Category Archives: Libertarian

Former President Donald Trump has claimed at times that hell start a third political party called the Patriot Party. In fact, most Americans 62% in a recent poll say theyd welcome the chance to vote for a third party.

In almost any other democracy, those Americans would get their wish. In the Netherlands, for instance, even a small third party called the Party for the Animals composed of animal rights supporters, not dogs and cats won 3.2% of the legislative vote in 2017 and earned five seats, out of 150, in the national legislature.

Yet in the U.S., candidates for the House of Representatives from the Libertarian Party, the most successful of U.S. minor parties, won not a single House seat in 2020, though Libertarians got over a million House votes. Neither did the Working Families Party, with 390,000 votes, or the Legalize Marijuana Now Party, whose U.S. Senate candidate from Minnesota won 185,000 votes.

Why dont American voters have more than two viable parties to choose among in elections, when almost every other democratic nation in the world does?

As Ive found in researching political parties, the American electoral system is the primary reason why the U.S. is the sole major democracy with only two parties consistently capable of electing public officials. Votes are counted in most American elections using plurality rules, or winner take all. Whoever gets the most votes wins the single seat up for election.

Other democracies choose to count some or all of their votes differently. Instead of, say, California being divided into 53 U.S. House districts, each district electing one representative, the whole state could become a multi-member district, and all the voters in California would be asked to choose all 53 U.S. House members using proportional representation.

Each party would present a list of its candidates for all 53 seats, and you, as the voter, would select one of the party slates. If your party got 40% of the votes in the state, then it would elect 40% of the representatives the first 21 candidates listed on the partys slate. This is the system used in 21 of the 28 countries in Western Europe, including Germany and Spain.

In such a system depending on the minimum percentage, or threshold, a party needed to win one seat it would make sense for even a small party to run candidates for the U.S. House, reasoning that if they got just 5% of the vote, they could win 5% of the states U.S. House seats.

So if the Legalize Marijuana Now party won 5% of the vote in California, two or three of the partys candidates would become House members, ready to argue in Congress for marijuana legalization. In fact, until the 1950s, several U.S. states had multi-member districts.

Under the current electoral system, however, if the Legalize Marijuana Now party gets 5% of the states House vote, it wins nothing. It has spent a lot of money and effort with no officeholders to show for it. This disadvantage for small parties is also built into the Electoral College, where a candidate needs a majority of electoral votes to win the presidency and no non-major-party candidate ever has.

Theres another factor working against third-party success: State legislatures make the rules about how candidates and parties get on the ballot, and state legislatures are made up almost exclusively of Republicans and Democrats. They have no desire to increase their competition.

So a minor-party candidate typically needs many more signatures on a petition to get on the ballot than major-party candidates do, and often also pays a filing fee that major party candidates dont necessarily have to pay.

Further, although many Americans call themselves independents, pollsters find that most of these independents actually lean toward either the Democrats or the Republicans, and their voting choices are almost as intensely partisan as those who do claim a party affiliation.

Party identification is the single most important determinant of peoples voting choices; in 2020, 94% of Republicans voted for Donald Trump, and the same percentage of Democrats voted for Joe Biden.

The small number of true independents in American politics are much less likely to show interest in politics and to vote. So it would not be easy for a third party to get Americans to put aside their existing partisan allegiance.

The idea of a center party has great appeal in theory. In practice, few agree on what centrist means. Lots of people, when asked this question, envision a center party that reflects all their own views and none of the views they disagree with.

Thats where a Trump Party does have one advantage. Prospective Trump Party supporters do agree on what they stand for: Donald Trump.

[The Conversations newsletter explains whats going on with the coronavirus pandemic. Subscribe now.]

Yet theres an easier path for Trump supporters than fighting the U.S. electoral system, unfriendly ballot access rules and entrenched party identification. Thats to take over the Republican Party. In fact, theyre very close to doing so now.

Trump retains a powerful hold over the partys policies. His adviser, Jason Miller, stated, Trump effectively is the Republican Party. This Trump Party is very different from Ronald Reagans GOP. Thats not surprising; the U.S. major parties have always been permeable and vulnerable to takeover by factions.

There are good reasons for Americans to want more major parties. Its hard for two parties to capture the diversity of views in a nation of more than 300 million people.

But American politics would look very different if the country had a viable multi-party system, in which voters could choose from among, say, a Socialist Party, a White Supremacist Party and maybe even a Party for the Animals.

To get there, Congress and state legislatures would need to make fundamental changes in American elections, converting single-member districts with winner-take-all rules into multi-member districts with proportional representation.

See more here:

Why Trump is more likely to win in the GOP than to take his followers to a new third party - The Conversation US

Despite years of advocacy and legal activism from libertarian-leaning academics, the federal government continues to bar Americans from selling their kidneys. Now a service dog trainer and a personal injury attorney are teaming up to take this prohibition down.

Last month, New Jersey man John Bellocchio filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, challenging the constitutionality of a decades-old federal ban on compensating organ donors.

"Risks are associated with the donation of an organ, yet individuals are wrongfully excluded from being provided with any incentive or compensation for the potential risks that may occur in giving their organ to another," reads his complaint. "There is no valid constitutional or public policy rationale why one should not be able to receive a profit from such a transaction."

For Bellocchiothe owner of Fetch and More, which places service dogs with veterans and other low-income clientsthe issue of organ sales is personal. His company works primarily in Appalachia, he says, where he's encountered many clients who are desperate for a new kidney or some extra cash.

"My colleagues and I saw that there was an enormous need both for kidneys and for money," he tells Reason. "I think what was sort of an esoteric or ephemeral constitutional question became very real for me."

According to his lawsuit, Bellocchio also recently experienced financial distress that led him to look into options for selling his kidney. Through that research, he learned that doing so would put him on the wrong side of the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), which makes it a crime for anyone to "acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce."

Violators of this ban face a maximum fine of $50,000 and up to five years in prison.

That prohibition has left the 90,000 patients in need of a kidney on the national transplant list dependent on either finding a donor who is both a physical match and altruistic enough to part with an organ for free or waiting for the exact right stranger to die unexpectedly while they are still young and healthy. Due largely to those constraints, it's estimated that between 5,000 and 10,000 people die for want of a kidney transplant each year. Many more are left to undergo expensive, draining dialysis treatment.

Medicare, which covers kidney patients of all ages, spent $81 billion on patients with chronic kidney disease in 2018. Medicare-related spending on patients with end-stage renal disease totaled $49.2 billion that same year.

These preventable deaths, high treatment costs, and perceived injustice of prohibiting people from voluntarily using their own body as they see fit has led a small but enthusiastic cadre of legal scholars and policy wonks to try to amend or overturn the ban on organ sales.

That includes Lloyd Cohen, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, who has been making the case for a market in organs in journal articles and media appearances since the early 1990s.

Because of his long history of public advocacy on this issue, Cohen is usually the first stop for people looking to get more involved in the fight to end the organ war.

"My name is out there in this literature [as] one of the promoters of a market in transplant organs," he says. "What happens is every once in a while, every three months, six months, somebody gets it in his head that this is a good idea. And they start doing research and they find my name and then they get in touch with me."

That includes Bellocchio, who reached out to Cohen a few months ago hoping the law professor might represent him in a lawsuit challenging the federal ban on organ sales.

Cohen, who teaches but doesn't practice law, declined to take up Bellocchio's case. But he was able to connect him with someone who was more than eager to do so.

At the time Bellocchio reached out to him, Cohen had been corresponding with Matthew Haicken, a personal injury attorney in New York City. Like Bellocchio, Haicken became interested in the issue of kidney sales after knowing a few clients who were undergoing dialysis treatment.

"I Googled what it was and I saw videos and it just seemed awful. The more I learned about it and just how inefficient the system was. It's always seemed ridiculous to me," he says. Soon enough, he was reading Cohen's writings and watching his interviews (including one video he did with John Stossel for Reason.)

His growing interest in the issue also dovetailed with his desire to do some public interest pro bono work. "I was brainstorming and I thought, hey, why not the organs issue?" he says. "As a personal injury lawyer, I'm always thinking about what is life worth, what is suffering worth, what are body parts worth?"

Once Cohen introduced Haicken to Bellocchio, the former agreed to represent him on a pro bono basis, and the two were off to the races.

Bellocchio's lawsuit makes two constitutional claims: The first is that a ban on kidney sales violates his freedom of contract as protected by the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The second is his right to privacy under the 14th Amendment.

His lawsuit cites Supreme Court precedent on birth control and abortion, arguing that "the decision to have a portion of one's own body extracted and sold to one in need is an extremely personal one and must be afforded the same privacy rights that have frequently been extended to matters of personal, bodily autonomy as mentioned above."

This most recent challenge likely faces an uphill battle according to Ilya Somin, another law professor at George Mason University.

"Much as I wish it were otherwise, I fear the lawsuit has little, if any chance of succeeding. Under current Supreme Court precedent, laws restricting economic transactions are subject only to very minimal 'rational basis' scrutiny," writes Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy (which is hosted by Reason). "I believe that precedent should be reversed, or at least significantly revised. But that is unlikely to happen any time soon."

Past efforts to challenge the ban on organ sales have also come to naught.

Cohen says about a decade ago he worked briefly with Sally Satel, a physician and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute to try and assemble a legal challenge to the ban on compensating kidney donors.

Satel tells Reason that she and Jeff Rowes, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, had collaborated briefly on the idea, but it eventually morphed into a narrower (successful) challenge to the NOTA's ban on compensating people who give renewable bone marrow.

On the legislative front, Rep. Matt Cartwright (DPenn.) has proposed a bill that would clarify which types of payments to kidney and other organ donors count as legal reimbursement of expenses under NOTA, and not illegal compensation. Cartwright last introduced this bill in July 2020, but it stalled in committee.

Former President Donald Trump also issued an executive order that expands the definition of kidney donors' legally reimbursable expenses to include the costs of travel, child care, and lost wages.

Libertarian ideas about bodily autonomy have proven surprisingly successful in recent years at liberalizing drug laws. They're starting to move the conversation on things like sex work as well. The prohibition on kidney sales remains stubbornly stalled, however.

Satelwho once received a donated kidney from former Reason Editor in chief Virginia Postrelchalks up the lack of progress to people's own instinctual distaste at the idea of a market for organs, and the narrow appeal of kidney disease as an issue.

"Unfortunately, because it's so niche, there's only one major interest group and that's the National Kidney Foundation," which she says remains opposed to compensating kidney donors.

Cohen says much the same thing: "It doesn't have an interest group that can coalesce. It's not like a race or religion. People who themselves have had some bad luck or people in their family who've had bad luck and have kidney disease."

Both Haicken and Bellocchio hope that their lawsuit can be that catalyst for change.

"I've been contacted by people all over the country. People are very positive about it," says Haicken. "I have gotten some hate mail, but that's mostly been from my friends and family."

Only time will tell if they'll be successful. It would be a great thing if they were, says Cohen.

"There are organs that can be restoring people to life and health instead of being fed to worms," Cohen tells Reason. "Not because people have a fundamental objection to giving up their organs, but because it is illegal for them to get any compensation."

Go here to read the rest:

Meet the Dream Team Suing the Biden Administration Over Your Right To Sell Your Kidney - Reason

Tuesday, 4 May 2021, 10:24 amArticle: Eric Zuesse

On May 3rd, the New York Times bannered Reaching HerdImmunity Is Unlikely in the U.S., Experts NowBelieve and reported that there is widespreadconsensus among scientists and public health experts thatthe herd immunity threshold is not attainable at leastnot in the foreseeable future, and perhaps notever.

In other words: the news-sources thatwere opposing the governments taking action againstCovid-19 libertarian news-sites that opposegovernmental laws and regulations, regardless of thepredominant view by the vast majority of the scientists whospecialize in studying the given subject are lookingwronger all the time, as this novel coronavirus (whichis what it was originally called) becomes less and lessnovel, and more and more understoodscientifically.

The herd immunity advocates foranti-Covid-19 policies have been saying that governmentsshould just let the virus spread until nature takes itscourse and such a large proportion of the population havesurvived the infection as to then greatly reduce thelikelihood that an uninfected person will become infected.An uninfected person will increasingly be surrounded bypeople who have developed a natural immunity to the disease,and by people who dont and never did become infected byit. The vulnerable people will have become eliminated (died)or else cured, and so they wont be spreading the diseaseto others. Thats the libertarian solution, thefinal solution to the Covid-19 problem, according tolibertarians.

For example, on 9 April 2020,Forbes magazine headlined AfterRejecting A Coronavirus Lockdown, Sweden Sees Rise InDeaths and reported that, Swedens chiefepidemiologist Anders Tegnell has continuously advocated forlaid back measures, saying on Swedish TV Sunday that thepandemic could be defeated by herd immunity, or the indirectprotection from a large portion of a population being immuneto an infection, or a combination of immunityand vaccination. However, critics have argued that withacoronavirus vaccine could be more than a year away, andinsufficient evidence that coronavirus patients that recoverare immune from becominginfected again, the strategy of relying on herd immunityand vaccinations [is] ineffective.

The libertarianproposal of relying upon herd immunity for producingpolicies against this disease has continued,nonetheless.

CNN headlined on 28 April 2020, Swedensays its coronavirus approach has worked. The numberssuggest a different story, and reportedthat

On March 28, a petition signed by 2,000Swedish researchers, including Carl-Henrik Heldin, chairmanof the Nobel Foundation, called for the nation's governmentto "immediately take steps to comply with the World HealthOrganization's (WHO) recommendations."

Thescientists added: "The measures should aim to severely limitcontact between people in society and to greatly increasethe capacity to test people for Covid-19infection."

"These measures must be in place assoon as possible, as is currently the case in our Europeanneighboring countries," they wrote. "Our country should notbe an exception to the work to curb thepandemic."

The petition said that trying to"create a herd immunity, in the same way that occurs duringan influenza epidemic, has low scientificsupport."

Swedish authorities have deniedhaving a strategy to create herd immunity, one the UKgovernment was rumored to be working towards earlier on inthe pandemic -- leading to widespread criticism -- before itenforced a strict lockdown.

FORTUNEmagazine headlined on 30 July 2020, Howparts of India inadvertently achieved herd immunity,and reported that, Around 57% of people across parts ofIndia's financial hub of Mumbai have coronavirus antibodies,a July study found, indicating that the population may haveinadvertently achieved the controversial herd immunityprotection from the coronavirus.Furthermore:

Herd immunity is an approach to thecoronavirus pandemic where, instead of instituting lockdownsand other restrictions to slow infections, authorities allowdaily life to go on as normal, letting the disease spread.In theory, enough people will become infected, recover, andgain immunity that the spread will slow on its own andpeople who are not immune will be protected by the immunityof those who are. University of Chicago researchersestimated in a paperpublished in May that achieving herd immunity from COVID-19would require 67% of people to be immune to the disease.Mayo Clinic estimates70% of the U.S. population will need to be immune for theU.S. to achieve herd immunity, which can also be achieved byvaccinating that proportion of a population.

On 27September 2020, Reuters bannered InBrazil's Amazon a COVID-19 resurgence dashes herd immunityhopes, and reported that, The largest city inBrazils Amazon has closed bars and river beaches tocontain a fresh surge of coronavirus cases, a trend that maydash theories that Manaus was one of the worlds firstplaces to reach collective, or herd, immunity.

Rightnow, the global average of Covid-19 intensity (total cases of the diseasethus far) is 19,693 persons per million population. Forexamples: Botswana is barely below that intensity, at19,629, and Norway is barely above that intensity, at20,795. Sweden is at 95,905, which is nearly five times theglobal average. Brazil is 69,006, which is around 3.5 timesworse than average. India is 14,321, which is slightlybetter than average. USA is 99,754.

However, the dayprior, on May 2nd, America had 30,701 new cases. Brazil had28,935. Norway had 210. India had 370,059. Swedens latestdaily count (as-of May 3rd) was 5,937 on April 29th, 15times Norways 385 on that date. Swedens population is1.9 times that of Norway. Indias daily count is soaring.Their population is four times Americas, but the numberof new daily cases in India is twelve times Americas.Whereas India has had only one-seventh as much Covid-19intensity till now, India is soaring upwards to becomeultimately, perhaps, even worse than America is on Covid-19performance. And Brazil is already almost as bad as America,on Covid-19 performance, and will soon surpass America inCovid-19 failure.

There is no herd immunityagainst Covid-19, yet, anywhere. Its just anotherlibertarian myth. But libertariansstill continue to believe it they refuse to accept thedata.

Investigativehistorian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of TheyreNot Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican EconomicRecords, 1910-2010, and of CHRISTSVENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that CreatedChristianity.

Scoop Media

Become a member Find out more

Read more:

The 'Post-Covid-19 World' Will Never Come. - Scoop.co.nz

This Monday, Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie dish on their least favorite parts of President Joe Biden's State of the Union address and the messaging around the newest coronavirus guidelines. Plus, The Reason Roundtable answers a listener question about the ties between self-proclaimed libertarians and people against the coronavirus vaccine.

Discussed in the show:

1:36: Biden's SOTU address takeaways.

22:34: The government's newest coronavirus guidelines.

36:56: Weekly Listener Question: The current anti-vax sentiment within a significant portion of the libertarian world has me questioning everything. Weren't we the folks who, a mere couple of years ago, were saying "Get the FDA out of the way so big pharma can cure things?" That literally happened, and now a significant number of libertarians are kvetching about how quickly the vaccines were developed. How can I have faith in the rationality of libertarianism when there is a significant portion of the movement that is so breathtakingly wrong on vaccines?

48:52: Media recommendations for the week.

This weeks links:

Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsors:

Audio production by Ian Keyser.Assistant production by Regan Taylor.Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve.

View post:

The Red Flags in Biden's State of the Union Address - Reason

I think columnist Mona Charen is a poor replacement for Walter Williams. Where are the conservative writers? How long before Pat Buchanan and libertarian John Stossel are history?

Fact-checking is great if applied equally without bias, but as we all know, its easy to give special treatment to facts with which we agree. Does anyone think fake news would ignore Hunter Biden if he was President Trumps son?

I believe President Biden wants to eliminate our right to bear arms and stack the Supreme Court with four more liberals. President F.D. Roosevelt was unsuccessful in his attempt to stack the court, and he was much more popular than Biden. Biden also is considering term limits for the Supreme Court. Would he support term limits for Congress? I think not!

Thanks to President Obama, who praised the hoodlum and degraded the cops, race relations in our country are lower than whale feces on the bottom of the ocean. This is why we have mob rule and calls for defunding police departments. Dont all lives matter?

I served my military obligation years ago when the purpose of the military was to defend our country and fight its wars. That all changed with presidents Bill Clinton and Obama, who never served in the military. We now have a politically correct organization where just about anyone can serve. If the attack on Pearl Harbor should happen today, I dont think we could win the war. Rather than serve their country, this generation would take a knee.

Rudy Gagliardi

Arnold

Read this article:

Letter to the editor: Thoughts on Charen, Biden, race relations, military - TribLIVE

Everyone, including President Joe Biden, made quite a big deal out of Vice President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi being the first pair of women to rank high enough to sit behind the president as he delivered his first address to Congress last week.

Let's be grateful that it was one more first for women that we won't have to celebrate again.

It was a very big deal, of course. Women have never in our nation's history occupied those two elevated offices at the same time. We have never had a woman as a vice president before.

We nearly had a woman president, we all still recall. Hillary Clinton was very narrowly defeated by Donald Trump in the 2016 election. In fact, she won the popular vote by a margin of 3 million but lost in the Electoral College.

Women have run for vice president before, but their running mates couldn't win the top office. Republican Sarah Palin in 2008 and Democrat Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 were on losing tickets.

A couple of other women ascended to lesser, but still noteworthy heights. Frances Sissy Farenthold had her name put into nomination for vice president at the Democratic National Convention in 1972 but got no further.

And Toni Nathan, the 1972 Libertarian candidate for vice president, became the first woman to win an electoral vote when one Republican elector voted for her instead of for his partys candidate.

Women's progress as measured by political success is still being scoured whenever the occasion arises because it is undeniably part of our history. But it's not a part we should be especially proud of.

Why should a nation dedicated inviolably to equality of all take almost two and a half centuries to put a woman in the second seat, and why have we not yet put one in the first?

We didn't even grant them the right to vote until the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. Up until then, did men really think women did not have the brains or the need to be able to express their opinions in a manner that mattered?

As a nation, we were generally proud in 2008 to have finally elected a Black president, although that achievement might have lost some of its luster in light of recent multiple episodes of racist killings and other malignant behaviors.

While we still have never elected a female president, at least we finally have a female vice president on our resume.

But we are still left to observe the noteworthiness of having two women at the shoulders of our president as he gives one of the most important speeches of the year.

We should be proud that we have finally put them there but chagrined that we haven't put one at the podium.

You could say we've come a long way in the last 101 years. In 1920, we at last acknowledged that we had been using only half of our brainpower.

Someday soon, we'll consummate the process fully, and we'll be able to stop congratulating ourselves for our baby steps.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Continued here:

Editorial: On women in office, we're still only getting there - Plattsburgh Press Republican

By The Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS Indianas top elections official has acknowledged violating state political fundraising rules with the launch of her 2022 election campaign.

Republican Secretary of State Holli Sullivan requested contributions as she announced her campaign Monday five days earlier than allowed under changes to state law signed by Gov. Eric Holcomb that day.

Sullivan, who was appointed secretary of state by Holcomb in March and is vice chair of the Indiana Republican Party, said she was seeking a full four-year term to defend the integrity of Indianas elections.

State law prohibits candidates for state offices from fundraising during the legislative sessions when the two-year state budget is drafted. Lawmakers extended their meeting deadline from the typical April 29 until November so they can return to approve new election districts.

The Committee to Elect Holli Sullivan has determined that it made an improper solicitation of campaign funds, Sullivans campaign said in a statement. These public solicitations have been removed and all contributions have been returned.

State Libertarian Party Chairman Evan McMahon said If you are vying to be elected to head the office that oversees elections and enforces campaign finance laws it would probably be a good idea to not break those laws."

Read more from the original source:

Top elections official admits fundraising error - The Herald

I was on Instagram a few years ago and one of my friends posted a picture of former first lady Barbara Bush with this caption: I cant imagine how painful her life must have been, at times. When your husband and oldest son are U.S. presidents and your youngest son is a prominent political figure as well, it comes with the territory, but it still had to hurt. Can you imagine turning on the news and hearing someone speak of your child like people speak of political figures?

Needless to say, it was very thought-provoking and in this age of venomous partisanship, very true.

American politics has become very caustic over the last few years on both ends of the spectrum.

Part of the problem with our political process today is that we often have little respect for those who disagree with us. I was listening to a talk show in March 2018 when a caller said that he disliked the return of Roseanne to ABC because it legitimize(d) deplorables, referencing Hillary Clintons generalization of Trump supporters from the 2016 presidential election campaign.

Even if a person dislikes the politics and the personality of the president, to write off roughly 74 million Trump voters as racists and fascists is going way too far and it contributes to the growing division in our country. After all, who wants to even say hello to someone who is a racist and/or fascist much less have any meaningful dialogue with them?

However, its not just Democrats and members of the left who have painted their opponents with the broad brush. In 2012, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney damaged his chances of defeating Barack Obama in the presidential race when he referred to many of his opponents as part of the 47 percent.

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what, Romney said. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.

Again, even if a person dislikes the politics and the personality of the president at that time, Obama to write off the millions who voted for him as lazy, sponging moochers is going too far. After all, who wants to even say hello to a lazy bum who mooches off the taxpayers so he or she can do nothing all day but watch TV and drink beer, much less have any meaningful dialogue with them?

I moved to Nebraska in September 2015, just as the countdown to the Iowa caucuses was heating up. As a political aficionado, I enjoyed getting to meet many of the presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle, including Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Martin OMalley and the daughters of Bernie Sanders.

But along the way, I learned something: They are all human beings just like the rest of us. And Ive always found it much harder to throw rocks at a living, breathing human being than at a TV set. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, independent or whatever, we are all Americans and we are all in this together.

My friend closed his Instagram photo caption with these words: Thats why when I speak of a (politician), regardless of their affiliation or party, I try to keep in mind that person has or had a Momma who loves/loved them very much, just like me. #humanity

Words to live by.

Go here to see the original:

Bring civility back to politics -- and to life in general - darnews.com

Could Academy Award-winning actor Matthew McConaughey displace Republican Gov. Greg Abbotts bid in 2022 for a third four-year term?

According to a Dallas Morning News/University of Texas at Tyler poll taken April 6-13, in a choice between McConaughey, Abbott and an unnamed someone else, the actor got 45% to Abbotts 33%, with 22% for someone else.

Of the 1,126 poll respondents, 37% identified themselves as Republican, 30% as Democrats, and 33% with no party affiliation. The polls margin of error is plus or minus 2.92%.

Abbotts job approval rating was 50% among all respondents, with 36% disapproving and 15% saying neither.

McConaughey got the support of 66% of the Democrats against Abbott and a third party, 44% of independents, and 30% of Republicans.

The actor has said hed be a fool not to at least consider the possibility of running for governor of his home state.

But McConaughey has yet to say which partys banner hed run under, if any, describing himself as an aggressive centrist.

Im a Meet You in the Middle man, he told the Austin American-Statesman in March. He said no single party has exclusive ownership of various political issues and virtues.

Other interesting information turned up by the poll of Texans included that Democratic President Joe Biden has a 52-41 job approval rating.

On abortion, more than half of Texans oppose U.S. Supreme Court repeal of the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision that largely left it to women to decide whether they want to carry a pregnancy to term. Opponents of repeal were 61%; 37% wanted it done away with.

House Bill 1927, to allow carrying a handgun in Texas without a permit or training, was passed 87-58 by the Texas House on April 16. But in the recent poll of Texans, 58% are against it, while 26% favor it.

The bill must pass the Senate before it can go to the governor for approval or disapproval.

But Senate presiding officer, Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, has said the bill doesnt have enough votes to clear that body, and Abbott declined to say his attitude toward the bill until it reaches his desk.

Congress 6 replacement: The May 1 special election to fill the Congressional District 6 seat in southeast Tarrant County, including most of Arlington and Mansfield, and all of Ellis and Navarro counties south of Dallas County, has drawn 23 candidates.

The vacancy was due to the Feb. 7 death of Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Wright from COVID-19.

The 11 Republicans running include Wrights widow Susan, a longtime Republican Party activist, thought to be leading the pack a few weeks ago.

But another GOP candidate is state Rep. Jake Ellzey of Waxahachie, who won his Texas House seat last year after losing a Republican primary runoff to Wright in 2018.

Among the 10 Democratic contenders is Jana Sanchez, who won the 2018 Democratic primary runoff, but lost in November to Ron Wright.

There is also a Libertarian candidate and an Independent.

A runoff is expected, since none of the 23 candidates are likely to top the 50% necessary to avoid one.

The earliest date for which the runoff can be set by Gov. Greg Abbott is May 24.

The runoff winner will begin serving upon being declared, but will immediately face a crowded re-election battle.

Several of the losing candidates May 1 will probably likely just continue running for the 2022 election in the Republican district trending Democratic.

And, this is slated to be the once-a-decade redistricting of legislative and congressional districts.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported figures Monday of the 2020 U.S. headcount. Texas will pick up two new congressional districts from other states for the 2022 election year, due to population shifts. Texas is the only state to gain more than one.

That will boost the number of Texas districts from 36 to 38, which probably will scramble districts in urban areas.

Its entirely likely that some of the candidates may not live in District 6 after the redistricting, but thats OK.

To run for Congress, a candidate just has to be at least 25, a U. S. citizen and a resident of the state. Thats it.

In fact, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram checked candidate data, and found eight candidates four Democrats, three Republicans and the lone Libertarian dont reside within the districts boundaries.

But some did, or have worked in the district for years,

So, some with an eye on a seat in Congress: this might be an ending or a continuation or a beginning.

Let the political contests continue.

Dave McNeely is an Austin-based columnist who covers Texas politics. His column appears Thursday.

See more here:

McNeely: McConaughey for governor? | Opinion | news-journal.com - Longview News-Journal

Three of the four candidates vying for the open 48th state senatorial district seat showed voters there are some clear differences among them on where they stand on issues facing Pennsylvania during a League of Women Voters candidates forum on Tuesday.

During the 90-minute Zoom discussion, Democrat Dr. Calvin Clements presented himself as a party loyalist who would be supportive of many of Gov. Tom Wolfs positions on issues while independent Edward Krebs and Libertarian Tim McMaster made it clear they would not be beholden to either of the major parties.

Republican Christopher Gebhard, 46, of Lebanon County, did not participate in the debate. The president and CEO of an insurance and risk management firm said in an email sent to PennLive on Wednesday morning that he had a scheduling conflict and was unable to participate.

The Senate Majority Leader [Kim Ward, R-Westmoreland County] was the guest in Lebanon and I needed to attend that event, Gebhard said.

On May 18, all four candidates names will appear on the ballot as they compete in a special election for a Senate seat representing Lebanon County and parts of lower Dauphin and northeastern York counties.

The winner will occupy the seat that became vacant due to the Jan. 17 death of Dave Arnold and serve out the unexpired portion of Arnolds term that expires on Nov. 30, 2022.

Krebs, a former six-term House member, made a commitment to serve only for the remaining year and a half left in Arnolds term and not seek re-election. The 77-year-old Lebanon County resident said that would basically give him enough time to try to work on breaking through the partisan gridlock in the state Capitol, work on creating a balance budget, and tackling redistricting reform.

He also said if elected, he would not caucus with either the Republican or Democratic party and retain his independence to the point that if neither caucus gave him office space in the Capitol, he would pull a trailer up in my parking spot and my office will be in the trailer.

McMaster, a 46-year-old an information technology analyst who lives on his family farm in York County, said he also would not caucus with either the Republican or Democratic parties. But he said he hopes to caucus with the other Libertarian candidates running in other special election races to be decided on May 18.

All three candidates said they wanted to see more civility in the legislative process and expressed a desire to work more collaboratively with members regardless of party. Krebs, who was first elected to the state House as a Democrat and switched to run as a Republican in his third term, said he always left his party label at the door and I plan to do that when I get to Harrisburg.

Clements, a 70-year-old semi-retired veterinarian from Lebanon County, said, My goal will be as your senator to sit down with both sides and listen with an open mind, open heart, so that we can achieve the goals of producing legislation that will move Pennsylvania in a forward direction.

McMaster said he was willing to work with anyone on good ideas, not based on party, but based on principle and that principle is freedom of the people, the liberty of the people.

All three candidates called for redistricting reform and pointed to the 48th Senatorial District that stretches across the Susquehanna River with no way to get from one shore to the other without leaving the district as a perfect example as to why it is needed.

I think the way this district has been gerrymandered is absolutely appalling, McMaster said. It essentially disenfranchise almost fully half of the electorate in this district.

All three voiced support for a more transparent, accountable redistricting process that allows for robust public input.

The trio also supported the voting reforms that the General Assembly enacted in the last legislative session, known as Act 77, that introduced no-excuse mail-in voting to Pennsylvania.

Clements said that issue is a clear distinction between himself and Gebhard based on what he sees on the Republican candidates website.

The first thing [Gebhard] is going to do is he is going to work to repeal Act 77, which I just absolutely think is ridiculous, Clements said. This was the first election where the largest number of Americans voted since1960. I think participation in the election is a good thing, not a bad thing. The mail-in ballot was one of those things that allowed that to happen.

On the issue of raising the minimum wage to $12 and ratcheting it up to $15 an hour as Wolf has proposed, both Clements and Krebs supported the idea but McMaster said he is against it.

All it does is inflate and prevent entry into lower positions or entry-level positions or part-time positions, McMaster said. All that is doing is hurting the small business owners.

When the conversation turned to the selection of appellate court judges, McMaster and Clements said they support letting voters decide who serves on the Commonwealth, Superior or Supreme courts.

But Krebs favored forming an independent commission of legal scholars who could review rulings made by the judicial candidates and letting them make the selection rather than leaving it to individuals who know nothing about the legality of many things.

McMaster slapped Krebs for saying he doesnt feel that the voters are smart enough to decide either on their own who their judges or who they are represented by, I take great offense to that.

Krebs said he would have more confidence in qualified people who studied judicial candidates qualifications making the decisions rather than the way he picks them based on where they are from.

I voted for the guys that werent from Philly or Pittsburgh, Krebs said. Is that really what I should be doing? But that was my general rule. I knew nothing about the judges.

On the proposed constitutional amendments that will appear on the May 18 ballot to curb the governors emergency declaration powers, McMaster said he was 100% in support of them while his two opponents said they oppose them.

I just dont think the Legislature is competent enough to sit down and recognize the seriousness of some of the things that are going on, Clements said. It was pretty obvious that some of the things that they said that ninth-grade science wasnt their strong suit.

Krebs called it ridiculous to limit the length of a gubernatorial emergency declaration to 21 days (from the current 90 days) but it could be extended with legislative approval.

An emergency is an emergency, Krebs said. If theres any one I dont want to have to make the decision in a short period of time, its the General Assembly. They dont work that way.

Along with all of Lebanon County, this senatorial district encompasses Dauphin County municipalities of Conewago, Londonderry, Swatara and Lower Swatara townships and the boroughs of Highspire, Middletown, Paxtang, Royalton and Steelton; and the York County municipalities of Conewago, East Manchester, Newberry and Springettsbury townships and the borough of Goldsboro, Lewisberry, Manchester, Mount Wolf, and York Haven.

* This story has been updated to include GOP candidate Christopher Gebhards reason for not participating in the forum.

Jan Murphy may be reached at jmurphy@pennlive.com. Follow her on Twitter at @JanMurphy.

Read this article:

Candidates seeking 48th Senatorial District seat put their differences on display - PennLive