Mediaboss Marketing

VCU poll results

The predictable headline of the new Virginia Commonwealth University poll is that Democrat Ralph Northam has a five-point edge, with a five-point margin of error, among likely voters over Republican Ed Gillespie in the gubernatorial race. You can read all about it in the Washington Post article filed this morning.

The more interesting story is how well the Libertarian Party candidate, Cliff Hyra, is faring. Among registered voters, he scored 8%. Among likely voters, he snagged 6%.

Thats in the same ballpark as the 6.5% vote that Robert Sarvis won in the McAuliffe-Cuccinelli match-up four years ago. The difference is that Sarvis was thought to have benefited from a large none of the above sentiment among voters who found Terry McAuliffes wheeler-dealer persona and Ken Cuccinellis strong cultural conservatism to be off-putting. By contrast, the Northam-Gillespie match-up is a battle of the bland. Both candidates are cautious and inoffensive. No one has to hold their nose to vote for them.

If thats the case, how does one explain the strong showing of Hyra, a political novice who is campaigning part-time on a shoe-string budget? Maybe, just maybe, his libertarian principles are resonating with voters. Could Virginia become a three-party state? Its not impossible.

See more here:
Libertarian Hyra Cracks 8% in VCU Poll - Bacon's Rebellion

There are certain situationswhere results matter more than intentions.

An engineer who builds a bridge, for example, may have intended for it to be successful, but a faulty design would render him liable if someone lost their life while crossing said bridge.

A CEO who intended to make his company richer only to end up declaring bankruptcy is again remembered for his results, not intentions.

The idea that actions are judged by their outcomes and not by their intentions is something that is seen in the real world all the time, and yet people feel anxious and ambivalent in using this as a medium to judge law-makers and politicians.

We then make the mistake of believing that the egregious outcomes of some laws should be excused provided that they were originally written in good faith.

The death penalty is one such law. Although written with seemingly good intentions, it has still brought about more harm than good.

Yes, everyone wants to hang murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and the rest of societys scum as it seems to be the right thing to do and it appears to be with good intentions.

The reason why civilized countries have abolished the death penalty, however, is because they realized that it is actually not as just as the self-righteous claimit to be.

More specifically, the death penalty is not justified because of its high cost for the taxpayer, and its incompatibility with an individuals natural and universally-understood rights. These two affronts to liberty an assault on the taxpayer and an assault on civil liberties is why libertarians are the only ones within the right-wing community to despise capital punishment.

To begin, the death penalty is not justified (i.e. it is not reasonable or fair) because it is both highly inefficient and highly ineffective for the taxpayer. Primarily, the death penalty is ineffective because it neglects to do its job as a punishment in a civilized legal code: deter crime. There is not a single nation-state in the world that has, through implementing capital punishment, achieved a lower crime rate.

In fact, American states that still have the death penalty have, on average, a 25% higher homicide rate than states that do not have such a punishment (Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates).

We see in the above citation that everyoneloses when the death penalty is in effect, and that this punishment only brings about more pain and sorrow for our society, not less. If a penalty only serves to perpetuate a problem that it was meant to solve, then it has no business being included in the criminal code.

On top of not being effective, the death penalty is simply not efficient even if you believe the end goal isnt to deter crime but to instead exact revenge.I say this because the death penalty curses society with an unfair financial burden.

The State of Maryland is just one of many places where the death penalty serves as a colossal waste of tax dollars as the death penalty cases cost 3 times more than the non-death penalty ones.

On top of this, we see a similar complaint with law professor, JeffreyFagan, who estimates that the cost of an individual state execution can range anywhere between $2.5 million and $5 million.

Both Fagan and the State of Maryland teach us that the death penalty is a more expensive alternative than simply incarcerating a violent felon because defense lawyers will seek a lot more appeals for court cases if their client is otherwise faced with certain death.

These appeals combined with the time and money needed to hear and file them all cost the taxpayer extra money.

I think it goes without saying that we, as libertarians, have a very low tolerance for taxation as we can often be heard equating it to theft (which it is), and that is why we can never advocate for a policy that only triples the amount of theft we allow our robbers politicians to get away with.

Furthermore, when the taxpayer is really paying for a system that does not benefit them at all, it is easy to realize that the death penalty really isnt worth paying for.

With regard to the economic argument here, something can also be said about the issue of opportunity costs because the death penalty diverts resources from more effective programs that have actually been proven to reduce crime, i.e. money spent on taking a life (plus the tedious legal work behind it) is money that could have been used on the families of murder to accommodate psychological healing.

The money could have also been used for mental health research that could preclude others from going down a criminal path or even be used to uplift poverty-stricken communities and provide them with the resources and education needed to make crime unnecessary for ones survival.

Moreover, introducing the death penalty would be in violation of ones rights as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

In particular, article 3 of the UDHR states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person.

The reason why this creed is so important is because it shows that life is an unalienable right bestowed on to every human being and that taking away this right would not only violate constitutional law, but also natural law.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are supposed to, in theory, be immune to positive law passed by humans. What this means is that no legislature is supposed to be able to draft a law that strips away any of these rights nor can an independent judiciary order one to surrender them. The state, in theory, is not even supposed to be the one to dispense the right to live but rather, they are obligated to protect and defend it.

A failure to protect and defend this right, even for societys most unwanted, will mean that the state is stooping down to the very murderers that they wish to hang.

Ultimately, the death penalty is not just breaking some abnormal right or privilege it is breaking a universally-understood right. And to violate such a right in its rawest, most natural form is grounds for an outcry from the libertarian community.

In the end, if there is one thing that libertarians will go to war over, it is, as their name implies, liberty. I then assert that the community should continue on with its crusade against things like the death penalty for it violates both the financial liberty of the taxpayer and the natural liberty of the individual.

We must remember that just because it may sound good to finally get revenge on those who have raped, murdered, or committed acts of terrorism against their fellow citizens, the greater injustice will always be allowing that thirst for revenge to trivialize both the taxpayer as well as the sacred possessions of life and liberty for all.

See also:

https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-innocence/

http://facade1.law.columbia.edu/law_school/communications/reports/summer06/capitalpunish

* Christopher X. Henry has just graduated high school and will be attending the University of Toronto to study political science. He wishes to become a lawyer, writer, and politician and has taken up writing as a hobby for both Being Libertarian and his own blog and Facebook page, Freedom Papers.

Like Loading...

Read this article:
A Libertarian Case Against the Death Penalty - Being Libertarian

Seven modern midterm contests have combined both factors: unified control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and presidential approval below 50 percent. And they paint an even more ominous picture for today's Republican majority in Congress.

In those seven midterms, the president's party lost an average of 41 House seats and 6.4 Senate seats. In four cases, control of the House flipped; in three of them, control of the Senate flipped, too.

Next November, a gain of 30 seats would give Democrats control of the House. A gain of three seats would give them control of the Senate.

President Donald Trump's Gallup approval rating now stands at 37 percent.

Using traditional prediction formulas, notes Congressional elections scholar Gary Jacobson, "no way the Republicans hold onto the House." Even if Democrats didn't win the Senate, that would roadblock Trump's legislative agenda.

But the changing political landscape has diminished the value of some old guideposts. That provides Republicans some comfort 200 days into the Trump presidency.

First, partisan voting patterns have grown more consistent as Democrats and Republicans have grown increasingly polarized in recent decades. That diminishes ability of Democrats to attract dissident Republican voters.

Second, the combination of political gerrymandering with the residential concentration of Democrats in large metropolitan areas gives Republicans the ability to win a share of House seats far outpacing their share of the overall population. So the current Democratic lead in national "generic ballot" polls a robust 9 percentage points in the current realclearpolitics.com average exaggerates the potential for Democratic gains.

Third, today's Democratic Party has grown increasingly reliant on younger voters. They traditionally turn out for midterm elections at lower rates than their elders.

In the Senate, moreover, Republicans hold a huge advantage benefit in the profile of seats up for election next November. Of 34 senators on the ballot, only nine are Republicans; of the seven considered most vulnerable, only two are Republicans.

As a result, says fivethirtyeight.com analyst David Wasserman, "the Congressional map has a record-setting bias against Democrats."

Congressional Republicans need all the help they can get. Not only is Trump historically unpopular for a president in his first year, but the all-Republican government has failed to deliver on any of its major promises to voters.

The seven-year GOP crusade repeal and replace Obamacare collapsed before the president and Congress left town for summer vacation. When they return in September, party leaders face the urgent task of convincing balky lawmakers to protect America's credit-worthiness by raising the federal debt ceiling.

The White House and Congressional Republicans vow to deliver by year-end on their pledge to cut rates and overhaul the nation's tax system. If they fail, they may not have the chance to try again soon.

Visit link:
Despite Trump's low ratings, midterm election map still favors Republicans -- for now - CNBC

Robert Mueller speaks before the US Senate Judiciary Committee in 2013. (Reuters / Larry Downing)

Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Sign up for Take Action Now and well send you three meaningful actions you can each week.

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

Backed into a corner by Robert Mueller, the indefatigable special counsel whos looking into Russiagate, the Trump familys finances, and Trumps possible efforts to obstruct justice, the president is lashing out. In the past few weeks, especially since mid-July, Trump, along with his lawyers and key conservative allies, launched a barrage of attacks aimed at discrediting Mueller, possibly as a prelude to having him fired.

But at the same time, while Mueller maintains complete radio silence, others have spoken out strongly in his defenseincluding, as it turns out, a growing number of Republicans.

In Congress, remarkably, several Republican senators have joined with their Democratic colleagues to propose legislation restricting Trumps ability to oust Mueller. One pair is made up of Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE), and another is from Lindsey Graham (R-DC) and Cory Booker (D-NJ). Both pieces of legislation would do essentially the same thing: Were Trump to ask the Justice Department to fire Mueller, that decision would have to be reviewed by a three-judge panel. Appearing on Fox News Sunday on August 6, Tillis was asked if his proposed bill was aimed squarely at Trump. Theres no question that it is, said Tillis. I dont believe the investigation is a witch hunt. Graham, for his part, said that it could be the beginning of the end for Trumps presidency were he to fire Mueller.

If he fires Robert Mueller, theres some significant chance that eventually Mueller will be the lead witness in his impeachment hearing. Rich Lowry, National Review

Rich Lowry, the conservative editor of National Review, appearing on the same Fox News Sunday broadcast, warned the president in the strongest possible terms that purging Mueller would not be a good idea. President Trump needs to realize, if he fires Robert Mueller, theres some significant chance that eventually Mueller will be the lead witness in his impeachment hearing, said Lowry. Those, of course, would be impeachment proceedings carried out by a Republican-led House of Representatives.

In another remarkable move, Senate Republicans united to prevent Trump from firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions and installing a replacement as a recess appointment that wouldnt require confirmation by the Senate. They did so by setting up a procedure under which the Senate would not formally recess during the August break.

Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, added for good measure that there was no way that the Senate would consider confirming a new AG if Sessions were fired. Thats important, because Trump cannot fire Mueller himself but would have to ask the Justice Department to do it. Sessions has recused himself from Russiagate, thanks to his still unexplained meetings with Russias ambassador to the United States, so he cant do the firing, and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein has pretty much said he wont do it.

Perhaps Republicans have realized that distancing themselves from Trump is their best hope of avoiding an electoral catastrophe in 2018.

It isnt certain, yet, how extensive the opposition is among the GOP in Congress and among Republicans at large to Trumps jihad against Mueller, Sessions, the FBI, and the Justice Department. But its clear that its there and that its growing. Why, exactly? Perhaps its simply that many Republicans, especially in the Senate, resent Trumps incessant attacks on Sessions, an ultraconservative former colleague. Perhaps its because the Republicans resisting Trump actually believe in that American thing called the rule of law. And perhapsbest possibility of allits because Republicans have realized that distancing themselves from Trump is their best hope of avoiding an electoral catastrophe in 2018, and that their chances of being reelected might improve if theyre not seen as having colluded with an out-of-control president hellbent on obstructing justice.

Meanwhile, perhaps having thoughts along similar lines, Trump is engaged in a full-scale effort to discredit and smear Mueller. As far back as late June, in fact, Trump began his campaign to paint him as hopelessly partisan and unfair. I can say that the people who have been hired [by Mueller] are all Hillary Clinton supporters, Trump said on Fox and Friends. He added, He [Mueller] is very good friends with [fired FBI Director] Comey, which is bothersome. As for dealing with Mueller, presumably by having him fired, Trump said, Were going to have to see.

On July 20, The New York Times headlined its story on the Trump-led counteroffensive: Trump Aides, Seeking Leverage, Investigate Muellers Investigators. The paper reported that Trumps teamwhich is led by Ty Cobb, a Washington superlawyeris scouring the professional and political backgrounds of investigators hired by Robert S. Mueller III, looking for conflicts of interest. Part of what theyre doing, said the Times, is scrutinizing donations to Democratic candidates and looking at investigators past clients. The goal, quite clearly, is to tar Mueller as running a team in thrall to the Democrats.

The very next day, Kellyanne Conway, the presidents spinmistress, began slamming Mueller for his teams alleged Democratic leanings. On July 21, appearing on Fox and Friends, Conway said that members of Muellers team clearly wanted the other person [i.e., Hillary Clinton] to win, and she questioned the political motivations of Muellers lawyers. Asked on CNN about getting to the truth behind the Russia allegations, Conway scoffed: Isnt Mr. Mueller and his band of Democratic donors doing that? Conway kept up the barrage, saying on the August 6 edition of ABCs This Week that the White House will cooperate with Bob Mueller and his investigation, even thoughmany of them are Democratic donors.

Needless to say, while some of Muellers team members did indeed make relatively small contributions to Democratic candidates, that doesnt amount to evidence of bias, nor does it discredit the work theyre doing. According to ThinkProgress, three of Muellers attorneys made donations to Democrats totaling just $56,000 over the past three decades, and nearly all of that was from just one of the investigating attorneys, while according to Business Insider, as many as seven of the 16 attorneys may have given money here and there to Democratsthough, as even Fox News reports, some of those same lawyers also donated cash to Republicans, too, while a handful of others gave about $200 to one or two Democrats.

Mueller himself, described in nearly every profile as the straightest of straight arrows, himself leans Republican, and he was appointed to the Justice Department in 1989 by George H.W. Bush and to his 10-year term as FBI director in 2001 by George W. Bush. And, as three lawyers writing for the Los Angeles Times pointed out, according to the Justice Departments own stringent rules, campaign donations do not create a conflict of interest.

A string of lawyers with strong credentials in the field of ethics each told Politico last month that Trumps critique of Mueller on grounds of political bias were utterly groundless. The arguments from the Trump camp are either cynical or further evidence for the fact that the president apparently has no ability to conceive of the difference between the professional and the personal, said Samuel Buell, a former federal prosecutor and professor of law at Duke University. To anyone who actually knows conflicts lawand Painter and I have between us spent over half a century on the subjectthe Trump teams allegations are garbage, said Norm Eisen, President Obamas ethics czar, referring to Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush.

Nonetheless, picking up on Kellyanne Conways lead, likely at the instigation of Trumps own legal team, the pro-Trump media echo chamber unleashed a barrage of attacks painting Muellers team as partisan. Now, this guy Mueller has staffed up with many anti-Trump, anti-Republicans. Hes got a bunch of Obama lawyers, a bunch of Hillary lawyers whove also been fundraisers, bundlers, big time donors, proclaimed Rush Limbaugh. And Breitbart News, formerly headed by Steve Bannon, Trumps senior adviser, highlighted Paul Ryan in expos fashion for his defense of Mueller against trumped-up charges of bias. Ryan, who said that Mueller is anything but [a] biased partisan, precipitated howls of outrage from Breitbarts loyal followers. Typical of the comments: Ryan is doing the work of his Globalist masters just like Mueller.

An even more scurrilous attack on Mueller came from Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, and Alan Dershowitz. Both raised the fact that the grand jury reportedly empaneled last month in Washington, DC, would be inherently biased against the president because Washington is a Democratic Party stronghold. Dershowitz went so far as to warn, in an interview with WABC, that the ethnic and racial composition of the nations capital, which is heavily African-American, would tilt likely jurors against Trump. And Gingrich chimed in, saying guess how biased the grand jury will be.

The president unleashed a Twitter barrage on July 22 trying to paint Mueller, the Justice Department, and his own attorney general as somehow doing the Democrats dirty work. Among the highlights of Trumps tweetstorm: He wondered angrily why the Special Council [sic] wasnt investigating Hillary Clintons e-mails (July 22), said Attorney General Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (July 25), accused the acting FBI chief of getting $700,000 from Clinton for his wifes political campaign (July 25), and asked why didnt Sessions replace Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe for alleged Clinton ties (July 26).

Trump has shown no sign that hes ready to recognize the reality that he cant block Mueller without doing fatal damage to his own political future. During his bizarre, rambling political rally in West Virginia last week, Trump turned repeatedly to the Russiagate affair, calling it the totally made-up Russia story. This despite having complete access to all of the top-secret information the US intelligence community has about Russias interference in the 2016 election.

Have you seen any Russians in West Virginia or Ohio or Pennsylvania? Trump asked the raucous audience. Are there any Russians here tonight? Any Russians?

That sort of bombast may win him cheers in Huntington, West Virginia. But it wont gain him support among his own party in Capitol Hill. And, needless to add, it wont stop Robert Muellers intrepid sleuths from expanding their inquest.

Originally posted here:
Why Trump's Attacks on Mueller Are Getting Some Surprising PushbackFrom Republicans - The Nation.

The Republican floundering in D.C. is the all-too-public machinations of a party still trying to organize and develop policy while holding the reins of power. Our president and, by default, leader of the party was elected without a developed set of policy details, leaving the GOP without a detailed bicameral governing agenda, a unified message or even a common set of priorities. The resulting chaos is painful to watch.

Why does a party that won and won decisively need to organize? Let us remember, as recently as last October, after the year-long GOP presidential primary when an outsider won, it seemed obvious that the GOP needed a reset.

Unfortunately, the need to unify Republicans remains; winning only exasperated the problem. We are a party held together by redistricting, the overreach and united opposition to the Obama administration, and a handful of policy hangovers from our time in the minority. Republicans are torn between the pragmatism of Reagan and the conservatism of Reagan both sides clinging to the realities and myths of the last president that united the GOP.

The modern GOP is scarred by primaries, litmus tests and outside groups that discourage deal making, where chairmen, senior statesmen and leaders lose elections over the mere suggestion of cutting a deal. Members are shamed if they direct federal funds to their congressional districts, yet lose in primaries for not doing enough for their constituents. We have either too many conservatives or not enough depending on where you fall on the spectrum.

The current coalition of congressional Republicans is a ragtag group, elected as individuals on a variety of platforms and priorities. The conservative revolution that saw the Republican Study Committee grow from 20 members to over 170 in a decade, fell short of 218; it then split itself in two with the birth of the Freedom Caucus.

Meanwhile, the Tuesday Group that almost disappeared reemerged as a counterpoint to the far right. Sprinkle in a handful of old bulls with decades of pragmatic seniority and parliamentary know-how and a couple of libertarians and you have the coalition that makes up the Republicans in Congress.

At the root of the post-Reagan conservative movement that grew during the late 90s and blossomed in the 2010 election, is a core belief that bad process makes bad policy. It is the anger at the process that is the root of the earmark ban, the original opposition to ObamaCare, and ultimately the Trump victory.

The process is the swamp. So stop bad process; dont repeat it. Acting as if Democrats do not exist and insisting on the use of reconciliation to take on healthcare and tax reform only highlight the divides in the GOP. Of all groups, the GOP should know a partisan process will not make good law, permanent law, or conservative law; it is the very process we ran against for the last several cycles.

Moving Republicans from a coalition in the majority to a governing majority will take time, something we may not have. However, a good first step would be to start moving regular bills in regular order. If the public has to watch our infighting, expand the debate and trust the legislative process. The tyranny of the minority needs to be tested, and should be tested on the House and Senate floor, not in primaries.

Sure, there will be losers, but it might also bring structure and unity to a majority in need of both.

Brian Wild is the policy director with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a law firm based in Washington, D.C. He was senior advisor to the Speaker of the House John BoehnerJohn BoehnerRepublican donor sues GOP for fraud over ObamaCare repeal failure Boehner on Trump tweets: He gets 'into a pissing match with a skunk' every day Boehner predicts GOP will 'never' repeal, replace ObamaCare MORE and served as deputy assistant for legislative affairs to Vice President Dick Cheney.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

See original here:
How Republicans can bring order out of the GOP's chaos - The Hill (blog)