United Liberty

Below is a collection of several links that we didn’t get around to writing about, but still wanted to post for readers to examine. The stories typically range from news about prominent figures in the liberty movement, national politics, the nanny state, foreign policy and free markets.

Below is a collection of several links that we didn’t get around to writing about, but still wanted to post for readers to examine. The stories typically range from news about prominent figures in the liberty movement, national politics, the nanny state, foreign policy and free markets.

While some conservatives are stomping their feet like spoiled children over the inclusion of GOProud at CPAC, Erin McPike explains that legislative action like repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” could mean problems for GOP with the next generation of voters:

In the Republican Party, the fracture over issues concerning homosexual individuals revealed itself more clearly in the vote for repeal of the 17-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that prevented gays from serving openly in the military.

Of the eight Republican senators who voted for repeal, five are among the youngest in the upper chamber - and they’re not all moderates.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John Ensign of Nevada and Richard Burr of North Carolina maintain relatively conservative voting records, despite some of Murkowski’s recent votes. They are 53, 52 and 55, respectively.

Their colleagues Mark Kirk and Scott Brown have been lumped into the more moderate wing of the party, but they, too, are some of the youngest GOP senators. Both are 51.

Melissa Kennedy, press secretary for Log Cabin Republicans, said that gay issues generally are generational.

“Nearly all young service members supported the repeal of DADT because it simply doesn’t matter to them what anyone’s sexual orientation is and many happen to know and are friends with gay people,” she said.

After defeating a filibuster attempt this morning by a vote of 63 to 33, repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” - the Clinton era policy preventing gays from openly serving in the military - passed through the Senate just moments ago by a vote of 65 to 31.

Eight Republicans crossed over to vote for repeal: Scott Brown (MA), Richard Burr (NC), Susan Collins (ME), John Ensign (NV), Mark Kirk (IL), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME) and George Voinovich (OH).

A recent survey from Pew Research showed that 58% of Americans support eliminating the out-of-date policy; public support for allowing gays to serve in the military has been over 52% since 1992. The results of a study conducted by the Department of Defense released earlier this month showed broad support among members of the armed forces in repealing DADT with 70% believing it would have little or no effect.

The bill now heads to President Barack Obama, who has been advocating for legislative action to repeal DADT. However, his administration has opposed legal challenges to the policy.

According to ABC News, repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” looks increasingly likely to happen as 61 Senators have expressed support for a stand-alone bill to rid the military of an outdated policy:

Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown today voiced his support for a stand-alone repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, bringing the bill one vote over the 60-vote threshold that it will need to reach if and when the Senate votes on the measure in the coming weeks.

“Sen. Brown accepts the Pentagon’s recommendation to repeal the policy after proper preparations have been completed. If and when a clean repeal bill comes up for a vote, he will support it,” said Brown spokesperson Gail Gitcho.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed a stand-alone repeal of the military’s outdated “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy:

The House on Wednesday handily approved a repeal of a ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, ratcheting up the pressure on Senate Republicans who have resisted holding a vote on procedural grounds.

The measure that the House approved, 250 to 175, had originally been part of a broader military policy bill. Last week, the Senate failed to break a Republican filibuster of that measure, with only one Republican, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, voting to advance the bill.
[…]
The House bill now goes back to the Senate as a privileged bill, meaning that the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, can call it up immediately. Among Republicans, Senators Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana have indicated they could be open to voting for a repeal.

Reid has been blamed for dropping the ball on repeal of DADT by placing it in a military spending bill. And most Republicans believe that repeal of DADT is inappropriate in a lame duck session, even though they would likely voting against it anyway.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has already said she’s on board. With the tax deal likely to pass today, it’s hard to see the other Republicans listed above not voting for cloture to move repeal to a final vote.

A study released earlier this month showed broad support among members of the armed forces in repealing DADT with 70% believing it would have little or no effect.

With the primaries in 2010 over and the general election just three weeks away, tea partyers are already putting Republican Senators in their crosshairs for primary challenges in 2012:

Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress, already has a conservative GOP primary opponent. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R., Indiana) have all drawn fire from the right wing of their party.

Tea-party activists have put these and other incumbents on notice that the anti-establishment sentiment defining this year’s politics will not end on Election Day 2010.

It is too early to say if these incumbents will face serious peril when they are up for re-election in 2012, but they are already taking steps to burnish their conservative credentials.

“The tea party is right,” said Ms. Snowe, who is campaigning for a tea-party-backed gubernatorial candidate in Maine this fall. “We’ve lost our way on fiscal issues.”
[…]
Tea-party challenges to GOP establishment candidates in this year’s primaries showed how committed conservative activists are to changing the party from within. Although activists now are turning their attention to defeating Democrats in November, 2012 is already looming.

“Right now, we’re in the research mode, but Nov. 3 we are going to start our search” for an opponent for Mr. Lugar, said Monica Boyer, president of Silent No More, a group she said sympathizes with the tea party.

Mr. Lugar last won re-election by a landslide. But the 2010 primaries sent a strong message: No one is safe if the tea party could defeat Republicans such as Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah, Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

As we noted yesterday, a cloture vote on the DISCLOSE Act, legislation aimed at curbing political speech in response to the Citizens United decision, is scheduled today at 2:45pm. Democrats need 60 votes to move forward toward limited debate and final passage. They are short on votes as Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Scott Brown (R-MA) have all said they would oppose cloture and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) will miss the vote due to attending a funeral.

We’ll let you know if your Senators stood for free speech as soon at the vote information is available.

When Massachusetts voters elected Republican Scott Brown to the United States Senate over Martha Coakley, it was heralded as a major victory for the Tea Party Movements. However, as news broke yesterday that he was ready to vote yes on the new so-called financial reform bill, it showed me a few flaws in the way we pick candidates in this country.

To start with, Scott Brown may by a Republican, but he’s not a small government one. In the state house, he voted for RomneyCare, the Massachusetts health care system which ObamaCare is based on. That measure dramatically increased the size of the state government and has been threatening the entire health care system in that state. It’s how we know ObamaCare won’t accomplish most of it’s goals.

The problems revealed are that people are far to content to vote against someone than to find a candidate they can vote for.

Martha Coakley, to paraphrase Dave Weigel, was a horrible candidate. My cat could have probably beaten her. Yes, she was that bad. As a Republican, Brown was not going to be the first choice of a lot of Massachusetts voters. No, many voted against Coakley, which isn’t unusual. To top it off, Brown got a lot of support from out of state Tea Party activists.

The question then becomes, do they know what they were asking for?

Many of the Tea Party activists I know are truly concerned about the size of the government. While I wouldn’t term them as libertarian necessarily, they’re not big-government neocons either. They oppose many of this Administration’s efforts that I also oppose, so we have that in common at least. Did they know what they were getting in Scott Brown? Or did they see the “R” after his name and assume he could be trusted?

The truth lies somewhere in the middle, I’m assuming, but it’s probably much closer to the latter than many are comfortable with admitting.

We are told that ObamaCare will bring down costs and reduce the budget deficit and all these other wonderful things. Supporters of the bill need only look to Massachusetts to see how wrong they are in those claims.

Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill, a Democrat turned independent, says the health care reform law that passed in his state in 2006 is breaking the budget. He also took some shots at health care “reform” efforts on the national level, which are very similar to the Massachusetts plan:

“If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years,” Cahill said in a press conference in his office.

Echoing criticism leveled by congressional Republicans in recent weeks, Cahill said, “It is time for the president, the Democratic leadership, to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan that does not threaten to bankrupt this country.”
[…]
Cahill said the law is being sustained only with the help of federal aid, which he suggested that the Obama administration is funneling to Massachusetts to help the president make the case for a similar plan in Congress.

“The real problem is the sucking sound of money that has been going in to pay for this health care reform,” Cahill said. “And I would argue that we’re being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through” Congress.