be intolerant of others, but cherish them and, without saying a proselytizing or self-righteous word, bear constant witness to life that points to something greater than itself.

All too often, the people who drive people away from tradition are the very ones who preach the loudest about the need for social restraint. How many conservative pastors need to be arrested for money laundering before we get the point? How many conservative politicians need to fall from grace committing deplorable sexual acts before we understand?

We believe in what we believe in. If we live it truthfully, we have to have faith that we will be justified and respected, regardless of the laws of men.

It may sound cliche thanks to others who use it, but if you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t get one. Do not try to convince others of the correctness and benefit of our beliefs at the bars of a jail cell, the denial of a piece of legal paper, or a microphone silenced.

Tolerance and compassionate coexistence are the only ways social conservatives are going to accomplish anything in this world.

Green Party Roundup

The Green Party nominated two smart, principaled, and dynamic women of color for its presidential ticket this weekend: Cynthia McKinney and Rose Clemente. Take a look at Brenda Konkel’s “Faces Of The Green Party“, and find your state.

Another interesting caveot: McKinney was a congresswoman from Georgia. Between her candidacy and Barr’s, it will be interesting to watch which way the state of Georgia goes in November.

Ask A Conservative Panelist

Matt: Why do the majority of poor counties in America vote Republican, and against their own economic interests? (Liberal Bias Italicized)

His response:

Either a) poor people, especially poor whites in the rural South, are stupid or b) poor people believe that economic growth is the best way to fight poverty and do not want government handouts.

Isn’t it amazing that the party of lawyers and academics who propose fanciful, government-run solutions to health care, education, welfare, job creation, low-income assistance, farm aid, and everything else under the sun cannot beat a party of preachers, doctors, and businessmen in America’s poorest counties?

A lot of people who have been on Medicare and lived in subsidized housing realize how awful of a state it tends to be in, and would hardly wish that federal programs become the primary means of welfare in this country. Many others may indeed have started working as a result of welfare reform in the 1990’s and may truly appreciate the dignity that comes from self-sustenance. Many of the working poor could also use a tax break, to be honest. Some might even want a business-friendly atmosphere so that they can become entrepreneurs of their own and rise up out of poverty.

Others are drawn by the GOP’s social and foreign policy stances, as many are quite deeply religious and do not believe that illegal immigration can keep up at the pace it’s been going without even less opportunities for people to get by.

The next time a Democrat whips out classism and accuses a Republican of serving the rich, ask yourself this: do Republicans support taxing one third of the average American’s income? Do Republicans support sending billions of dollars in tax money abroad when Americans are starving? Do Republicans support regulating job creators out of business? Do Republicans support more expensive and ineffective social programs?

Or do Republicans stand for a pro-business, small-government, pro-charity America where jobs exist and services are good?

Your thoughts?

Maureen Dowd’s Bumper

Looks like the infamous New York Time’s columnist will have to remove the “Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Hand Basket?” bumper sticker from her Prius, as per a newly released Times memo:

They may not wear campaign buttons or themselves display any other insignia of partisan politics. They should recognize that a bumper sticker on the family car or a campaign sign on the lawn may be misread as theirs, no matter who in their household actually placed the sticker or the sign.

But seriously, what do you think Maureen Dowd drives? Does she take the Metro?

The Detroit Free Press On The Youth Vote

Editorial Page editor Ron Dzwonkowski:

“It’s an odd thing, really, how so many in the generation that fights the wars take a pass on picking the people who start them. The generation that will be paying taxes for the most years abdicates on selecting the authors of tax policy. The kids who will be stuck with the bills don’t seem to care who runs them up … They may say the candidates never “connected with them.” Well, of course not. Candidates prefer connecting with people who vote. That’s why they work the senior centers instead of the gaming arcades and night clubs.”

As one of the young people Ron Dzwonkowski suggests doesn’t vote, it’s always disheartening to see the same tired meme of youth apathy constantly recycled. The problem hasn’t been that young people aren’t engaged in presidential elections, it’s that the choices previously offered were consistently disappointing. Another old white guy? And for many young people, myself included, George Bush has been our introduction to the presidency. The young are about idealism, which can be easily deflated by a politician winning on the crest of a strategy meant to bring out fear. Young people have finally found a candidate that inspires, excites, and engages them: Barack Obama. Everywhere I go, young voters are enthusiastic. This year will be one in which we see a massive increase in youth voting, and those who take our votes seriously. If there ever was a year for things to change, it’s 2008.

On The “New Yorker” Cover

At first glance, I would have confused this for a cover of “National Review”. Take a look at the image that’s bound to get some considerable cable buzz today:

Shouldn’t the McCain campaign be most worried about this? If they let a vote against Obama become a vote for bigotry, they’ve lost. This cover advances that meme. It’s also suprising to see most of the more vile comments this cycle coming from the left: Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson.

Vetting The Veeps: Mike Huckabee

DC is buzzing with speculation over who Barack Obama and John McCain will choose to be their prospective Vice President. Each day the panel gives their thoughts on potential candidates, and rates them on a scale of 1-100 (100 being if Jesus or MLK joined the ticket). Based on the scores, we’ll have the Weekly Filibuster’s choices for VP in the coming weeks.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee:

Ben Goodman:

Pro – Religious conservatives are not the “hot demographic” in 2008, but John McCain will need to try and keep them from voting for someone like Bob Barr or Gene Amondson. He’s a seemingly straight talker that could do well in a debate against Hillary Clinton.

Con – It’s the economy, stupid.

The Veep Value: 45

Joshua Lambert:

Pro – McCain is just moderate enough so that he won’t have to worry about losing the center votes to Obama so he needs someone that’s fairly far to the right to bring back the conservatives that hate him. Huckabee would do just that and ensure that the Libertarian party isn’t a spoiler for the Republicans in 2008. He’ll unite the party a little bit more.

Con – He is uber conservative which might alienate the moderate votes that McCain is hoping to carry. And plus, he made himself look like a bit of a fool with this ad:

The Veep Value: 45

Conservatism in a Nutshell

Vox Nova posted this gem a while back:

“[Edmund] Burke is the father of modern conservatism, and still its wisest oracle. Tradition-minded but (contrary to stereotype) far from reactionary, he believed in balancing individual rights with social order. The best way to do that, for Burke, was by respecting long-standing customs and institutions while advancing toward liberty and equality. Society’s traditions, after all, embody an evolved collective wisdom that even (or especially) the smartest of individuals cannot hope to understand comprehensively, much less reinvent successfully. The Burkean outlook takes individual rights seriously, and understands that civic order serves no purpose if its result is oppression or misery. It also understands that social stability, far from being endangered by institutional change, positively depends upon it. Burkeans no more believe in a golden past than they do in a perfect future. For them, the question is not whether society should change, but how. Burke himself was an advocate of change; he sympathized with the American revolution (while famously denouncing the much more radical French one), proposed curtailing the slave trade, and fought tirelessly to reform the corrupt and monopolistic British East India Company. But he believed change should take a measured pace and should try to follow well-work social grooves rather than cutting across them. Above all, he abhorred utopian reformers, who, by disdaining real-world constraints and overestimating their own intelligence, invariably worsen what they seek to improve.”

Miss Sunday’s Show?

Click here to listen to our interview with Mike Gravel and Joe Lauria about their new book Political Odyssey, and our talk with Gregory Levey about his book Shut Up, I’m Talking.

Tonight

Join us tonight at 10PM EST for a 90-minute edition of The Weekly Filibuster. Salon’s Gregory Levey will join us to talk about his new book, Shut Up, I’m Talking.  Mike Gravel returns for a full hour to talk, alongside his co-author Joe Lauria of The Huffington Post, about the the latest news and his new book, A Political Odyssey.

Utopia Kills: Reflections on The Communist Manifesto

I finished reading The Communist Manifesto for the first time this afternoon. Marx’s ideas are certainly interesting. The vision of a world free of class, where every person is free to explore their potential and is unbounded by cruel prejudice and oppressive conventions is certainly appealing at first glance. Karl Marx finds a world very fraught with inequality and explotation, certainly not entirely alien to reality at the height of the Gilded Age.

Reading the scriptures of communism made me reflect on the teaching of Jesus that we are to judge a tree by its fruit. What is the outcome of communism? Is it the fruits of a free, humane society that actually serves people, not capital? Hardly.

Like any other ideology, the promises of utopia awaiting at the end are intoxicating. They are so intoxicating that people are willing to go to any lengths in order to make the perfect society. Every ideology breaks down the world into simple segments, some of which stand in the way of utopia. For fascism, it is the outcast or the minority. For neoconservatism, it is foreign dictatorship. For radical Islam, it is the Great Satan of global superpowers. For communism, it is the rich.

Given the utopias promised by each of these ideologies, how could the people reasonably not go to any lengths to bring them about? After all, what is the price of some human lives, some freedoms for the time, and a few more wars before an eternal age of liberté, egalité and fraternité for humanity?

It is this kind of obsessive, single-minded logic that strikes paranoia into the heart of the ideologue. Since utopia is not yet here, there must be someone standing in the way. Of course, that someone will always exist, because the dreams of utopia will not be fulfilled. It is this brutal fact of reality that has led to the kind of irrational paranoia that, rather than being coincidental, is consequential to the ideological mind.

The best sign that an ideology has grasped the mind of a man is the moment he feels threatened by the defenseless. Vladimir Lenin felt threatened by the czar’s thirteen year-old son and ordered him shot dead. Osama bin Laden felt threatened by 3,000 middle- and working-class New Yorkers and sent a plane to demolish them. Adolf Hitler’s regime felt threatened by a young diarist named Anne Frank and killed her in the death camps. President Bush felt threatened by an AP photojournalist and had him held at Guantanamo Bay without charges for several years.

Karl Marx is no better than any of these men, and communism no more humane than any other ideology. It wraps its promises and visions up in reason expressed by theories of the intellect, not in faith expressed by love of the heart.

As Flannery O’Connor so poignantly warned Christians, “In the absence of this faith now, we govern by tenderness. It is a tenderness which, long since cut off from the person of Christ, is wrapped in theory. When tenderness is detached from the source of tenderness, its logical outcome is terror. It ends in forced labor camps and in the fumes of the gas chamber.”

Happy Fourth Of July

Everyone on the Weekly Filibuster crew hopes your 4th of July was filled with as much family, fireworks, and love of country as ours was. Here’s to America.

Memo to Arianna: You’re wrong.

Memo to Arianna: You’re wrong

On Monday, Arianna Huffington suggested (Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers) that Barack Obama’s apparent move to the center could cost him dearly come November.

The Obama brand has always been about inspiration, a new kind of politics, the audacity of hope, and “change we can believe in.” I like that brand. More importantly, voters — especially unlikely voters — like that brand.

 Pulling it off the shelf and replacing it with a political product geared to pleasing America’s vacillating swing voters — the ones who will be most susceptible to the fear-mongering avalanche that has already begun — would be a fatal blunder.

I beg to differ. I disagree with the notion that Senator Obama’s alleged policy shift on issues like Iraq and FISA is enough to alienate liberal base, who has stood with Senator Obama through the longest presidential primary season to date. After all, it’s been fifteen months after all, since Obama declared, and nineteen since the first major candidate to jump in (and drop out), Tom Vilsack announced his candidacy.

Frankly, I don’t see this tremendous shift. Today, Obama said that his upcoming trip to Iraq could cause him to “refine” his policy. Obama’s been pretty consistent all along. Take this March 2 Washington Post Q&A with Obama:

Q. In implementing your plan to immediately begin withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq and to complete the process within 16 months, what weight will you give to the counsel of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] commander, the combatant commander on the ground in Iraq and current intelligence chiefs on the ground in Iraq regarding an immediate phased withdrawal?_

A. I will give their counsel great weight. But, as commander in chief, it is my responsibility to make my own assessment of the situation. We must send a clear signal to the Iraqi political leadership that we are leaving Iraq on a timeline. Doing so will put pressure on those leaders to begin to resolve the political impasse at the heart of this civil war.

But I also want to be clear about another thing. I am worried our Army is overstretched and that we have asked an awful lot from our military families. Many in our senior military leadership are worried about a plan that will keep 130,000 troops on the ground in Iraq for the foreseeable future. So, as commander in chief, I will also have to take into consideration the counsel of other senior military leaders who may be concerned that Iraq is undercutting our ability to confront other security challenges.

I’m not suggesting that Senator Obama should abandon his ideals and run in the center, as Ms. Huffington suggests he is. I’m simply suggesting that he hasn’t.

Before Senator Obama can cruise to victory in November with an exciting coalition of Democratic, Republican, and Independent voters, he must bring a united party. That includes the 20% of Hillary Clinton voters who say they will vote for McCain.

Cross-posted at BenjaminGoodman.com

Vetting The Veeps: Kathleen Sebelius

DC is buzzing with speculation over who Barack Obama and John McCain will choose to be their prospective Vice President. Each day the panel gives their thoughts on potential candidates, and rates them on a scale of 1-100 (100 being if Jesus or MLK joined the ticket). Based on the scores, we’ll have the Weekly Filibuster’s choices for VP in the coming weeks.

We start today with Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius:

Robert Bowen:

Pro - She’s a fairly liberal governor of a conservative state. Sam Brownback anyone? She clearly knows how to speak to moderates and average, blue-collar Americans that Obama has struggled with. She might make Missouri closer but I don’t see Obama winning there.

Con - Did anyone see her rebuttal to the State-of-the-Union? She is one of the most boring and uninspiring speakers I have ever heard. This is in addition to the fact that she’ll lose her home state (the polls from that will be embarassing to the campaign in the last few weeks). It will also do nothing to unite the party because moderates who supported Clinton will be pissed that they picked her and not Clinton. That will be true no matter who Obama picks, but especially if she picks another woman. Furthermore, she has no supporters nationally. I honestly don’t think she changes the electoral math at all (not the sign of a good VP candidate).

The Veep Value: 38

Matt Cavedon:

Pro - As a white woman governor of a red agricultural states, she could help get Clintonistas back in line behind Obama. She is known as a moderate, and is well-liked by independents and moderate Republicans, meaning she could bring Missouri, Iowa, possibly Kansas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin into Obama’s column.

Con - She brings absolutely nothing by way of extensive federal experience or foreign policy expertise to Obama’s campaign. Given that she is a socially and economically liberal governor of a moderate state, that doesn’t mean she can do anything in the highly-populated industrial and military swing states that will determine the election.

The Veep Value: 65

Ben Goodman:

Pro -  She’s white. She’s female. She brings executive experience as a governor of a red state, and could help secure a state like Iowa and help in Missouri.

Con - If Barack Obama is going to pick a woman, it needs to be Hillary Clinton. HRC supporters will see a Sebelius addition as a slap in the face. She’s not even likely to net her home state of Kansas.

The Veep Value: 53

Tom Dec:

Pro - Woman. White. Bi-partisan attitude/appeal.

Con - She won’t win any states – I think Barack Obama can win MO and IA without her – and I agree with Ben that if it is a woman it must be Hillary. She would be a poor choice.

The Veep Value: 42

Josh Lambert:

Pro - White woman.

Con - Who is she again? That’s what people will be asking. She’s a no namer everywhere but her state and outside the realm of political intellectuals, no one else has really heard of her.

The Veep Value: 39

Overall: 46.4

Obstinately Pro-life from Conception to Natural Death

Albert Camus, an ex-Communist and staunch opponent of the death penalty, certainly had his own experience in mind when he put the words below into the mouth of Tarrou in The Plague. It is well worth remembering that today, supporters of the death penalty cannot bear to see chemicals stop the beating heart of a man lying helpless on a gurney. Supporters of war cannot bear to see cluster bomb shrapnel tear apart the lungs of men no older than their own sons. Supporters of abortion cannot bear to see scissors tear apart the limbs of a fetus.

How is it that we have learned to shout out the ideals “Justice!”, “Peace!”, and “Freedom!” over the screams of the dying? How do we care more about theoretical, abstract concepts than human persons? Like Tarrou, “I chose to be blindly obstinate, pending the day when I could see my way more clearly.”

From The Plague, by Albert Camus:

“Have you ever seen a man shot by a firing squad? No, of course not; the spectators are hand-picked and it’s like a private party, you need an invitation. The result is that you’ve gleaned your ideas about it from books and pictures. A post, a blindfolded man, some soldiers in the offing. But the real isn’t a bit like that. Do you know that the firing-squad stands only a yard and a half from the condemned man? Do you know that if the victim took two steps forward his chest would touch the rifles? Do you know that, at this short range, the soldiers concentrate their fire on the region of the heart and their big bullets make a hole into which you could thrust your fist? No, you didn’t know all that; those are things that are never spoken of… Decent folks must be allowed to sleep easy o’ nights, mustn’t they?…

…When I spoke of these matters they told me not to be so squeamish; I should remember what great issues were at stake. And they advanced arguments, often quite impressive ones, to make me swallow what none the less I couldn’t bring myself to stomach. I replied that the most eminent of the plague-stricken, the men who wear red robes, also have excellent arguments to justify what they do, and once I admitted the arguments of necessity and force majeure put forward by the less eminent, I couldn’t reject those of the eminent…

In any case, my concern was not with arguments. It was with the poor ‘owl’; with that foul procedure whereby dirty mouths stinking of plague told a fettered man that he was going to die, and scientifically arranged things so that he should die, after nights and nights of mental torture while he waited to be murdered in cold blood. My concern was with that hole, big as a fist, in a man’s chest. And I told myself that meanwhile, so far anyhow as I was concerned, nothing in the world would induce me to accept any argument that justified such butcheries. Yes, I chose to be blindly obstinate, pending the day when I could see my way more clearly.”

Vetting The Veeps: Bobby Jindal

DC is buzzing with speculation over who Barack Obama and John McCain will choose to be their prospective Vice President. Each day the panel gives their thoughts on potential candidates, and rates them on a scale of 1-100 (100 being if Jesus or MLK joined the ticket). Based on the scores, we’ll have the Weekly Filibuster’s choices for VP in the coming weeks.

We start today with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal:

Matt Cavedon:

Pro - He is a hardcore religious guy who will get the Southerners out to vote against abortion and homosexuality in favor of guns and, well, Southerners. Much though I’m guessing many Indians are Democrats, the simple fact that he’s on the ticket could also pull out a good number of Indians to the polls. They seem pretty untapped right now.

Con - He’s really young, highlighting McCain’s… maturity, and he’s not a businessman. Besides, the odds of McCain losing the South to BARACK OBAMA are slim to none.

The Veep Value: 45

Tom Dec:

Pro - Yes, he would help in that he will provide a refreshing breath of air to the white, old, conservatives that inhabit the Republican Party. He could potentially help to offset Obama’s advantage in terms of identity politics, and he would help win some of the conservatives that John McCain has had problems with.

Con - He would be a terrible pick because he is TOO young (only one year older than the constitutional limit) and would highlight McCain’s age, he doesn’t necessarily bring any economic credentials to the table, and I doubt he will help to really carry any extra states for the ticket.

The Veep Value: 39

Overall: 42