SPECIAL GUEST EDITORIAL

by Josiah Schmidt

Those of you following Connecticut's Republican Senate race are aware that, last week, one of the two establishment candidates bowed out, leaving only the establishment-endorsed Linda McMahon and the Tea Party-endorsed Peter Schiff.

As libertarian Republicans, we ought to be aware of some of the distinctions between Schiff and McMahon:

Peter Schiff opposes all bailouts. Linda McMahon does not oppose all bailouts. Peter Schiff is against TARP. Linda McMahon "supported TARP in its original form."

Peter Schiff is against cap-and-trade. Linda McMahon claims to oppose cap-and-trade, but only "in its current form," meaning she would be open to compromising on it and supporting
it.

Peter Schiff wants Roe V Wade overturned. Linda McMahon supports Roe V Wade.

Peter Schiff will devote all his time in the US Senate to forcing an immediate end to deficit spending, by leading a filibuster of the raising of the national debt ceiling and fighting every big spending bill that comes across the Senate floor. Linda McMahon does not want to go to Washington to really make a difference. She has said she would have voted to go along with raising the national debt ceiling by $3 trillion.

Peter Schiff is a millionaire with wide and deep support, who energizes the grassroots. Linda McMahon is just a millionaire.

Peter Schiff has been endorsed by all the Tea Party organizations in CT, as well as the 9 largest CT-based conservative grassroots organizations. Linda McMahon was endorsed by the establishment. Peter Schiff is a committed Republican.

Linda McMahon has donated to many Democratic politicans (including Rahm Emanuel) and was speaking at Democratic events for quite some time before deciding to run in the Republican primary. In fact, the organization who has received the most money from McMahon is the DCCC.

Peter Schiff is incredibly intelligent, is an expert on the biggest issue of the day (the economy) who predicted the 2008 recession in great detail, and can make Richard Blumenthal look like a fool in the debates. Linda McMahon has little-to-no detailed knowledge of any issues and will not be able to hold her own in an indepth debate with Blumenthal.

But I'm not touting Peter Schiff only because he is more in line with our issue positions than Linda McMahon is. I'm touting Peter Schiff, because I have come to the sincere conclusion that he is the only one with the knowledge, the credibility, the persuasiveness, the forcefulness, the courage, and the convictions necessary to get our country back on the right track.

There are very few politicians who I actually believe, when they say that they want to "bring change to government," or "shake up Washington." Even Ron and Rand Paul, who I have nothing but respect for, do not seem to me to be the type of politician that wants to be a powerful force for revolutionizing the way things are done in government. Most free marketeer politicians want to "set an example," or "encourage debate" regarding lofty, esoteric, philosophical issues. Peter Schiff, on the other hand, wants to use every tool at his disposal, to actively bring the big government machine in Washington to a grinding, screeching halt. While I have no doubt that a Senator Schiff would spark some very healthy debates over public policy and leave behind a sterling voting record, Schiff really wants to do battle with the federal government. For instance, one of his main goals is to lead a filibuster of the raising of the national debt ceiling. In the past, when Republicans have threatened to do so, the Democrats cry that such a thing would cause the federal government to have to be shut down. Peter's response? "Let them shut it down, because if we don't shut the government down, the government is going to shut the country down." Peter understands that only if we cut off the funding to the beast, will the beast be forced to start living within its means and making meaningful cuts.

Why do we need a free market warrior in Congress right now, more than we need a free market philospher? Because if policies continue on their current trajectory, this country is headed for a disaster of unprecedented magnitude. Mountains of malinvestments have amassed within our economy as a result of the ongoing attempts to keep bad businesses afloat with an unending stream of ridiculously cheap credit. When these malinvestments meet the fiery reality of consumer demand, this will result in massive bankruptcies, job losses, and credit restrictions (yes, even more). The Federal Reserve is spewing new money with reckless abandon, and when the dam of Chinese/Japanese/Saudi lending bursts, demand for the dollar crashes, and the value of our money plummets, prices will skyrocket and economic pandemonium will break loose. Somebody needs to be in the US Senate, not merely to sit back and make well-intentioned speeches, warning the government not to do the wrong thing in response to this disaster, but to stand up and use every legislative tactic and tool to force the government not to do the wrong thing in response to this disaster. And not only that, but somebody needs to be in the US Senate with the relentless persuasiveness and credibility needed to convince other Congressmen and Senators to do the right thing as well.

With all due respect to Linda McMahon, who would be nowhere near as bad a Senator as Richard Blumenthal, I don't see how anyone can believe, by any stretch of the imagination, that a Senator Linda who would fight tooth and nail to stop the raising of the national debt ceiling (which she has already said she would have voted to raise), or the next wave of bailouts (when she already said she would have supported the first wave of bailouts), or the horrible government policies that threaten to make our situation so much worse (when her
website is littered with promises to make all the same mistakes that got us into this mess in the first place). Even if Linda McMahon had the loyalty to free market principles that Peter Schiff has, I simply couldn't see her going from door to door down the corridor of Senator offices, and hammering each of them with raw logic over and over until they agree do the right thing.

Perhaps some years ago, before the size and severity of the coming crisis had been made clear, I wouldn't have fought so fervently against nominating someone like Linda McMahon. But the nature of our problem is now so grave, that we must take a chance at trying to
nominate the one person who will truly fight, day and night, for us in Washington--Peter Schiff. Schiff is aware that the average Senator spends 40% of her time trying to get re-elected (and in a blue state like Connecticut, a Republican Senator would have to spend a lot more than just 40% of their time securing re-election), which is why Schiff has pledged only one term. That means all of his time will be devoted to working for us. The fact that McMahon wants a healthy twelve years in the Senate means that she won't have the time to do the fighting Peter Schiff can do, and it shows that she doesn't understand the fact that this country's economy, as we know it, likely doesn't have more than six years left.

Peter Schiff can win the nomination, if we put all our efforts behind him, and he can make Dick Blumenthal look like a dunce on the biggest and most pressing issues of the day. But this election is about more than just denying a lowlife like Blumy a Senate seat. This election is our key to mitigating an enormous amount of the damage that the government will undoubtedly try to do, when the economy implodes and the Dollar collapses. It's time to get behind Peter Schiff.