Author: Matt Browner Hamlin

http://holdfastblog.com

Once more on Paul and Greenwald

Tim Wise is one of the most dynamic and smart anti-racism theorists out there. I deeply respect his work, which is why I have a lot of trouble with his latest post, going after Glenn Greenwald and others on the liberal side of the aisle for discussing the positive aspects of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign.

Wise frames his piece by describing an anti-war, anti-Wall Street national politician who also has problematic views about race. While many people familiar with the Ron Paul debate would assume that’s who Wise is describing, Wise reveals he’s actually been talking about David Duke all along. Wise sees this point as a striking victory against liberals who think Ron Paul’s policies on war and peace, civil liberties, and torture are laudable.

Yes, that David Duke: former head of the nation’s largest Ku Klux Klan group and lifelong neo-Nazi, who once said Jews should go into the ashbin of history, and that it would be possible to do what Hitler did, even in America, if white supremacists could just “put the right package together.”

But ya know that whole racist thing doesn’t matter, right? Because he’s against wiretapping.

Make no mistake, Wise offers up truly devastating arguments against the straw men he’s set up to deconstruct. The problem is, no one of any note, particularly not Glenn Greenwald, have taken the positions that Wise is arguing against.

First, the relevance of Ron Paul as a foil to current American policies regarding who we go to war with, who we drop bombs on, who we imprison and torture indefinitely, who we spy on and who we throw in jail is not that he opposes current US policies in these areas. No, Paul’s relevance is that as a candidate for President, he is talking about them and influencing national debate through the microphone afforded by his candidacy.

David Duke, on the other hand, is not a presidential candidate. It’s not as if the liberals discussing Paul set out to proactively find a racist, homophobic politician who wants to destroy social services but is good on civil liberties and ended up landing on Ron Paul arbitrarily. Ron Paul is relevant because of his candidacy. David Duke is no more relevant in the context of these policies than Cornel West or Rachel Maddow. This is not about a search for a dream presidential candidate, it’s about looking at what the existing presidential candidates are saying and assessing them accordingly. To wit, Jon Huntsman wants to break up the too big to fail banks, investigate robosigning, and punish banks for foreclosure fraud. Huntsman is wrong on lots of other issues, but his stance as it relates to Wall Street is notably to the left of not only his Republican opponents, but President Obama. This has been observed by many of the people who are favorably discussing aspects of Ron Paul’s candidacy (see Matt Stoller at Naked Capitalism for one example).

The other relevant point is the continued insistence by critics of those on the left who say good things about parts of Ron Paul’s platform that such criticism is tantamount to endorsing Ron Paul for President. Wise unfortunately falls squarely in the absolutist camp here too:

And please, Glenn Greenwald, spare me the tired shtick about how Paul “raises important issues” that no one on the left is raising, and so even though you’re not endorsing him, it is still helpful to a progressive narrative that his voice be heard. Bullshit. The stronger Paul gets the stronger Paul gets, period. And the stronger Paul gets, the stronger libertarianism gets, and thus, the Libertarian Party as a potential third party: not the Greens, mind you, but the Libertarians. And the stronger Paul gets, the stronger become those voices who worship the free market as though it were an invisible fairy godparent, capable of dispensing all good things to all comers — people like Paul Ryan, for instance, or Scott Walker. In a nation where the dominant narrative has long been anti-tax, anti-regulation, poor-people-bashing and God-bless-capitalism, it would be precisely those aspects of Paul’s ideological grab bag that would become more prominent. And if you don’t know that, you are a fool of such Herculean proportions as to suggest that Salon might wish to consider administering some kind of political-movement-related-cognitive skills test for its columnists, and the setting of a minimum cutoff score, below which you would, for this one stroke of asininity alone, most assuredly fall.

Obviously this is just getting nasty at this point. Like many critics of Greenwald, Wise is setting out his own boundaries for what acceptable debate for liberals is and isn’t shy about refereeing the boundary lines. Saying anything nice about any Republican, let alone a libertarian with crazy followers, is tantamount to being one of those crazies. The lack of willingness to discuss the issues at hand is truly startling. It’s almost as if this is an area where honest debate and honest listening is impossible.

What’s most frustrating, again, is that the discussion Greenwald and Stoller are trying to have is about real policies held by real presidential candidates. Neither have endorsed Paul. They’re discussing what is actually happening now and the policy debate that these candidacies raise. The scorn which is thrown their way is monumental and a sign of the incapacity of some people to actually listen to what’s being written.

Wise closes with a rejoinder that if you’re not happy with Obama, it’s because the left has insufficiently organized to produce good results. Presumably this is meant to inoculate the President from criticism from the left, as it’s all our fault that he’s using drones to kill children in Pakistan and Afghanistan or start wars without congressional approval in North Africa.  While I certainly agree that progressives and populists need to be in the street creating change through organizing and through protest, I’m not sure what Wise thinks these critics of Obama are responding to. Greenwald and Stoller and many others who are discussing aspects of Paul were some of the earliest and strongest supporters of Occupy Wall Street, as well as some of the most consistent advocates for continued resistance to American policies of indefinite detention, surveillance, and war — policies which were widely protested when Bush did them, but are now only rarely organized against by the left as there is a Democrat in the White House. That is, the people Wise thinks he is attacking are the ones who have been consistently doing exactly what he is urging them to do.

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. I don’t support Ron Paul’s candidacy. I won’t vote for him or any other Republican. But with no primary challenger to the President raising questions about American policies of war and peace, civil liberties, the rule of law or drug policy, I’m glad that Ron Paul is raising these issues. It’s a stain on American liberalism that we are in a position where the purported political party of the left is getting out-shined by a racist, homophobic radical on values that should be core to liberalism. In a dream world, someone like Cornel West or Rachel Maddow or Stephen Lerner or any number of truly liberal figures would be running for President and could be raising these issues. But that’s not the world we live in, any more than the one where David Duke is currently a candidate is.

Major offensive on Romney and Bain Capital

The half-hour documentary on Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, When Mitt Romney Came To Town, is a huge story this week. Watch it – it’s devastating and the interviews of workers who lost their jobs after Romney’s Bain came in and broke their companies are heart-breaking.

“When Mitt Romney Came To Town” is the product of a pro-Newt Gingrich Super PAC, but both Gingrich and Rick Perry have been hammering Romney over his job-destroying ways at Bain for a while now. What’s incredible to watch is two 1%-coddling politicians adopt the rhetoric of the Occupy Wall Street movement to wage attacks on Romney. What’s even more incredible is to watch these attacks explode the internal contradictions of the Republican Party.

On the one hand, you have Fox News’ Eric Bolling treat accusations against Romney and Bain as an attack on capitalism itself. Rush Limbaugh has likened Gingrich to Fidel Castro for his attacks. Likewise the right wing US Chamber of Commerce is calling for a halt to attacks on private equity. On the other hand, conservative icon Bill Kristol has criticized those reflexing defending Bain and Romney as “silly“. You even have Sarah Palin saying Romney should back up his claims that he created a 100,000 jobs in his tenure at Bain.

What’s most remarkable, though, is that this debate isn’t happening at Occupy encampments, but on Fox News and The Weekly Standard (well, presumably folks at Occupy are talking about the destructive thievery of Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital). I don’t think any of us knew that the GOP had this sort of rhetoric in it! The reality is, of course, that they don’t. This is pure politics, as Robert Reich notes, otherwise Gingrich and Romney would be making some sort of prescription of how they would stop the newly-discovered evils of private equity and Wall Street greed. Reich writes:

Is Newt proposing to ban leveraged buyouts? Or limit the amount of debt a company can take on? Or prevent financiers – or even CEOs and management teams – from taking a public company private and then reselling it to the public at a higher price?

None of the above.

Rick Perry criticizes Romney and Bain pushing the quest for profits too far. “There is nothing wrong with being successful and making money,” says Perry. “But getting rich off failure and sticking someone else with the bill is indefensible.”

Yet getting rich off failure and sticking someone else with the bill is what Wall Street financiers try to do every day. It’s called speculation – and at least since the demise of the Glass-Steagall Act, investment bankers have been allowed to gamble with commercial bank deposits, other people’s money.

So is Perry proposing to resurrect Glass-Steagall? Not a chance.

This is politics, plain and simple. Romney’s opponents are making a last, desperate plea to knock him off of the winner’s podium. Had they made this case for the better part of the last year and had they backed it up with prescriptions to stop companies like Bain Capital from committing these crimes against American workers, they may have even succeeded in defeating Romney. While it’s certainly possible that these attacks can gain traction against Romney, neither Gingrich nor Perry are credible messengers. Reich concludes that, “the only serious question here is what kind of serious reforms Obama will propose when, assuming Romney becomes the Republican nominee, Obama also criticizes Bain Capitalism.” I think that’s right, though it remains to be seen if Obama splits off the path being set by faux populists Gingrich and Perry.

Killing Iranian Scientists Is Terrorism

Like Atrios, I have no idea who is assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists. Odds are that it’s the US or Israel or both. But this is unquestionably terrorism.

Advocating for the murder of civilians, as Glenn Reynolds did in the Bush years and Rick Santorum is doing now is clearly sick. But actually perpetrating these attacks is criminal, whether it’s being done by the US, Israel, or some non-state agent.

I’m not so naive as to think extra-judicial means of affecting foreign policy is new to the US or any other government. We’ve been assassinating people we don’t like for years. As bad as doing this in the context of de-stabilizing leftist governments in Central and South America during the Cold War, doing it in an era where terrorism is routinely declared as the Greatest Evil Facing Americans is worse. We are trapped in our dishonest rhetoric, staring into a mirror but seeing nothing. Rank hypocrisy is a dangerous thing when it comes to war and peace. In the same way that we must oppose the torture of prisoners not only because it is wrong, but because it removes such protections for Americans when they are prisoners of war, we should not be assassinating civilians because it is both wrong and it would be much better if this wasn’t represented as an appropriate policy choice for other governments of the world when it comes to Americans!

I’ll make recourse to one more America-privileging argument before I close. One of the biggest challenges from progressives against the Bush administration was that policies like lying us into war in Iraq, killing countless civilians in Afghanistan, or kidnapping, torturing and detaining innocent people without due process were policies which make America and Americans less safe. The Bush administration’s persecution of a War on Terrorism made America less popular in the Muslim world, created terrorists with every misplaced bomb, and alienated us from our allies around the globe. In the same way, a policy of assassinating civilians in another country inherently makes America less safe, as it could make American civilians and government officials similar targets to assassination. Why would anyone support policies which, separate from any moral assessment, make us less safe?

Killing civilians is wrong. Always. This really isn’t hard, people.

Ron Paul emerging as Anti-Romney

Cross-posted from AMERICAblog Elections: The Right’s Field

NH Results:

Mitt Romney 39.4% (94,255)
Ron Paul: 22.8% (54,513)
Jon Huntsman: 16.9% (40,388)

Newt Gingrich: 9.4% (22,518)
Rick Santorum: 9.3% (22,293)
Rick Perry: 0.7% (1,688)

A few thoughts…

Attention reporters: Mitt Romney is not the first Republican non-incumbent to win Iowa and New Hampshire, as Romney neither got the most votes in Iowa (Rick Santorum did) nor did he get the most delegates (Ron Paul did). Please stop saying Romney won Iowa! Of course, part of the reason this is happening is Rick Santorum waited way to long to give his victory speech and this allowed what would have been the story of the Santorum upset become a story of Romney eeking it out.

The Santorum Surge is over. Santorum made a huge mistake trying to compete in New Hampshire, where a Romney victory was always clear and where Huntsman had already taken up residence. Now Santorum is in the tough spot of trying to ride momentum that no longer exists into a state where all the Anti-Romney’s will be fighting for survival.

As Ari Melber notes, Ron Paul is showing to be incredibly strong across a wide range of Republican and independent constituencies. Noting Paul outperformed the field with lower-income voters and McCain voters, Melber writes:

Yet Paul’s opponents are strong opponents, the thinking goes, so he would not be accepted by the rest of Republicans. But is that true? You’d have to ask them. The exit pollsters did, and overall, regardless of personal preference, more voters said they would be “satisfied” with a Paul nomination than Gingrich or Santorum. Now, that could reflect some ignorance about Paul’s record and ideas, but if the press is going to cover the strength of Paul’s campaign on earth, and not its hypothetical vulnerabilities, then it’s time to report the reality of his wide appeal in this race so far.

This raises the fundamental dynamic of the race at this point. Clearly Mitt Romney is the front-runner. There has been a lot of competition for the spot of Anti-Romney, but no clear winner. Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, and Cain have all been competing for the job of Anti-Romney, under the presumption that if there was conservative unification around an Anti-Romney, that person could defeat Romney for the nomination.

To this point, it’s looked like Ron Paul existed as someone outside of the Anti-Romney race as his own creature without strong overlap into more traditional parts of the Republican base. But the results of Iowa and New Hampshire belie this. Ron Paul is showing strong and he could actually coalesce support as the Anti-Romney, at least if politicians and pundits look at what voters are saying. Paul would have to start getting support from people like Gingrich, Santorum and Perry for him to have a shot at this. Frankly I don’t see that happening.

South Carolina will be interesting in that it could be the last chance for an Anti-Romney to emerge. That should lead Gingrich, Santorum and Perry to go hard after Mitt. But if Ron Paul performs another strong second, it’s hard to not see the writing on the wall of him as the real Anti-Romney in the race.

In the end it looks most likely that Romney will be the Republican nominee not because it was his turn or because he was the most popular candidate, but that the conservative base was fractured across multiple Anti-Romneys who couldn’t get it together to unite behind one person to defeat Romney.

Cross-posted from AMERICAblog Elections: The Right’s Field

Shocker – more bad developments in AG settlement talks

Via Yves Smith, Financial Times is reporting new developments in the talks between the nation’s five largest banks, 40+ state Attorneys General, and the Obama administration around robosigning and foreclosure fraud. Not so shockingly, the news isn’t good:

Investors in US home mortgage bonds may have to swallow losses as part of a wide-ranging settlement being discussed between leading banks and the Obama administration to resolve allegations of foreclosure misdeeds…

As a result, the five largest US mortgage servicers – Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial – would avoid some of the cost of the potential $25bn settlement…

According to the terms of the settlement currently under discussion, each of the banks involved will have to meet a certain dollar target to fulfil their end of the deal. Each dollar of reduced payments or overall loan balances would be treated like a credit. A dollar of principal reduction on loans held on the banks’ own books would get a higher credit – for example, 100 cents on the dollar – than reducing a dollar of loan principal on mortgages owned by bond investors.

The servicers would have to determine that a mortgage restructuring would be more beneficial to the investor than a foreclosure, and the contracts governing the mortgage securities would have to allow for loan modifications. Investors probably would have no say in the decision, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Financial Times also reports that, in contrast to logic, banks would mark off loans from their own books as opposed to loans owned by investors.

This is a really ridiculous supposition and course of events. Essentially what would almost certainly happen is that banks would have investors eat losses. Who are these investors? Well, in part, unions, public pensions, and senior citizens. To put it differently, the general public would be bailing out banks via their second lien mortgages.

Yves Smith points out that this would likely go towards higher value mortgages and leave many people out in the cold:

In fact, I can tell you exactly what will happen: all the mortgage mod money will come out of investors, and it will come out of the very biggest loans, since the bigger the loan, the fewer the number of mods the bank has to make (the cost of making a mod is not related to the size of the loan). So that means that this approach assures that the mods will go to comparatively few people in big ticket homes and will do nada to help middle and lower middle class people.

The AG settlement talks were already headed in a really ineffectual direction. But this development, if true, would be a massive step backwards away from even the patina of accountability for the banks’ illegal behavior.

More Greenwald on Ron Paul & criticism

Glenn Greenwald has another must-read post in the ongoing debate about the ways in which Ron Paul may or may not be better than President Obama on particular issues and the subsequent mania which these ideas bring forth within many parts of the liberal blogosphere. Greenwald is kind enough to quote a passage from a recent post of mine on the subject (thanks Glenn!), but his additive points to the debate and responses to critics are compelling and helpful in fleshing out the ways in which approving talk of Paul by anti-war and pro-civil liberties activists has surfaced major tensions within the Democratic Party and its decreasing liberalism.

As I pointed out in my previous post on the subject, critics are deliberately ignoring what Greenwald is writing and representing his belief that Ron Paul is saying important things which aren’t being said by Obama or other Democratic politicians (and worse, beyond words, Obama’s deeds cut against liberal values on many of these issues). With that preface, here is a paragraph by Greenwald which I guarantee will be ignored by his critics, who will continue to say that Greenwald thinks civil liberties, surveillance, the drug war, etc are the most important issues facing America.

One final point that should be made: I do not believe that the issues on which I principally focus are objectively The Most Important Ones. There are many issues of vital importance that I write about rarely or almost never: climate change, tax policy, abortion, even the issue which affects me most personally: gay equality. None of us can write about every issue meaningfully. The issues on which I focus are ones where I believe I can contribute expertise, or express views and points not being heard elsewhere. But there are many other issues of genuine importance, and I have no objection to those who, when forced to choose, prioritize those concerns over the ones about which I write most frequently. That is why I wrote — and meant — that “there are all sorts of legitimate reasons for progressives to oppose Ron Paul’s candidacy on the whole” and “it’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else.”

I haven’t looked yet, but I can only assume that within a matter of minutes someone will again accuse Greenwald of thinking racism, homophobia, or the destruction of social services is not important.

Jamyang Norbu on Tibetan self-immolations

Renowned exiled Tibetan author and poet Jamyang Norbu has one of the most thoughtful analysis of 2011’s epidemic of self-immolations by young Tibetan monks and nuns inside of Tibet – you can read it on his blog Shadow Tibet. His analysis looks at historic instances of self-immolation as a political act by practitioners of Buddhism throughout Asia, as well as the historical Buddha’s confrontational, physical pursuit of enlightenment (in contrast to more passive styles of Buddhism embraced by the West in the 20th century).

Jamyang-la writes:

The courageous action of the thirteen self-immolators in Tibet must be seen in this specific doctrinal light. I emphatically disagree with the opinion some people are circulating that the monks and nuns burnt themselves in despair because they were not allowed to practice their religion. If that were the main concern of these monks and nuns then the logical course of action for them to take would have been to escape to India, as many others had done so before. Kirti monastery, where most of the young self-immolators had studied, even has a large branch at Dharamshala where they would have been welcome.

Hence we must see the self-immolations in Tibet as action taken for the welfare of others, for the freedom of the Tibetan people and the independence of Tibet (as some of the self-immolators expressly stated). Even the call by most of the self-immolators for the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet must be interpreted as a call for the restoration of an independent Tibet, as the Dalai Lama is regarded as the legitimate sovereign ruler of independent Tibet, and should not merely be interpreted as a plea for the return of a personal spiritual leader, as those attempting to de-politicize the events have been claiming.

The deed of the thirteen self-immolators is not only Buddhist in an unquestionably absolute sense, but furthermore comes from within a heroic and action-oriented tradition of Buddhism. Some scholars have viewed this approach as truer to the original teachings of the historical Buddha, in contrast to the quietist, passive, even escapist perception of Buddhism which has gained more widespread acceptance, especially in the West.

This is a really important analysis – the whole thing is worth reading, as it undercuts many misconceptions of not only Tibetan Buddhism, but Buddhism on whole.

More importantly, Norbu’s piece strikes against paternalistic responses to these brave, heart-breaking political acts of self-sacrifice. People are killing themselves for freedom because they do not see any other way to affect change under China’s military occupation of Tibet. Those who express confusion about what these self-immolations are about are being just as deliberately obtuse as those who spent months wondering what Occupy Wall Street protesters were upset about. It’s hard not to take a low opinion of anyone who tries to spin these self-immolations into validations of their desire to depoliticize Tibet or make China’s occupation a non-confrontable aspect in a negotiation about cultural preservation.

Lastly, I recommend you read through the comments section on Jamyang Norbu’s post, which seem to be entirely by Tibetans in exile. The post surfaces a lot of the tensions which should be surfaced by a serious discussion of the rash of self-immolations happening inside of Tibet. Jamyang-la’s unflinching look at what is happening casts not only a negative light on China, but on leading officials of the Tibetan Government in Exile, the International Campaign for Tibet and even the Dalai Lama. These are very hard things for many people to confront. But this internal debate must happen if there is ever going to be a cure to the disease which has prompted these self-immolations. Freedom will not come for Tibet without serious reflection of what is happening and why it is happening. Jamyang Norbu is boldly engaging in this discussion and I encourage others to join him.

Matt Taibbi on the 2012 election season

Matt Taibbi on the 2012 elections:

Most likely, it’ll be Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama, meaning the voters’ choices in the midst of a massive global economic crisis brought on in large part by corruption in the financial services industry will be a private equity parasite who has been a lifelong champion of the Gordon Gekko Greed-is-Good ethos (Romney), versus a paper progressive who in 2008 took, by himself, more money from Wall Street than any two previous presidential candidates, and in the four years since has showered Wall Street with bailouts while failing to push even one successful corruption prosecution (Obama).

There are obvious, even significant differences between Obama and someone like Mitt Romney, particularly on social issues, but no matter how Obama markets himself this time around, a choice between these two will not in any way represent a choice between “change” and the status quo. This is a choice between two different versions of the status quo, and everyone knows it.
…
It was always annoying when these two parties and the slavish media that follows their champions around for 18 months pretended that this was a colossal clash of opposites. But now, with the economy in the shape that it’s in thanks in large part to the people financing these elections, that pretense is more than annoying, it’s offensive.

Taibbi also makes a sharp analysis about the general lack of relevance to the primary process and it’s rituals, as compared to vibrant protest movements which have emerged in response to a broken economy and political system. Though I write about the Republican primary frequently, I can’t say it feels very relevant to me, particularly for the reasons that Taibbi lays out. A poll of New Hampshire just doesn’t mean much to me while there are people occupying public parks and foreclosed homes, fighting for their lives and the future of this country.

Iowa results and looking forward at a new race

Originally posted at AMERICAblog Elections: The Right’s Field

The final Iowa results:

Romney, 24.55% (30,015 votes)
Santorum, 24.54% (30,007 votes)
Ron Paul, 21.45% (26,219 votes)
Gingrich, 13.29% (16,251 votes)
Perry, 10.3% (12,604 votes)
Bachmann, 4.97% (6,073 votes)
Huntsman (745 votes)
No preference (135 votes)
Other (117 votes)
Cain (58 votes)
Roemer (31 votes)

Kombiz and Matt Ortega got the top three order correct, though none of us had them bunched so tightly.

Rick Perry has returned to Texas to “reassess the results,” which is what people usually do hours before they officially end their campaigns. On the up side, by not formally ending his campaign, he can still continue to pay his staff.

Michele Bachmann barely out-performed her Ames Straw Poll results, but did not bow out last night.

Newt Gingrich made clear in his speech last night that he’s angry about the negative attacks from Mitt Romney and his surrogate Super PACs. Gingrich will be going on the attack on Romney’s record, which Newt pointed out doesn’t mean he’s launching negative attacks if it so happens that Romney’s record of flip-flops doesn’t reflect well on him. Gingrich is an adept negative campaigner, so don’t underestimate his potential to hurt Romney in debates and on the airwaves in coming weeks.

Obviously the big winner of the night was Rick Santorum, who benefited from being the Last Anti-Romney Standing. He spent more time in Iowa than any other candidate and was successful at telling his store as a committed conservative., especially once he rose in the polls and suddenly had the air of viability. Romney, on the other hand, badly misplayed the expectations game in the press. As a result, an 8 vote win is universally being seen by reporters as at best a tie, or more likely a Santorum win.

Looking forward, this is a three candidate race between Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Anti-Romney. Anti-Romney for the moment seems like Rick Santorum, but he doesn’t have the campaign infrastructure needed to compete in a long primary. Either other campaigns (Perry, Gingrich, and Bachmann) will have to bow to Santorum through donors and endorsements, or there will have to be a resurgence from Gingrich into the role of Anti-Romney. Ron Paul has the grassroots support to be a competitor over a long primary, but I’m not convinced that the Gingrich’s and Perry’s of the world would lend their support to him to help defeat Romney.

Romney is going to go into New Hampshire and win with ease. The only question will be if Santorum can solidify conservative support and earn a meaningful result. Watch for who endorses Santorum in coming days and if there is a shift of donors to him, as well as the launch or refocus of any Super PACs to support Santorum and do the dirty work of going negative on Romney.

Romney went through Iowa without a single negative ad directed at him – that’s a streak that will probably be over before today is done. Given the impact that negative ads had in Iowa against other candidates, I have to assume that it’s reflective of the fact that Republican base voters are willing to take in new information about their candidates and consider it in their assessment of these candidates. This contributed to the volatility of the Republican field over the last year and does not yet show signs of stopping. Of course, when Republicans go negative on Romney it will look a lot like the sort of attacks the DNC have been making on Romney and will cut directly at his lack of conviction and ever-changing beliefs. Thus my belief that there is still space for an Anti-Romney to take the nomination, Rick Santorum or otherwise.

Gary Johnson & Civil Liberties

For what it’s worth, yesterday’s post on Ron Paul and the debate he has sparked in the progressive blogosphere focused on the fact that Paul was the only major party candidate holding positions traditionally held by liberals regarding civil liberties, war and peace, domestic surveillance, and drug policy. While this is true, Gary Johnson, the libertarian Republican Governor of New Mexico turned Libertarian presidential candidate, is in fact better than Paul and without the racist, anti-worker, anti-Semitic baggage of Ron Paul. The ACLU just rated Johnson higher than not only Paul, but Barack Obama, in their civil liberties report card (PDF).

Johnson is not a major party candidate, despite his attempt to run for the Republican nomination. He was functionally shut out of existence by the media and state Republican party’s which blocked his participation in all but one primary debate. I don’t know if Johnson will be a viable third party candidate. I assume he won’t, but could be wrong.

As I pointed out yesterday, voting is not locked into a binary option. Johnson will be on the ballot in many places and if a liberal was inclined to vote for Ron Paul for reasons related to civil liberties and war and peace, Johnson would likely be a more palatable option. As long as Paul is raising conflicts within liberal priorities at this point in time, Johnson should not be excluded from being a foil for the questions about liberalism being raised by people like Matt Stoller and Glenn Greenwald. This is, after all, not about electability, but ideology.