Taking into account the electorate’s present angst and 2010’s Tea Party primary successes, most observers would have penciled in massive turnout increases in this year’s Republican primary and caucus states. But with results from seven states in thus far (the state of Missouri does not make for a valid comparison due to 2012’s lack of attached delegates) the picture is shaping up quite differently.

Of the four caucus states to vote so far, Iowa’s 16% rise in turnout was the only increase. Turnout declined by 26% in Nevada, 20% in Minnesota, and 3% in Colorado. When one considers these caucus states disproportionally represent the energized party faithful, moderate to substantial dip in turnout is reason enough to concern Republicans. The raw numbers are more symptomatic of an underlying problem when population inflation is taken into account; the raw numbers show more of a percentage drop when increased population numbers are considered.

Of the three primary states, only South Carolina saw a substantial jump in turnout. It rose 33%–an impressive uptick but huge outlier. Turnout in New Hampshire was essentially flat (up 2%), and Florida turnout was down 16 percentage points when contrasted to 2008. Once again, population gains cause these numbers to understate just how much Republican turnout has fallen.

Taking a look at the states with closed primaries flags an even more deleterious trend for Republicans. All three states that bar independents and members of other political parties from voting in their primaries or caucuses have seen a drop in turnout. In some cases the fall has been substantial.

Florida, Nevada, and Colorado have hosted closed primaries—two of these three states saw a double digit drop in participation. This means registered Republican voters are casting less ballots in an atmosphere where they should hypothetically be chomping at the bit to have their voices heard.

Roughly 155,000 fewer ballots have been cast in 2012 through the same seven contests. Republican operatives and strategists are no doubt aware of this, and some of the blame can certainly be pinned on the toxic campaign atmosphere engendered so far. But such a steep drop in a year when the party’s base was not thought apathetic is worthy of more than a raised eyebrow; the Republican Party has little choice but to confront the reasons behind depressed enthusiasm.

Exit poll data have not shown much, if any, increased minority or under 40 turnout. The electorate is skewing older and almost exclusively Caucasian (the latter being understandable in an Iowa and New Hampshire, but demonstrative of outreach problems in diverse states like South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada.)

Leaving aside the impact of this year’s seesaw polling on the Republican brand, these raw numbers alone show the party’s decreasing appeal. The closed primary states starkly illustrate the passionless support levels being enjoyed by the Republican Party in its current manifestation.

Too many more election cycles of this and Republicans will become a substantial minority party; they must find a way to begin reaching young and minority voters if this fate is to be avoided. The numbers can be twisted and attempts made to explain them away, but in the end they shed light on a situation in need of addressing.

Much of what President Obama said tonight was true. It is true that mortgages were lent to those who could not afford them. It is true that companies are shipping jobs overseas and at the same time receiving tax breaks. It is true that with the death of Osama Bin Laden and numerous Al Qaeda leaders, America is much safer. And it is true that millions of new jobs have been created since he took office.

The positives may sound good when you phrase them as such. But the grim reality is that the problems America faces are so significant, that the good things that have happened under this administration are eclipsed. While these jobs were being created, millions of jobs were being eliminated. We still have fewer jobs than when the president took office. And whether he likes to admit it or not, his own policies have played a part in this anemic growth.

EPA regulations piled on by this administration have cost us over 5% of our GDP, and that’s just one federal department of many. The Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill will cost $30 billion that we don’t have. The Small Business Administration estimates that the compliance cost of our current regulatory environment is $1.75 trillion per year. President Obama alone cannot be blamed for this, as his predecessors and those in Congress passed many of these regulations prior to 2009.

The president failed to mention that government programs incentivized lending of mortgages to those who could not afford them. Federal laws demanded banks loosen their restrictions or face legal action. The Federal Reserve further incentivized banks to comply by offering them easy credit. They lowered interest rates causing investors to put their money into long term projects and many focused on residential construction.

With his re-appointment of Ben Bernanke to chair the Federal Reserve System, this inflationary policy of unnaturally and artificially low interest rates has continued. The Fed has injected trillions of dollars into our economy under this administration, money which is not backed by matching economic growth or a significant demand for US dollars. This has caused the value of our currency to drop, and commodities such as gasoline have jumped in price as a result of a speculative bubble.

President Obama could have partially alleviated this problem by promoting domestic drilling for oil and the construction of new refineries, while we wait for science to develop inexpensive renewable energy. Instead, he has chosen to stand in the way of domestic oil production, while we continue to send billions of dollars to the Saudi elite, and turn a blind eye as they send that money to violent, theocratic institutions all over the world. He turned down the Keystone oil pipeline which would run from our largest supplier of oil—Canada—to the world’s most high-tech refineries in Houston.

It would have created tens of thousands of new jobs, including many for union workers that support Obama enthusiastically. They have been denied this opportunity in favor of capitulating to a lobby of environmental zealots known for its dishonesty in promoting its agenda.

The president covered a topic that I have focused much of my attention on in recent years: education. While he briefly touted the importance of returning control to local communities and schools, the other solutions he proposed are not only wrong, but they would further damage a K-12 system that is already a miserable failure at meeting the needs of the 21st century economy.

The president proposed forcing students to stay in school until they are 18 and claimed this would improve overall education. With all due respect, this is dead wrong. We have to get out of this ‘everyone gets a trophy’ mentality and realize that some children just will not learn. By forcing them to stay in school they hold back those of our children who have the drive to succeed. It is sad and politically incorrect to mention this, but it is true.

It has been mentioned in the writings of Jim Blockey, a reform school teacher from Las Vegas, I’ve discussed it with Robert Mansfield of Pennsylvania; a man born to a drug-addicted mother who grew up on the streets of Philadelphia with nothing and who rose to success when he returned to school, got his GED and joined the Army where he rose to the rank of Sergeant.I have heard even more examples from my friends who attended failing government schools in the inner cities of Ohio.

Although early childhood education in this country is world class, by the time our children reach high school, students in European countries like Belgium beat us on a number of metrics. Students in Japan, South Korea and Singapore blow us out of the water. China isn’t messing around either. They are targeting their most skilled students and placing them into advanced programs. When those students come to our universities they trounce their American peers in mathematics and natural sciences, and then our broken immigration system forces them to return to China and use the skills that we taught them against us in the global economy. A better system would incentivize and enable them to become Americans, and grow our economy instead.

The Belgians and the Japanese emphasize on the importance of school choice and privatization of education. And the British and the Japanese both emphasize on the important of the individual. Their programs are customized to fit the abilities of each student. In Japan, education is mandatory till around 15 years of age, at which they get their equivalent of our GED. Their upper-tier secondary schools are optional, and yet over 95% of Japanese students continue their education beyond the mandatory requirements. These programs are customized as either vocational education or preparation for university.

And one third of these schools are private!

In Great Britain, when you are 16, you can stay in the system, go to a trade school, or if you are smart enough go straight to college. Some states have adopted similar programs right here in America, where gifted students can achieve associates degrees upon graduating. I propose that we don’t waste their time teaching things they don’t need in the career they want.

We need to take heed to what the Belgians, the British and especially our Japanese friends have done. We shouldn’t mandate education to 18; we should eliminate the high school diploma and require a GED at the end of what is currently 9th grade as they do in Japan. Then make tenth through twelfth grade a customizable and optional program. Let students have choices of vocational programs, college preparatory programs, and if they are skilled enough, let them go straight to college. Provide a system that can ensure our 18 year olds truly are adults by giving them the marketable skills they need to make a living wage instead of mooching off of mom and dad into their twenties.

The status quo is unacceptable! And it fosters this sort of environment. To those who are worried about the students who wouldn’t go to school beyond their GED, they can always take the unskilled labor jobs and then work their way up the ladder or choose to continue their education at a later time in life. What makes such a system work so well is that the market will determine what skills are needed and relevant programs will be supplied.

This one-size-fits-all everyone-needs-to-go-to-college mentality is causing us to fall behind the competition. It is creating an education bubble that will inevitably burst. Many of these college degrees are becoming useless, rendering starting salaries that are not significantly higher than a high school diploma. The focus must be on marketable skills. General education is never a bad thing and should be viewed as a virtue, but it can only go so far.

The best possible system we can provide for our children is a system of individual choice, with a supply of curriculum determined by the market economy’s demand. A system that empowers parents, rewards the best students, and the best teachers, and yes—a system that discourages and reprimands failure.

The president went on to claim that college tuition is too high, and if it continues to rise he will pull subsidies from those universities. He’s right to acknowledge the avarice of our university system: costing its students thousands in waste on unnecessary programs and fees that should either be privately funded or purchased a la carte at the individual level.

Yet, he fails to understand the prime reason why tuition has risen at twice the rate of inflation and four times the wage rate. The federal government’s guarantee of all student loans has given greedy academics and administrators an opportunity that they would not have in a free market. They have constantly jacked up their prices, knowing that the government would credit the money to them no matter what, and the students would get stuck with the bill.

In the state of today’s economy, no one between the ages of 18 and 22 with the exception of military, civil service and a few lucky kids who invested from their teen years would be able to apply for a loan at a bank to pay over $10,000 a year for full-time tuition and living expense financing unless they had either a parent or credit-worthy friend co-sign for them. I know because I borrow primarily from a credit union to finance my education. Without a co-signer I likely would not have been approved, and if I was approved, my interest rate would be over 10%.

But the government federally guarantees many financial options for students who have little to no credit history. This has allowed the universities to set their tuition and fees well above a true market rate. In a free market where the finance was out of pocket or credit-based, they could not do this. Their classrooms would sit empty at those prices, and they would go bankrupt. Ending the federal department of education would quickly slash tuition prices in half, and prices would finally begin to increase in conjunction with wages and inflation.

When my father went to college in the 1970s, you borrowed directly from the school. A full-time summer job was enough to cover a year’s tuition and much of your living expenses at a state university. My father came here a poor immigrant, went to a small private college, and worked part time as a manual laborer. He graduated on time and with two years of debt.

My generation has not been so lucky.

This achievement by my father is the American Dream that we should want for all of our children, and it is morally wrong to deny them the benefits of a free market where they have the power to control their own destinies.

The message of class envy is dividing us and acting against the interests of that dream. Claiming that a job creating class is not paying their fair share when the top 1% of earners pay nearly 40% of the income taxes and the top 10% pay 70% of income taxes is ludicrous. But loopholes favoring one business over another certainly must go.

Our country needs a fairer, flatter tax. We need low rates for all, but we need few to no deductions. Compliance with our current tax laws cost American businesses nearly half a trillion dollars every year. Corporate taxes only make up 9% of our federal revenue yet their punitive nature begs the question: are they really worth it? What if the economic growth that was unleashed as a result of their elimination put so many people back to work, that the income tax revenue increased not only to offset that 9%, but to surpass it?

President Obama mentioned that companies are receiving tax breaks while they offshore jobs, and he mentioned the importance of incentivizing them with tax breaks to bring those jobs back here. There are over one trillion American dollars sitting overseas because investors don’t want it to be taxed by both the foreign country and the United States upon its return. Presidential candidate Ron Paul, former candidate Herman Cain, and myself all support a common sense solution to this problem.

I call upon President Obama to eliminate taxes on all foreign money repatriated into the U.S. economy. Let these corporations and businesspeople know that if they use that money to create American jobs, they can bring it back tax free! This is something that everyone should get behind! One trillion dollars is a lot of money with the potential to create millions of new jobs. If the president and both parties in congress are serious about restoring this economy to greatness, then a bill will be brought up and soon eliminating the repatriation tax, and President Obama will not hesitate to sign it.

There is too much at stake here to play class warfare politics. If government stole the entire net worth of every billionaire on the planet, not just in the U.S., it would total up to $4.5 trillion. Under this administration, the national debt has increased by over $5 trillion . We have debt because we spend too much, not because we tax too little. Both parties are to blame. We cannot afford our so-called entitlement system as is and we cannot afford a foreign policy of being the world’s policeman.

Now that we are out of Iraq President Obama said he wants to take that money, spend half of it to pay down the debt and half to build our own infrastructure. What he failed to mention was that there are no actual savings from the end of the Iraq War. We borrowed and printed money to finance our operations there and continue to do so in Afghanistan. There is no sudden influx of revenue we can use to pay down the debt, there is only a smaller deficit.

The President must realize that this is a Now or Never moment to prevent our country from going the way of many great empires in history, destroying itself under massive debt from an affluent society at home and a thinly spread militarism.

Do not give up on bipartisanship, Mr. President. Despite the differences between you and the Republicans, you can still get started on these things. Take a look at the recommendations of the Erskine-Bowles commission. Find the things in there that you and the Republicans can agree on, and immediately pass them. It will not be the end-all-be-all solution, but it is far better than doing nothing.

We owe it to future generations to actually build them a future. I understand the pressures of an election cycle, Mr. President. But the best way to get reelected is to do right by the American people. Embracing the free-market, ending corporatism, foreign nation building, and unsustainable benefit programs is the only way to save the American Dream.

Thank you, and God Bless America!

————————————————————————————————

Aaron Alghawi is finishing his B.S. in Economics at Texas A&M University; he is a board member and Director of Student Outreach for the Republican Liberty Caucus.

As National Vice Chairman of our organization, I voted to support the recommendation our state chapters made to endorse Paul though I personally support and sit on Jon Huntsman for President’s New Hampshire State Steering Committee: two weeks before our Board voted to endorse Paul I made a “Libertarian Case for Jon Huntsman.” In some respects, what I write here is a direct follow-up to that opinion piece: I want to speak of the case for a larger Republican Liberty Caucus ‘tent’ and how candidates like Governor Jon Huntsman fit the ambitious mission of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

The purpose of the Republican Liberty Caucus is to promote “the ideals of individual rights, limited government and free enterprise within the Republican Party of the United States of America by… promoting these ideals among Party officials and its various organizations; identifying and supporting candidates sympathetic with these ideals; developing Caucus membership among Party registrants, officials, and office-holders.”

In a way, membership in the Republican Liberty Caucus, (which requires membership in the Republican Party), is an acknowledgement of a fundamental difference between us and members of the Libertarian Party: we recognize we belong to a larger entity that is more diverse. It is the vehicle we have chosen to advance our views more effectively, and by virtue of this we recognize that we will not always be in full agreement with our Republican family but that we will always strive to find common ground where possible and, when fertile, to nourish it in order to establish an aggressive, tactical, and strategic approach toward bringing the Republican Party back to the principles that initially made it the political party of free-market ideals and individual liberty.

We acknowledge our political universe is currently dominated by a two-party system and we have chosen which of these two parties is most receptive to our beliefs.

>We also recognize the Republican family has not always excelled in advancing our principles, but that the values we hold are the true heart and soul – the glue – that keeps the Party moving forward, and that without this glue the Party and the principles we believe in might not advance as quickly or as broadly as we wish. The Libertarian Party has never been in a position to do this – and this is, most likely, the reason a standard-bearer of libertarian ideals like Paul is seeking the Republican nomination rather than pursuing the Libertarian nomination for president again, as he did in 1988.

In the “Libertarian Case for Jon Huntsman” I make it clear that Huntsman is not strictly a libertarian, but a Republican whose platform and ideas are a manifestation of a movement within the Republican Party toward more libertarian principles. As the title implies, it’s a libertarian argument for Huntsman, not a solicitation to cast Huntsman as a libertarian.

One reason I personally support Huntsman is that I believe he is, simply stated, a ‘Huntsman Republican’: he has never exhibited a particularly partisan streak but an ideological paradigm that has enabled him to govern and serve our country usefully and in ways many factions of the Republican Party can appreciate – those who lean libertarian included.

Among those positions we have in common with this candidate: his views that the Federal Reserve ought to be audited, that the issue of medicinal marijuana should be left for states to decide, that our Party and government should allow civil unions for all consenting adults, that our right to bear arms must be protected, and that our foreign entanglements are costing not only our reputation in the world but resources we need to make the United States a stronger nation. Governor Huntsman’s credentials on fiscal policy have been endorsed by Pew Center (rated Utah as best-manage state), Cato Institute (‘A’ grade on tax policy), and Forbes (best for state for business). His economic plan as a presidential candidate has been endorsed by the Wall Street Journal.  I point this out not to engage in a ‘my-candidate-is-more-libertarian-than-yours’ banter but to clarify that support among libertarian-leaning Republicans for Huntsman is not arbitrary.

From an organizational standpoint (Republican Liberty Caucus), I believe it is only fair that we look at all candidates carefully, as our Candidate Review Committee did over the last few months before issuing a recommendation to our state chapters on potential candidates to endorse. Even if a candidate doesn’t quite fit our paradigm, it’s worth keeping an open mind with respect to supporters who might consider some of that candidate’s positions reasonably libertarian – even if we disagree with that candidate’s supporter.

A ‘Libertarian Case for Romney’ has been made, for example, on LDS Liberty (a forum for libertarian Latter-day Saints): Greg Peterson, an associate of the Romney family and supporter of Governor Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign acknowledges Paul’s popularity among libertarian Republicans. But Peterson makes his case to our constituency at LDS Liberty. I listen respectfully, and think – even if I disagree with him – that his desire to bridge the gap between libertarian Republicans and his presidential candidate says something about the GOP’s libertarian movement and about the inroads the Republican Liberty Caucus is poised to make as more presidential candidates find themselves surrounded by advisors and supporters who seek to broaden each candidate’s interest in our constituency and the issues we are most passionate about. Even if I personally disagree with Peterson and our organization has endorsed Paul, there is no harm in maintaining an open dialog with someone who acknowledges the importance of our constituency in the process.

In the end, our Candidate Review Committee and Board agreed on a handful of candidates that we felt were reasonably aligned with our views before chartered states voted (by a sufficient majority) to extend the national endorsement to Paul.

In Huntsman’s case, a focus on fiscal issues and foreign policy over domestic issues was the first clear indication of priorities that are most similar to mine, (personally), as a libertarian-leaning Republican.

As a former member of the Armed Forces I place great weight on a candidate’s ability to manage our foreign policy and their commitment to reducing troop levels abroad. I wanted to support a candidate with an interest in a more surgical approach to intelligence gathering and work – in order to reduce our investment overseas at a time when we are in such dire need of greater investment at home. Huntsman fit this mold and has, in my view, the strongest foreign policy credentials on the table.

It’s a reasonable argument based on his small but loyal following in the 2008 election, but despite its basis in fact it is not sufficient to explain Paul’s current success. The problem is that Iowa is anything but a state dominated by libertarian-leaning Republicans. In fact, Iowa’s Republicans are 54% evangelical Christians who are strongly socially conservative and have very little in common with more libertarian Republicans. If Paul’s only appeal were to Liberty Republicans then Paul would be doing poorly in Iowa where voters are anything but pro-liberty.

One measure of how libertarian Republicans in a state are is how active the Republican Liberty Caucus, which represents libertarian Republicans, is in that state. Iowa is an extremely weak state for RLC membership and involvement. Unlike most states, especially Republican dominated states, it has no active RLC chapter and it offered a single endorsee for office in 2010 and he did not win election. Compare that to New Hampshire where the RLC offered over 100 candidates for office in 2010 and has 81 members in the state House of Representatives.

New Hampshire Republicans lean libertarian and those in Iowa clearly do not. If his appeal was solely to libertarian voters then Paul would be dominating New Hampshire and bombing in Iowa where a libertarian message is not terribly welcome. Yet Paul is likely to do even better in Iowa than in New Hampshire, finishing in first or second in both states. He may also go on to pass Gingrich and take second in South Carolina which has a balance of libertarian Republicans and more socially conservative Republicans.

All of this suggests that contrary to the conventional wisdom, Paul is not a single-constituency voter, but rather a double-threat with two bases of support. He appears to appeal not only to the expecte pro-liberty demographic, but also to more traditional conservatives including a lot of religious conservatives. Paul’s balance of libertarian policies and personal inclinations towards social conservatism seems to resonate with both groups, giving him a much broader base than just the high-intensity ideologues most commonly associated with him.

In fact, based on the combination of his personal views and policy positions, Paul may not be the marginal candidate many assume him to be. With the exception of hardcore neoconservatives for whom an aggressive foreign policy is paramount – a viewpoint in disrepute after the failures of the Bush era – Paul has something to offer most of the other constituencies within the Republican party. His hands-off policies appeal to many social conservatives as well as libertarians. His clear personal religious faith attracts religious conservatives. His fiscally conservative policies appeal to both those who want government reform and to pro-business Republicans. In addition, the latest FoxNews poll shows asked voters who was the “true conservative” in the race and 40% answered Paul while 34% answered Santorum. Clearly Paul has created a larger niche as both the most Conservative and most Libertarian candidate in the race.

As the returns come in from Iowa it seems likely that Senator Rick Santorum will hold a strong third or maybe even win second in Iowa, sharing the conservative vote with Paul. But unlike Paul, Santorum has very little money and even less appeal to voters outside of that hardcore conservative base. Santorum polls very poorly in New Hampshire and without money he lacks the legs to catch up with other candidates. As Santorum’s Iowa surge fades it’s quite likely that many of his supporters – who may be “anyone but Mitt” voters – will move to Paul with whom he shares conservative common ground.

If it proves to be true that Paul has two bases of support within the Republican Party, winning over both serious conservatives and libertarians, that puts him in position to be the preeminent challenger to Romney’s broad but lukewarm appeal. Though the media may continue to argue that Paul is unelectable, with this clear evidence that his base of support is much broader than originally believed, this may come down to a very close two-man race between Romney and Paul.

A slightly different version of this article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine.

COMPLAINT

Gary Johnson, an American adult citizen of the State of New Mexico, files this Complaint with the Federal Election Commission in accordance with the provisions of 2 U.S.C. §437 (g ) (a) (1) in the belief that Respondents violated provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 2 U.S.C. §§431, et seq. (hereinafter, “The Act”).

RESPONDENTS

CBS, INC (hereinafter “CBS”) is a corporation with principal offices at 51 West 52nd Street, New York, New York 10019 engaged in the business of television broadcasting.

FACTS

Complainant is the former two-term Governor of the State of New Mexico, and a nationally-recognized candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party for President of the United States. Complainant has participated, along with the other leading candidates (including Governor Mitt Romney, Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, Governor Rick Perry, Mr. Herman Cain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, to name a few) in debates televised on television networks other than Respondent.

On Saturday, November 12, 2011 Respondent CBS televised on its national network another debate, but instead of including all leading candidates has elected to arbitrarily and capriciously exclude some candidates and include others. In so doing, CBS is, without any other explanation, choosing to support certain candidates. By excluding viable candidates like Complainant, who has been included by cable networks in their debates CBS is directly and significantly supporting those candidates it favors, and advocating the nomination of one of their favorites and opposing the nomination of Complainant, whom CBS evidently disfavors. In so doing, CBS is making an illegal corporate in-kind contribution to those favored candidates. The value of this contribution vastly exceeds the contribution limit that applies to any category of lawful donor.

2 U.S.C. §431 (8) (A) (i) defines a “contribution” as “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” No rational person could possibly argue that exposure during an hour-long debate televised in prime time on the CBS network is NOT something of value. Indeed, CBS sells advertising spots during prime time for huge sums, and makes and reaps signifigant revenues in doing so. By any standard, this airtime is a thing of value within the ambit of that phrase in this statute. If all viable candidates were being included in the debate that might lead to a different conclusion, but by excluding candidates CBS disfavors –opposes—and including those it favors –supports—Respondent is violating the Act.

Complaint by Governor Gary E. Johnson to Federal Communication Communications

The Federal Communications Commission has the authority to regulate fair access to the airwaves of broadcast by network television networks

Complainant is the former two- term Governor of the State of New Mexico, and a nationally-recognized candidate for the nomination of the Republican Party for President of the United States. Complainant has participated, along with the other leading candidates (including Governor Mitt Romney, Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, Governor Rick Perry, Mr. Herman Cain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, to name a few) in debates televised on cable broadcast networks .

On Saturday, November 12, 2011 Respondent CBS- who’s broadcasts are regulated by the FCC- televised on its national network another debate, but instead of including all leading candidates has elected to arbitrarily and capriciously exclude some candidates and include others. In so doing, CBS is, without any other explanation, choosing to favor certain candidates. By excluding viable candidates like Complainant, who has been included by other cable networks in their debates .

CBS is directly and significantly supporting those candidates it favors, and advocating the nomination of one of they support and opposing the nomination of Complainant. In so doing, CBS is making an illegal corporate in-kind contribution to those favored candidates. The value of this contribution – millions of dollars of publicity and exposure vastly exceeds the contribution limit that applies to any category of lawful donor.

2 U.S.C. §431 (8) (A) (i) defines a “contribution” as “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” No rational person could possibly argue that exposure during an hour-long debate televised in prime time on the CBS network is NOT something of value.

Indeed, CBS sells advertising spots during prime time for huge sums. Advertising—selling airtime (exposure) for money demonstrates this value. By any standard, this airtime is a thing of value within the ambit of that phrase in this statute. If all viable candidates were being included in the debate that might lead to a different conclusion, but by excluding certain candidates in including others, CBS is illegally aiding those it includes by giving them something of value-airtime worth millions of dollars. Corporate contributions in this case in-kind are a violation of the Federal Election law-addressed in a different complaint.CBS is clearly violating federal election law.

The public owns the airways over which CBS broadcasts, and the public deserves to be free from bias- favoring some candidates over others- as well as illegal support of certain presidential candidates on national network television. Unfair access to the airwaves of broadcast by network television is clearly an issue within the FCC’s mandate. The illegal corporate contribution CBS is making in including some candidates and not others is addressed in a separate formal complaint to the Federal Elections Commission. The FCC should take appropriate action against CBS.

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is running for president, but you wouldn’t know it if you’ve been watching the many Republican debates. The widely respected two-term governor, who is also a Republican Liberty Caucus Advisory Board member, has been excluded from all but two of the debates, despite the fact that he met the stated qualifications for many of them.

The complaints (shown to the right) focus primarily on the idea that giving some candidates access to the debates while excluding others amounts to the media effectively donating the value of that airtime to those campaigns and is a violation of campaign finance laws which require the reporting of in-kind contributions. They focus specifically on the recent CBS debate and argue that by selecting which candidates benefited from valuable air time during the broadcast debate and excluding others, CBS was “directly and significantly supporting those candidates it favors, and advocating the nomination of one of their favorites and opposing the nomination of Complainant, whom CBS evidently disfavors.”

In a press release about the complaints, Senior Campaign Adviser Ron Nielson writes:

“As this campaign progresses, it is clear that nationally televised debates are having a tremendous impact. Candidates are moving up and down in the polls with every debate, fundraising is impacted dramatically, and Republican voters obviously remain undecided. When one looks at the inconsistent and arbitrary criteria networks such as CBS have used to decide who gets to be on the stage for the debates, it is apparent that decisions are being made in board rooms that are having the effect of ‘preselecting’ candidates.”

That is just wrong. We owe it to our supporters and to the process to take this basic unfairness and clear bias to those agencies whose job it is to insure that the power of the airwaves is not being misused in an arbitrary manner in the Republican nominating process.”

While we remain very fortunate to have other voices for liberty in this campaign like Rep. Ron Paul, the exclusion of Johnson shows a very serious problem in the Republican primary process. It suggests that the party is essentially letting the media pick which candidates voters are allowed to hear from which amounts to the media picking the Republican nominee.

Complaints about media bias have been heard frequently from supporters of other candidates, going back to the 2008 election. Ron Paul received similar treatment in 2008 and there has been considerable complaint that in the recent debate he received only 89 seconds of airtime out of 90 minutes while other candidates were given much longer to express their positions and address questions. If Johnson is the victim of a media blackout, Paul is victim of a kind of gray-out with much the same effect. He is allowed to compete, but not on a level playing field. It’s better than being excluded entirely, but it’s still not fair.

This is unfair for the voters and it is very unhealthy for the Republican Party. Liberty candidates like Johnson and Paul have good ideas which appeal to the voters and they deserve a chance to be heard. The Republican Party is allowing itself to be defined by the media as a party of corporate hacks and religious extremists because that fits the narrative of the election which the media wants to create. Candidates like Paul and Johnson defy that stereotyping and put a more positive face on a party which is much more diverse than the media likes to admit.

These complaints represent a positive step in the right direction which activists can focus on. It’s an opportunity to express your dissatisfaction and demand that the networks be held accountable for their clear bias and manipulation of the political process. Demand that Governor Johnson be included in future debates.

To make this easier we’ve provided a form below which will let you email your members of congress and also the directors of the FEC and the FCC and perhaps most importantly key decision makers at CNN which is broadcasting the upcoming debate on November 22nd.

Welcome to our live online event for the FoxNews Republican Presidential Debate in Tampa Florida. The debate begins at 9pm eastern time on Thursday the 22nd and our live coverage will begin a little bit before that. We’ll have live chat commentary which you can participate in with capacity for hundreds to take part and share their observations during the debate, plus a post mortem after the debate which may feature a special guest. Drinking games during the debate are not only authorized, but encouraged. The chat application is right below and some information on the candidates fills out the rest of this article.

The debate is being sponsored by the Republican Party of Florida at their Presidency 5 straw poll event in Orlando, but you don’t have to pay $175 to attend (or have Ron Paul pay it for you).  You can watch it on cable on FoxNews and get the blow by blow commentary here.  It’ll be just like being in the audience. There will also be a livestream of the debate to watch on the web.

Prior to the debate you can submit your questions for the candidates on video through YouTube or just vote on the questions you like the best.

The Contenders

Gary Johnson is making big news right before the debate, because after being excluded from the last two debates, he battled his way back in with a 1% oor higher showing in five recent polls, plus he’s still outpolling Rick Santorum and John Huntsman.  In fact, in a current FoxNews online poll Johnson has surged ahead and is now tied for third with Rick Perry and ahead of Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney.  Interestingly, Johnson’s inclusion in the debate is over the objections of the Republican Party of Florida which has had a troubled history in dealing with the libertarian-leaning wing of the party which Johnson represents.  If Johnson can bring the kind of dynamism to this debate which he has shown in recent television appearances he could become a major contender again.

Rick Perry is the longest serving governor in the history of the state of Texas and has launched a campaign based around strong statements on states rights and getting Washington off the backs of the people. His statements are somewhat in contrast to his long record as a government insider and supporter of federal programs. He is perhaps best known in Texas for his friendliness to large corporations and the inside deals and special favors which have been hallmarks of his administration. This is Perry’s first debate and there is some speculation that he is not well prepared and may suffer based on his history of being a weak debate performer, or may even duck out at the last minute citing the wildfire crisis in Texas as a reason not to attend.

Ron Paul is probably the highest profile candidate. He is a 10 term Congressman from Texas known by his colleagues as “Dr. No” for his consistent opposition to any growth of government spending or programs and any legislation of questionable constitutionality. Paul ran for president in 2008 and his campaign launched the Tea Party movement and pioneered non-traditional fundraising methodology which has been adopted by other insurgent campaigns since then. Paul is a conservative libertarian politically who believes in minimal government and strict adherence to the Constitution and for his outspoken, sometimes irascible style.

Mitt Romney is a perceived frontrunner, but he has been running a very low profile campaign and losing ground to more active candidates. The former governor of Massachusetts has a strong business background and a successful record in office. He ran for president in 2008 and has high name recognition, but is somewhat tainted by his association with President Obama’s public health care plan which was largely based on a plan Romney instituted in Massachusetts which has been plagued by budget overruns. This debate is Romney’s opportunity to confirm that he is a frontrunner or end his campaign quickly with a bang.

Michelle Bachmann is a controversial Congresswoman from Minnesota who is best known for her association with the Tea Party movement and her extreme religious views which include strong opposition to gay rights and a call for a federal ban on pornography. Bachmann has a strongly fiscally conservative record and was a top contender in the polls until a few weeks ago when her numbers dropped into the single digits, possibly because of the entry of Rick Perry into the race and his appeal to the same demographic.

Herman Cain is the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, a syndicated columnist and a former federal reserve board chairman.. Until recently he was a nationally syndicated radio talkshow host, but is on hiatus during his campaign. He is from Atlanta and has degrees in mathematics and computer science. He is a strong fiscal conservative with relatively pragmatic positions on social issues. He is an experienced and dynamic public speaker and brings powerful credentials as a very successful businessman to his campaign.

John Huntsman is the former Governor of Utah and most recently was President Obama’s Ambassador to China. He is seen as a moderate Republican with an appeal to independents, though so far his lack of media exposure and relatively low public profile have held him back from any success in national polls. If he performs well here it may take him from the back bench to being a more major contender.

Rick Santorum served two terms as Senator from Pennsylvania and two terms in Congress representing suburban Pittsburgh. He is Roman Catholic and has a reputation as an extreme religious conservative. He tried to legislate the teaching of intelligent design at the federal level and has made controversial statements on a variety of social issues. He is known for his aggressive and confrontational style and for not shying away from controversial positions.

For more information on the candidates, their statements and their records see Project Vote Smart.

Of course with this popularity comes criticism. Too many Republican voters and self-described “Constitutional conservatives”—at least those I’ve come across—have been quick to describe the libertarian-minded congressman as “kooky” and a “crazy old man”. Their primary focus is on foreign policy but some on economics as well. Despite Paul’s fervent belief in Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of avoiding “entangling alliances”, these conservatives often paint him as a “liberal”. Perhaps liberal in the classical sense like John Stuart Mill, but certainly not in the modern-day so-called liberalism of persons like President Obama, Ed Schultz, and Alan Colmes.

Many rumors are spread by the anti-Paul conservatives. Paul supporters are often referred to as “PaulBots”—ironically similar to author Jason Materra’s term “Obama Zombies” used in the book of the same name—although save for a few kooky and loud conspiracy theorists, Paul supporters tend to be better at justifying their support for the jolly old man than do the Obama Zombies. Paul is often mischaracterized as a bigot, even though there is no evidence to support this ad hominem attack.

But what the anti-Paul conservatives—usually of the interventionist line of foreign policy thinking that is commonly referred to as neoconservatism, though having its roots in Woodrow Wilson—fail to do is actually look at what Paul’s foreign policy positions are and have been and see if they have any connection to reality.  Paul’s years of studying the Austrian School of Economics have had a surprising effect on his analytical skills when it comes to foreign policy.

Recently, Ron Paul supporters posted a video to Youtube entitled “Ron Paul the Master”. It shows a collection of speeches and interviews in which Ron Paul makes some stunning predictions about our current economic woes and even international conflicts of the present. And he does this as far back as 2002. Of course no one gave him the time of day.

Let’s analyze one of these speeches, which begins at 3 minutes into the video and was presented before congress on April 24, 2002.

“Our government intervention in the economy and in the private affairs of citizens, and the internal affairs of foreign countries, leads to uncertainty and many unintended consequences. Here are some of the consequences about which we should be concerned.

The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result.

Major moves will be made by China, India, Russia, and Pakistan in Central Asia to take advantage of the chaos for the purpose of grabbing land, resources, and strategic advantages sought after for years.”

This is absolutely true. The chaos gave us many unexpected problems. Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq grew after the invasion. And the country is now under Shiite control, moving it dangerously close to Iran. In 2002, Iran’s president was the more philosophically minded Mohammed Khatami…but now we have an anti-Semitic loudmoth, Ahmedinejad. Russia has moved into Iran to build an energy alliance. Vladimir Putin, and his cronies in Gazprom and Lukoil would love to gain control of the natural resources in Iran and Russia has been helping the Islamic Republic develop nuclear technology which US intelligence believes is being developed for destructive purposes. Let’s hope and pray they are wrong.

China and Pakistan have certainly taken advantage of the chaos. Not only is their alliance stronger, but the oil contracts in Iraq are going to—guess who—China! Kind of debunks the whole left-wing moonbattery that Iraq was “blood for oil”.

You can find more detail in these articles:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082802200.html

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/June/China-Benefits-from-Oil-Deals-with-Iraq/

“Current Israeli-United States policies will solidify Arab Muslim nations, this will include those Muslim nations that in the past have fought against each other.

Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists.”

What exactly do you think the “Arab Spring” is? Peaceful democratic people overthrowing dictators? Not quite. The Muslim Brotherhood, a precursor to Hamas, has founded its own political party in Egypt; it is possible these theocrats will gain significant power in the new government. Let’s not forget that Libyan and Yemeni rebels have been linked to Al Qaeda. Just the other day the new Al Qaeda cheif Ayman Al-Zawahiri was lauding the rioters in Syria.

And certainly the dictators—such as Gaddafi and Mubarak—aren’t moderate in the eyes of their own people, but often American politicians have viewed them as such. Useful when we need them, disposable when we don’t as Mobutu Sese Seko and Saddam Hussein once were.

“Many American military personnel and civilians will be killed in the coming conflict.

The leaders of whichever side loses the war will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The United States will not officially lose the war, but neither will we win. Our military and political leaders will not be tried by the International Criminal Court”

This wasn’t entirely true, Saddam was tried by his own people. But did we really “win” the war. We turned the country over to the Shiite theocrats instead of secularists and now those people are getting close to Iran.

“An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States.”

Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, and exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending.”

Ah yes, remember when that Burger King value meal was around $3.

“Federal Reserve policy will continue at an expanding rate, with massive credit expansion, which will make the dollar crisis worse. Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money.”

Though Bernanke has kept interest rates low, there is the prospect of T-Bill interest rates going up with the forthcoming debt crisis. There has been a dollar devaluation of 40% against the Euro since this 2002 speech, nearly 14% since June 2010 alone according to an article in The Washington Post.

Quantitative easing most definitely contributed to the high gas prices we see today. If you think it was all the fault of this “Arab Spring”, take a look at the Commodity Price Index some time. This freshly “recycled” dough being put in the hands of speculators causes them to artificially drive up the price of oil and other commodities, some of which are being bought as a hedge against the falling dollar; quite the vicious cycle.

As for gold, when Congressman Paul gave this speech gold was roughly $300 per ounce and today it stands at more than $1615 per ounce; you can check out the historical data on gold prices here.

That’s a whopping 438% increase.

“Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act.

The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives.

Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas.”

The president today has the power to order the assassination American citizens, as in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki—traitorous as he may be, this is wrong. The Constitution has rules for punishing those who commit treason. But President Obama has ignored this and has ordered him to be killed if possible with drone strikes in Yemen.

The welfare state has expanded significantly. A new, unaffordable addition to Medicare under Bush 43 was passed. We saw more than a trillion dollars of so called economic stimulus under Nancy Pelosi and the combined presidencies of Bush and Obama, and that’s not even including Obama’s wasteful and unpopular health care overhaul. Not to mention billions of foreign aid to countries, some of which—such as Pakistan—are less than trustworthy.

“This is the most important of my predictions: Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring. Unfortunately, that will not occur. In due course, the Constitution will continue to be steadily undermined and the American Republic further weakened

During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security.

The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East.”

The middle east is on fire right now. The Israelis are more concerned for their security than ever before. Meanwhile the Saudi lobby pushes us to deal with Iran, with the hopes that they can beat the Islamic Republic in terms of spheres of influence in this theocratic mess of a region.

“Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos.”

This one is self evident. Class warfare is a weapon of distraction used by those who wish to expand the size of government while fat cats at firms such as General Electric, Goldman Sachs, and BP fatten their wallets thanks to government’s policy of picking winners and losers via loopholes and subsidies. The administration may talk the talk, but just take a look at Obama’s campaign contributions and how cozy he is with Jeffrey Immelt; how GE almost got away with paying no taxes, and how a former Goldman Sachs legal adviser with no judicial experience now sits on the Supreme Court.

In addition, a piece was posted two days later, here, containing more words than in the video, which appears as if it may have been cropped to save time. Some of the predictions in that post, such as a reinstatement of the draft did not come true (thank God), but there is one of note that have somewhat come to fruition

“Some European countries will clandestinely support the Muslim countries and their anti-Israel pursuits.”

If you go on YouTube and read the comments sections on almost any video relating to middle eastern politics, you will find that it is a cesspool of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric, and many of the people making these comments are living in Europe. You can take my word for it as a person of Middle Eastern descent who keeps up with these things, or you can check it out yourself. The barbaric theocrats of Hamas are given the benefit of the doubt by many YouTube in the UK, France, Germany and Greece, while the Israelis are fallaciously smeared as “genocidal” and heartless.

Ron Paul’s predictions show a deep understanding of not just economics, but human emotions in the geopolitical world. Those who dismiss him as a “nut” and on the fringe would be wise to thoroughly read this article before making such a judgment. The facts are on his side, and he truly does seem to know what he is talking about.

Dr. Paul concludes with:

“I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5 to 10 years. Let us hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased.”

Well, 2012 will be ten years in. You weren’t wrong on all accounts Ron, in fact, you were right on a great many of them. We should all be most displeased that these predictions came true.

————————————————————————————————

Aaron Alghawi is a senior economics major at Texas A&M University, as well as an alternate board member and  Director of Student Outreach for the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Photo of Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (R, TX) by: Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0)”]

Published 7/29/11 on Examiner

AUSTIN, TX – Texas Governor Rick Perry may be the flavor of the day for a lot of Republicans, but Texas Republicans who are familiar with his record are a lot less enthusiastic about his presidential run.  “Perry has a unique talent for finding new ways to raise taxes and loves to use taxpayer money to subsidize his business cronies,” says Secretary Dave Nalle of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas.  “His supposed belief in limited government and states rights conveniently disappears whenever it conflicts with the demands of the special interests and corporate cronies who he serves.”

Governor Perry’s record of big government, big spending, big taxing and attacks on the fundamental rights of Texas citizens is a familiar to Texans, but seems to be much less well known to Republicans outside of the state, which may explain his high initial showing in the polls.  The Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas is compiling a complete dossier on Perry to share with fellow Republicans outside their state so that they can be informed about what they are being sold in a Perry presidential candidacy.

The file on Perry’s abuses of power, insider deals with cronies and tax and spend policies is thick, but for a start here are what Texas RLC members voted as the top five Perry scandals which GOP primary voters need to know more about:

1. Business Slush Funds: Perry made heavy use of business incentive “slush funds” which used taxpayer dollars to subsidize selected businesses, many of them run by his major campaign contributors.  Just two of these funds, the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Texas Emerging Growth fund, spent over $700 million to subsidize businesses to move to Texas or expand operations in Texas, with little evidence that these handouts of taxpayer money produced job or revenue growth anywhere near sufficient to justify the expense.  In fact, many of these businesses eventually downsized or relocated long before they had earned the money Perry gave them, or even went bankrupt with $25 million fund dollars like Countrywide Financial. source

2. Toll Roads and Land Seizures Perry has never met a toll road project he wasn’t willing to seize huge amounts of private land for and then give the exclusive management contracts to foreign corporations.  Perry’s time in office has set records for eminent domain land seizures – over a million acres have been seized.  His toll road projects have confiscated family farms and torn communities apart.  Toll roads have been used as a massive off-the-books tax program, taking money from Texas drivers and feeding it to foreign financial interests and management groups which lobbied the governor for special deals which produce much higher tolls and higher profits than are typical in other states. source

3. Forced Vaccinations: In 2007 Perry issued an executive order which would have forcibly vaccinated every girl in Texas entering the sixth grade with Merck’s Gardasil vaccine for Human Papilloma Virus.  This massive violation of the privacy rights of Texas teenagers and their parents would have come at a cost of $360 in taxpayer money per shot.  It would have been a huge windfall for Merck, which had paid Perry’s former Chief of Staff $250,000 to lobby the governor and legislature to promote the forced vaccination program. source

4. The Job-Killing Franchise Tax: Knowing that it would be impossible to pass an income tax against popular opposition in Texas, Perry promoted the idea of a special business tax called the “Franchise Tax” which taxes businesses at different arbitrary rates set by the government.  This tax expands business taxes to types of businesses which are not taxed in most states and in many cases taxes small businesses more than large corporations they compete with.  For example it taxes small car repair shops at double the rate it taxes large dealerships for car repairs.   It’s a small business and job killer. source

5. Scuttled the Anti-TSA Bill When Rep. David Simpson led the Texas legislature towards passage of an enormously popular bill (HB1938) to hold the TSA accountable for intrusive searches of airline passengers, Perry played a key role in making sure that the bill was not passed.   When the TSA and the Justice Department began pressuring him, although Perry had promised to submit the bill to the special legislative session, he delayed submitting the bill until it was so late in the session that it was virtually impossible to hold the constitutionally mandated votes necessary for passage.  That way he could score points with the public for submitting the popular bill while at the same time making sure that it wouldn’t pass.  It’s a classic example of Perry’s insincere pandering. source

Don’t be fooled by campaign hype.  If Perry says he’ll cut taxes or get government off our back, look up his real record.  Look up his past statements.  He supported TARP.  He supported the bailouts.  He was even Al Gore’s Texas campaign manager back in 1988.  A vote for Perry in the Republican primary is a vote for more big government and more taxes and more of the the same deficits and irresponsibility we had for 12 years under Bush and Obama.  The Republican Party and the nation need real leadership, not more of the same with a nicer head of hair.

RLC of Texas Chairman Judson Vandiver asks, “Let’s hope Republicans outside Texas see through all the hype.  Let’s all say to to Perry what he said to a Texas state trooper when he tried to bully her after she pulled him over for speeding YouTube: ‘Why don’t you just let us get on down the road?’”

The goals of the committee are to review presidential candidates, take member input, and make recommendations on what actions — if any — to take moving forward.

The RLC has not endorsed any presidential candidate since 1996, when we endorsed Steve Forbes.

Our Bylaws purposefully make it difficult to endorse a candidate for president of the United States and the RLC has traditionally focused on state and local races instead.

Rule 5.D. of the RLC Bylaws states, “Candidate for President of the United States may be endorsed by the Caucus by a 2/3 vote of the active and voting Chartered state’s executive committees. The national Secretary shall notify all Chartered states of a favorable national board proposal for endorsement and state executive officers shall inform the Secretary of the approval or denial by their executive committee within 60 days.”

The chairman of the committee, Mr. Boyle, has more than 20 years of experience in GOP politics. You may contact him if you are interested in providing feedback to the committee.

Only RLC members’ opinions are valued in this process, so please join our organization if you have not yet done so.