Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are running one of the better third-party races and that’s the problem. Stop running a third party race. Third parties historically are associated with fringe politics.You on the other hand reflect the big center. Right now you’re fielding endless objections from the left and the right have always leveled at libertarians. Big government from the left and culture from the right. “Have you stopped smoking dope?’ “Without regulations we’ll all choke to death.”  .You’re on the defensive. How do you overcome this? Deflect this line of questioning by just stating a fact evident to everyone, a President Gary Johnson without a single member of congress would have zero ability pass any kind of extreme legislation. The best you could do would be to guide legislation in the direction of smaller leaner government and enhancing personal freedom and advancement. Instead, paint a big picture so people can visualize.your administration as the best and logical choice. You sell a house by encouraging the prospective buyers to see  themselves in it. How this house takes care of their needs. Good schools in the neighborhood, each kid has a bedroom, the great kitchen and family time in the backyard, just visualize.. How do you apply this to this campaign? First layout the problems in dire need of attention. Extraction from costly wars and nation building  while maintaining peace and open trade routes abroad. Getting control of entitlements including Obama care and our debt before they swallow our national budget. Showing how a rational immigration policy would greatly contribute to a solution. Confronting our rising drug problem and bringing education into the 21st century along with sensible tax and regulatory policies returning the US to the top rank of places to do business.all need to be faced.

Continue reading →

Our morning email inviting us to read the latest Washington Post Opinions led us to the erudite Marc A. Thiessen’s  latest column “The Election is a Train Wreck.” In it he cites the erudite Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens’s conclusion that in light of Trumps numerous transgressions one couldn’t possibly vote for him as he “morally unfit for any office, high or low.” Without any challenge to Stephen’s position, Thiessen countered that “That Hillary Clinton is also morally unfit for any  office, high or low’. He likened it the dilemma of seeing speeding train headed bearing down on unsuspecting workers. You could pull a switch lever but that would divert the train onto a relative, ultimately summing up the choice between one set policy and appointment horrors against the another. He especially pointed to the supreme court as his greatest terror. He sums it all up:

Continue reading →

This week we had both Trump and Clinton present their economic plans. Since then we have been inundated with media contrasting and comparing them. We saw it differently. What struck us was how similar the plans were in fact and tone. First of all their shared hostility to trade. Both turned thumbs down on the pending Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement while vowing to upset agreements already in place such as NAFTA. In our series on “More” we pointed out governmental entities can gain “More” in only three ways. 1. Take from someone else  2.Trade for it  3. Innovate. As we have seen, the latter two often go hand in hand.  Before you can talk about how it’s distributed “More” has to exist. If you aren’t creating “More” you are dividing the same old pie with those closest to power grabbing the biggest slices. Without incentive to even maintain, the entity will stagnate or implode. Cuba and Venezuela are just the latest examples. Trade is at the heart of capitalism. Obviously these two have no acquaintance with Adam Smith and David Ricardo. (What do they teach at the Wharton School of Business?).

Both would severely penalize businesses relocating operations beyond our borders. It takes by most estimates more than $100,0000 in invested capital to create the average private sector job. Who would  want to invest in production in the US if like the Hotel California you can check in but never checkout? We’ve historically benefited from foreign investment but this would be an enormous beware sign. The same problem would affect US corporations that hold huge amounts profits overseas that otherwise might take advantage of Trump’s lower Corporate tax rate. The US has already dropped out of the top-tier of countries rated best to do business. This could position us to bring up the rear. How is this a plausible plan to expand employment? Likely it would have the opposite result.

Continue reading →

“I can’t even imagine a third party president. How would he or she operate without any support in congress?” We hear that a lot. In the past we also wondered how this could possibly work. Wouldn’t both establishment parties gang up destroy anything the president proposed? If the Johnson-Weld ticket actually won this could well be the outcome and 4 years would go down the drain without anything accomplished. Maybe the only the only good from it might be the chastened establishment parties putting  up future candidates that don’t make us gag.  That alone would be reason to vote for them. With Johnson-Weld, however, one could imagine a much different outcome. As fiscal conservatives but culturally liberal they could propose much needed legislation that appeals to the opposition parties, just not the same ones.

Let’s take two areas absolutely in need of resolution, entitlements and immigration. If not resolved they will truly damage the nation. Just down the road entitlements will virtually eat the national budget. Anyone looking at the numbers knows this is frighteningly true. Yet Democrats will fight any attempt attempt at reform. Republicans in the house have tried to face up to the problem but the Dems ran ads showing them pushing granny off a cliff. To make matters worse their own presidential candidate mirrors the democrats “no touch” policy. Immigration can’t even be brought up in the Republican House, even though the lack of a cohesive policy is literately tearing the country apart. Consecutive two term Republican and Democrat Presidents failed to move the ball on either nor  is it likely to change if either party wins in ’16. By contrast Johnson-Weld actually favor tackling both and therein lies hope.

Continue reading →

Strange, the idea of supporting the Libertarian Ticket elicits little negative feedback from Democrats. Maybe they’re just unaware of the Libertarian Party or they don’t realize that they take about an equal amount of votes from them. Not so from Republicans. Beyond the “but Hillary is worse” nonsense, they point to Trump’s  policies presented in scripted and teleprompter supported major speeches. On Taxes, energy, healthcare, foreign policy and supreme court justices he appears to be  reasonably inline with longstanding conservative ideas. Even if you have to hold your nose over his numerous disqualifications,if you support these you’ve got to vote for him. We suggest they look a little closer. In every case they reflect well known conservative thinking, just regurgitated by Trump. By taking Steve Moore’s  and Larry Kudlow’s  ideas on taxes,he  gains both credibility and their active support. Same with John Bolton on foreign policy and the Heritage Foundation on the Supreme Court justices. He takes your ideas and you’re flattered and align with him. The bait is set and you and those who believe in you are hooked. Didn’t anyone notice in each area, he later left himself an out to go in entirely different direction? “I’m for lowering taxes but I may raise them, just an opening bid to negotiate with foreign powers, and I may add people to my list of judges later.” He can just change direction when he perceives it to be in his interest or go where he really wanted in the first place. Just wait for the Switch.

For instance,let’s take a realistic look his supporters main pillar,Trump and the Supreme Court.   Trumpsters support their position with the mantra, “Hillary wins and the court will be ultra liberal for decades.”  They may have to toss their principles on everything else but at least they’ll have prevented runaway government. Really? When has Donald Trump ever done anything that wasn’t in his own interest? He changes positions to align with his interests of the moment, even  changing in an amazingly short time. Given his expressed positions, why would he appoint Antonin Scalia type  justices? You can’t get past the 1st amendment without grave apprehension on where Trump would go. He wants to greatly expand the libel laws to prevent  press criticism, threatened the owner of the Washington Post with anti-trust and would impose a religious test on who could enter the US. We’ve seen his lack of respect for the separation of powers when went after the judge in his Trump University fraud cases and mentioned he would be president when the case went to trial. He’s for greatly expanding eminent domain. Sounds like he would appoint judges favoring an expanded view of government and his presidency. Why would he appoint judges that would rule against him? The Trumsters are kidding themselves.

Continue reading →