United Liberty

The first poll of the Texas governor’s race since reports indicated that state senator Wendy Davis would announce her candidacy shows current Attorney General Greg Abbott leads the race by 8 points. 29% of respondents to the Lyceum poll support Abbott, 21% support Davis, and 50% are unsure.

While the uncommitted number might be surprising at first, especially given media coverage of the abortion filibuster earlier this year, both Abbott and Davis are largely unknown even in the state. A previous Public Policy Polling survey of potential candidates found 43% with no opinion of Abbott and 32% for Davis. That poll, conducted in July, showed a 48-40 lead for Abbott over Davis, with only 12% unsure.

However, there is reason to be skeptical about the new poll’s accuracy (without veering into party ID trutherism). Lyceum also asked registered Texas voters their opinion of President Obama, and 50% said they approve.

[pause for laughter]

As the opening of the Obamacare insurance exchanges and the individual mandate to purchase health insurance loom, new attention is being given to a few available options to avoid the likely catastrophe.

Section 1501, Chapter 48, Paragraph (d)(2) of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act exempts certain religions like the Amish from the individual mandate, but it also exempts members of a “health care sharing ministry” from the specific requirements of coverage under the act. Medi-Share, one of the plans grandfathered into this exemption, is a sort of faith-based co-op.

Members pay a monthly fee, then go to their medical providers as cash customers, which usually means lower bills since doctors avoid the claim process. When they receive a bill for service, members submit it to the organization, which then approves or denies the claim based on Christian principles. Things like abortion and contraception are obviously not covered (along with most preventative care and some preexisting conditions), but the 76% of claims they do approve are paid in full.

Although he wasn’t on the ballot anywhere last night, Michael Bloomberg, outgoing mayor of New York, anti-gun nut, “No Labels” doublespeaker, and everyone’s favorite Nanny-in-Chief, was handed several stinging defeats from his backyard in New York to the mountain west.

In the most direct challenge, Bill de Blasio, Democrat candidate for mayor in New York City, won a clear plurality and avoided a runoff with the #2 Democrat candidate, Bill Thompson. De Blasio ran as an outspoken “progressive alternative to the Bloomberg era.”

In the Republican primary, Bloomberg’s preferred candidate, Joe Lhota, did manage to win a majority and so also avoid a runoff. However, Lhota’s vote total (29,746 at this writing) was lower than that of the #5 Democrat candidate, Anthony Weiner (31,136 votes). In fact, the total vote in the Democrat primary (634,476) was eleven times larger than that of the Republican primary (56,584). If the general election runs anywhere close to these numbers, de Blasio will win in a landslide. A progressive Democrat becoming mayor of New York is certainly no victory for liberty, but it’s no victory for Bloombergism either.

Uncontent to stand by and watch President Obama’s Syria plan fall apart at home and abroad, the Washington Post has now created an international coalition for him.

From the G20 summit this morning, 11 of the nations present signed and released a statement condemning Syria’s use of chemical weapons on its citizens and urging international (mostly UN) action in response.

“We condemn in the strongest terms the horrific chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21st that claimed the lives of so many men, women, and children. …

We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world’s rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated. …

Signatories have consistently supported a strong UN Security Council Resolution, given the Security Council’s responsibilities to lead the international response, but recognize that the Council remains paralyzed as it has been for two and a half years. …

We commit to supporting longer term international efforts, including through the United Nations, to address the enduring security challenge posed by Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles. …”

If you watch Ed Schultz’s show or read his tweets (and let’s be honest, only schadenfreude-fueled right-wingers do), you’d think that conservatives were leading the march to war in Syria:

How does MLK’s message of peace apply today as conservatives push for war in Syria? http://t.co/oySG6ZY9SM tweet #edshow so we can share!

— Ed Schultz (@edshow) August 28, 2013

Neoconservatives specifically are often assumed to be most forcefully pushing for foreign intervention. In most cases, that has been true. But on Syria, even some of the most boisterous neocons in the past have been cautious or outright skeptical.

John Bolton, George W Bush’s former late-term UN Ambassador, said yesterday that if he were in Congress, he wouldn’t vote to approve a strike on the Assad regime:

“I don’t think it’s in America’s interest. I don’t think we should, in effect, take sides in the Syrian conflict. There’s very little to recommend either side to me. And I think the notion that a limited strike, which is what the president seems to be pursuing, will not create a deterrent effect with respect either to Syria’s use of chemical weapons or, more seriously, Iran’s nuclear weapons program. So, all in all, since I don’t see any utility to the use of military force in Syria in this context, I would vote no.”

After the recent chemical attack by the Syrian government on its rebelling citizens, the war drums in Washington DC are rumbling. Ships are positioned, missiles are pointed, sabres are rattled, allies are consulted, the UN is in motion (sluggish, corrupt, meaningless motion). But can the President alone make the decision to attack another nation’s government or military forces? According to the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973, the answer is absolutely NO.

After decades of war in Korea and Vietnam without congressional authorization, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (commonly known now as the War Powers Act) specifically to make explicit limits on the President’s authority to engage in military action. It states that the President can engage in hostilities under only three conditions: a Congressional declaration, other Congressional authorization, or in retaliation for an attack on America.