Showing posts with label Gary Johnson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gary Johnson. Show all posts

Monday, March 6, 2023

Banned at CPAC

 

CPAC2023 is smaller than previous CPACs, with fewer breakout sessions or workshops parallel to what is happening on the main stage. Mainly missing are younger and libertarian-leaning attendees, though the remaining heavily Trump supporting registrants and those speaking to them seem to have adopted an America First version of the libertarian’s non-interventionist foreign policy, calling for an end to the Ukraine war with negotiated settlements, and for Europe to start paying for its own NATO defense.

The annual event started at the Woodley Park Marriot, a venue of faded elegance and rabbit warren rooms and hallways in Washington, D.C.  CPAC moved to the Gaylord National Resort down the Potomac River at Forest Heights, Maryland for larger quarters a decade ago, then moved to Florida during the Covid lockdowns, and is now back at the Gaylord in Maryland. 

Gaylord Resort Atrium

I have purchased a ticket almost every year since 2007 though some years I have also asked for and received a media credential.  One year when I was feeling in high cotton I bought a platinum ticket, which entitles one to perks like going to the VIP Reagan Dinner.  That year was a year Ron Paul was running in the GOP primaries.  As I walked to sit in the velvet-rope enclosed front row, in worn jeans with fashionable holes in them, and various “End the Fed",” anti-war, and Ron Paul buttons, an usher blocked my path - I could not belong in the VIP seating.  Then he saw my platinum lanyard and badge. "Right this way, sir."

I’ve organized both a Ron Paul booth and one for Gary Johnson.  My first time at CPAC I sat in the back of a workshop on "new media."  My slightly long hair and Armani Exchange casual wear provoked the moderator, conservative radio talker Larry O'Connor (then with Breitbart) to look at me and ask with amusement "Do we have a liberal spy here today?" 

The several times I was credentialed media I'd applied and simply said I wrote freelance for Breitbart, or the Federalist, or the Daily Caller, or even for my own blog (my blog that was actually attacked by Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews on their MSNBC shows as well as by Jonathan Chait in New York magazine).

This year I applied for a media credential and sent samples of my more CPAC friendly writing in SpliceToday, a zany website owned by Russ Smith, a former New York journalist turned Baltimorean, who at one time owned the alternative City Papers in both Washington, D.C. and in Baltimore. Splice has a variety of writers, more libertarians and liberals than conservatives,  My own pieces in Splice are often somewhat philosophical reviews of TV shows or movies.  I also write about "gay topics" - Jussie Smollette and other gay miscreants, the Dave Chapelle tempest, "Bros," "Spoiler Alert," the "Sex and the City" revival, and that fantastic romantic gay episode of "The Last of Us."  I did not hear back from CPAC about my media credential this year, though that has happened in years past, and yet the media credential was there when I arrived.  This year as in many past I also bought a ticket for $295.  At registration I just picked up my paid ticket and didn't even try to find the media credential desk.  With a recently injured knee I decided not to wander up and down stairs and escalators and to just forgo using the media room, at least the first day. (Friends who are in the media room have since offered to bring me in with their media credentials if I need a desk.)

Thursday morning, before CPAC began, I was wandering the exhibit hall of booths and talking to groups like Hawaii Conservatives.org, Atheists for Liberty, or the Log Cabin Republicans.  When I had almost finished touring the hall, two large men in beige suits appeared and said "Bruce Majors?" One lifted my name tag to read it and he then removed my lanyard and name tag from my body, lifting it up and over my head, and grabbed my San Pellegrino bottle to see what it was.  They said I should come with them.  I asked what was up and one chuckled and said something like "You know why." I said I was going to need an explanation and my $295.  He said they were taking me to someone who would provide one.

Back at the registration desk where I’d been an hour before, a nice young woman who was a troubleshooter in the registration department said I had been denied a media credential, and anyone so denied was not allowed to buy a regular event ticket.  I asked to speak to her supervisor.  I told her I had been going to CPAC for 15 years.  She called her supervisor, and relayed that I was a long-term attendee who had had media credentials before, and they should look me up in their records.  Her supervisor then called the general counsel for CPAC.  The two Security men were joined by others as well as a Maryland State Trooper.  (State Troopers are usually at CPAC at the Gaylord National Resort, since Presidents and Congresspeople are often speakers, and many events have a lot of security.)   The troubleshooter ushered me into a side room, with all the security outside.  The General Counsel arrived.  Apologies ensued.  There was a new media team that still had some bugs, and they had made a mistake.  My lanyard and name tag were returned to me.  I shook various security people's hands (or fist bumped them) and their chief told me if it happened again (since I am still on a banned list that had already been distributed) to tell anyone who detains me to ask for "Keith."  (I've since had volunteers who worked in registration and also a State Trooper greet me and say they were glad I was back the next day and they were sorry this manhandling had occurred.)

The nice troubleshooter said she was giving me back my ticket but also refunding my $295.  Thankfully this all took less than an hour. 

But then later that day a reporter acquaintance interviewed me about the low attendance at this year's CPAC and whether I thought it was due to the "Schlapp scandal."  I did not see this, but according to her Washington Times article CPAC chairman Matt Schlapp was chased through the halls Thursday morning by reporters asking him about a lawsuit against him over a different kind of manhandling.  Schlapp, married to Mercedes Schlapp with whom he has several children, is being sued by a man who was a Herschel Walker campaign staffer assigned to drive Schlapp when he spoke at last year's Walker campaign events.  The anonymous accuser says Schlapp aggressively groped him.  The accuser also said that he would reveal his identity if Schlapp denied the charges.  Schlapp has denied the charges and the accuser has not given up his anonymity.  Does he just want to settle out of court for some portion of the $9 million he is suing for?  Or was he actually sexually assaulted?

Matt Schlapp at CPAC

I don't know the answer to that.  I don't think this scandal has affected CPAC.  Loyalists at CPAC I imagine believe all such groping charges - whether about Schlapp and a male campaign staffer or about Trump and women - are mainstream media lies.  (The only place I heard Schlapp discussed was at the Log Cabin booth, where a gay journalist from a New York paper had stopped by.)  What CPAC is mainly missing this year are the throngs of young people who used to register so they could vote in the annual CPAC presidential straw poll for Ron Paul (in 2007 and 2008) and for Rand Paul (in 2015 and 2016), helped out by generous subsidies for their tickets and hotel rooms by Ron Paul groups like Young Americans for Liberty and the Campaign for Liberty. There are no Ron Paul or Rand Paul related booths in the exhibit, and no related speakers. There are no libertarians of any stripe, from the Ayn Rand Institute to reason magazine, who have often been here in the past. (Reason actually once did a story on “gays at CPAC” using Grindr to count how many Grindr gays were within 100 feet of the main stage, and then interviewing gay attendees.)

I've since learned that other writers - like Mike LaChance from Legal Insurrection - who write for smaller center-right publications were denied media credentials. But I now wonder if this "new media department" with bugs, denied medial credentials to any applicants they did not know well, especially those who write for smaller publications.  If so apparently it didn't help, and Mr. Schlapp was still chased around the Gaylord Hotel.

The reduced numbers at CPAC, a Trump-concentrate, seem more worried about other issues. Nikki Haley could not get through her carefully constructed speech without some jeers of “RINO.” Vivek Ramaswamy had to address some choruses of “Trump, Trump, Trump!” from the crowd. Steve Bannon, in a pro-Trump stemwinder, assaulted Rupert Murdoch and FOX News for not covering Trump and not covering CPAC this year. As I drove away from the hotel listening to Bret Baier’s show simulcast on SiriusXM, some highlights of CPAC were covered. Though not Steve Bannon’s praise of Donald Trump, who spoke at the end of CPAC.

Thanks for reading The Insurrection!


Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Libertarian Calendar for January 2018

January 1
Taos, New Mexico

Governor Gary Johnson's birthday

---------------------
January 7
Washington, D.C.

Rand Paul's birthday


---------------------------
January 12

Rush Limbaugh's birthday

----------------------------
January 24
Washington, D.C.

Burning Man
6:00 pm

Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue NW

Featuring Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform (@GroverNorquist); Mark Lutter, President, Institute for Innovative Governance, (@MarkLutter); Jeremy Tunnell, Cofounder, Thumbtack, (@jeremytunnell); Robert Mariani, Freelance journalist, (@robert_mariani); moderated by Kat Murti, Senior Digital Outreach Manager, Cato Institute (@KatMurti) 
For just one week every year, roughly 70,000 people from around the world come together in the Nevada desert to create Black Rock City, home to Burning Man, billed by its organizers as an “annual experiment in temporary community dedicated to radical self-expression and radical self-reliance.”
Because cash exchanges and the barter system are largely banned in Black Rock City (Burning Man instead relies on something called the “gift economy”), Burning Man is often seen as an attack on conventional libertarian principles.
However, as a voluntary community driven by freedom of association, self-governance, nonviolent dispute mediation, and emergent order, Burning Man is in many ways a quintessential example of the libertopian ideal.
On Wednesday, January 24th, please join the Cato Institute for a robust conversation about what libertarians can learn from Burning Man — and how these lessons can be applied to policy and philosophy.
If you can’t make it to the event, you can watch it live online and join the conversation on Twitter using #CatoDigital. Follow @CatoEventson Twitter to get future event updates and videos from the Cato Institute.

-------------------------
January 25
Washington, D.C.


School Choice: The Non-Academic Imperative


Special Event 


4:00PM to 4:30PM EST
ADD TO CALENDAR
Online: http://www.facebook.com/CatoInstitute 
Featuring Neal McCluskey (@NealMcCluskey), Director, Center for Educational Freedom, Cato Institute; Corey DeAngelis (@DeAngelisCorey), Policy Analyst, Center for Educational Freedom, Cato Institute. 
Like the country’s overall education discussion, the national school choice debate is far too often reduced to “which schools get better test scores” and maybe even “who gets kids to graduation.” But there is so much more to education than blunt academic outcome measures, including shaping character, transmitting culture, and just plain advancing freedom.
In this special, National School Choice Week Facebook Live event, join the Cato Center for Educational Freedom crew to tackle these far deeper, arguably far more important goals and desires for education. We’ll be taking your questions via Facebook and Twitter, using #CatoCEF. Join the conversation! 

-----------------------
January 30
Tuscaloosa, AL

Richard Rothstein – The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America

4:00 PM - 5:30 PM
125 ten Hoor Hall , University of Alabama
Cost: Free and open to the public
The History Department is hosting a talk Richard Rothstein, the author of The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. 
This event is open to the public; light refreshments will be served.
Contact Info: David Beito, dbeito@ua.edu

-----------------------
January 30
Tallinn, Estonia
Libertarian meetup
6:30 pm

Must puudel

Monday, October 3, 2016

Ron Paul takes a shot at Gary Johnson?

People who viewed this on FOX tell me it was obvious that the interviewer deliberately interrupted Congressman Paul mid-sentence so it would seem like he was endorsing Jill Stein over Gary Johnson.

This is part of a pattern of media spin to attack Gary Johnson:  he didn't recognize "Aleppo" as a reference to the Syrian refugee crisis and civil war (which obviously most people refer to as "Syria," since millions then had to google "Aleppo" after the story was spun); he couldn't recall Vincente Fox's name (though he knew the only foreign leader he admired was the President of Mexico who has spoken around the world condemning the drug war) when asked about foreign leaders he admired - and this was spun as not knowing the names of ANY foreign leaders.  Likewise when William Weld said Hillary had paper-qualifications or Trump had not violated any tax laws, the press quoted these sound bites out of context as if they were endorsements.


Ron Paul: Jill Stein is more libertarian than Gary Johnson: Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein is preferable to Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson on at least some issues, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul said Monday. I said if the independents, who don't know what to do and who should they pick, I say if you tend to lean towards progressivism and liberalism and you're interested in expressing yourself, you can vote for the Green Party, he said on MSNBC. I think she's probably best on foreign policy at the moment. But on Gary Johnson, he does not come across with a crisp libertarian message. Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2584781 Paul, who was the libertarian nominee for president in 1988, stressed that he hasn't endorsed anyone yet. I have not told any supporters who are interested for whom they should vote, he said.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Clinton Inc.

A shorter version of this was published today at AMI Newswire.

A documentary opening Friday about how Bill and Hillary Clinton’s marriage has powered their political dynasty is the latest entree in a growing menu of politically charged, campaign-season films.

Clinton Inc.,  scheduled to open in Chicago on Friday and around the country by mid-October, casts the Clinton marriage as an unusual arrangement that allows the couple to support each other's separate political ambitions, and find ways to use their positions to enrich themselves along the way.



Loosely based the 2014 book Clinton Inc. by Daniel Halper, a former Weekly Standard editor who now runs the Washington bureau of the New York Post, the film draws on interviews and archival footage to explore the psychological roots of Bill Clinton's philandering. It argues that Hillary made herself and their marriage essential to his political career by enabling and covering up his affairs (a territory also explored in the Roger Stone book The Clintons' War on Women).


The documentary is part of a growing genre of influential and successful films that criticize contemporary politics and politicians. Peter Schweitzer, the author of a book on the Clinton Foundation, “Clinton Cash,” has produced a movie version of his book which anyone can be watched for free on the website of the conservative news outlet, Breitbart. 

A chronicle, by means of interviews and archival footage, of the rise of the Clintons as a nascent political dynasty, Clinton Inc. builds a case that the Clinton marriage is basically an unusual arrangement where Bill and Hillary support each other's separate political ambitions, and find ways to use their positions to enrich themselves along the way.  Produced on a budget of $1.5 million, the movie is heavy on exploring the psychological roots of Bill Clinton's philandering, and arguing that Hillary made herself and their marriage essential to his political career by enabling and covering up his affairs (a territory also explored in the Roger Stone book The Clintons' War on Women)  The film's producer has released four different trailers on YouTube.

It's not the first time an explosive documentary has been aimed at the Clintons during an election.  Many have forgotten that the famous Supreme Court case Citizens United, decided in 2010, was also about a movie, another movie about the Clintons, Hillary: The Movie (2008).  A political group, Citizens United, planned to air the movie on TV during the primaries, and Democrats went to court to prevent that, claiming it was advertising that should be regulated under campaign finance law.  The Supreme Court struck down those aspects of laws regulating campaign finance, arguing that they violated the First Amendment guarantees of free speech.

Doug Sain, the producer of Clinton Inc. is no stranger to making political documentaries.  Sain was the executive producer of the 2016: Obama's America, which was the #1 documentary of 2012 (earning $33.5 million at the box office), the #2 political documentary of all time, and #5 documentary of all time for highest domestic gross box office.  (It also came in second for the most DVDs sold for all movies during its home entertainment release week).

On a less elevated level than the Citizens United case, that Sain doc also ended up in court,  with Sain suing his co-producer of 2016, conservative writer and activist Dinesh D'Souza.  Sain claimed that his ownership should be increased from 25% to 50% and his production company should be paid additional fees for finding investors and other services.

The courts rejected Sain's case, but he has a chance for a rematch of sorts.  D'Souza went on to produce his own movie about one of the Clintons, Hillary's America, released this past July.  Starring Jonah Goldberg, an editor at National Review (a conservative rival to the Weekly Standard) and the son of Lucianne Goldberg, the PR pro who helped midwife the outing of Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.  Hillary's America netted only $5 million at the box office.  The tightening in the polls might create extra interest in Sain's later release. 

This election year is seeing a lot of free speech from filmmakers.  Besides Sain's and D'Souza's Hillary movies, Peter Schweitzer, the author of a book on the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Cash, also produced a movie version of his book which anyone can watch for free on the web at another conservative news outlet, Breitbart.  (In an echo of the 2008 Citizens United film release, a Clinton campaign spokesperson called in August for shutting down websites like Breitbart.)

A cable network could actually do a pre-election day marathon of campaign 2016 films.  Donald Trump has also become fodder for filmmakers. Johnny Depp's online mockumentary Donald Trump: The Art of the Deal, released in February, has had over 5 million visits on the Funny or Die, an entertainment industry community produced website which has many takedowns of the Trump candidacy.   A relatively unknown film, One Nation Under Trump, was produced for $25,000 and released last month to bad reviews from the very few who saw it.  And movies about Donald Trump as a public figure, not as a presidential candidate, have been produced every few years, going back to 1991's Trump: What's the Deal?

Not to be left out, a movie about Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson's unprecedented independent challenge, Rigged 2016, with a $1 million budget provided by Overstock.com founder Patrick Byrne, a Johnson supporter, also comes out in October.   And finally a movie somewhat aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement, IncarceratingUS, is available on line and is being shown at law schools, universities, and non-profit venues.  (Hillary Clinton has a cameo she probably didn't want, clapping for President Bill Clinton when he enacted mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes including non-violent drug offenses.)

Voters this year are despairing their electoral choices.  Someone could organize a film festival for them for entertainment.  Maybe throw in The Manchurian Candidate and Wag The Dog for levity.

Monday, September 26, 2016

In Trump She Trusts

This was published today at The Daily Caller.

I love Ann Coulter.

Lately I've been descending into the smoking, stalling, short-circuiting Hades of the D.C. Metro holding as a protective relic her latest In Tump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome (Sentinel, 2016).  (She'd excommunicate me - I'm interfaith, so I was also wearing a Johnson-Weld tee shirt.)  It's now 3rd on the best seller list.

It's actually the first Coulter book I've read, though I've read many of her columns and seen her media appearances.  I was once sort of accused of reading a pre-publication copy of one of her earlier books - my immediate next door neighbor, like Coulter a former Congressional staffer when both were freshly minted law school grads, is one of the half dozen people who reads her drafts and makes suggestions, and is duly thanked in the prefatory acknowledgements. That year's preview draft was lost and everyone was anxious to find it and slightly terrified it might have been mis-delivered to someone like me.  Who might post excerpts or discuss it in advance.

My neighbor, who like me is more libertarian than is Ms. Coulter, tells me he always tells her about half a dozen things  so outrageous she must remove them, and much as if she was following Coco Chanel's fashion advice, she looks in her mirror and removes just one accessory before she goes out to the publisher.

Reading Trump I feel about Ms. Coulter and my neighbor the way I did when I started listening to Rush Limbaugh.  Everyone had always told me Rush was a sexist-racist-homophobe-bigot.  I had a job where I drove around a lot with the radio on, and I preferred talk, any talk, Howard Stern, Scott Simon, Terri Gross, Rachel Maddow, to music.  When poor gay GOP Congressman Mark Foley had the bad judgement to send purple prose mash notes to Congressional pages (who are all over the age of consent in Washington, D.C.) I was listening to the minor comic Stephanie Miller on Air America radio.  Stephanie, a "liberal," was coming pretty close to making jokes about lynching the pedophile gays - jokes that are even more gruesome given what it going on in the Middle East in the aftermath of the policies of Ms. Miller's heroes, President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

So I wondered, if Air America was calling for lynching the gays (around the time Sidney Blumenthal was inventing birtherism), what would that neanderthal Rush Limbaugh be doing?  I switched him on.  He was discussing the machinations of Congress and the two establishment parties as they scheme to enrich themselves and hold onto power.  It was like a case study of public choice theory.  Albeit delivered with humor by someone who was an American male from an earlier generation.

It wasn't what I had been told I would be hearing.

And this is what Coulter's book on Trump is like.

The Donald Trump she presents is not the Trump we've been told about.  Lots of Ann's fun is trading on the hypocrisy and ignorance of her subjects, politicians, the media, and the consultant class.

She quotes them saying Trump won't succeed in the primaries, and then shows them eating their words a few weeks later.

They say Trump has no policies, and she digests his many policy proposals and papers that they refused to cover.  His central policy, taxing the remittances that foreigners, especially illegal immigrants, working in the U.S. send out of the country, and using the money to build a wall on the southern border and otherwise vet immigrants and beef up border security may be a good or a bad idea.  But it does seem to be a policy, and a straightforward one that attempts to make people benefiting from cross border work and trade pay for an externality they are imposing on others, that is the cost of making sure violent criminals or terrorists are not crossing the border with them.  How is that much different from Gary Johnson's temporary flirtation with a carbon fee that would "internalize" the cost of carbon?

They say Trump should have been disqualified for denigrating Senator John McCain, a war hero.  Coulter reproduces the entire quote and the context of Trump's statement, where he was retaliating against McCain for saying that Trump was crazy, and more importantly smearing 15,000 Arizonan Trump fans who had gone to a rally  - McCain's own constituents - as "crazies."

They say Trump was making fun of a disabled reporter, Serge Kovaleski of the Washington Post.  Coulter makes a compelling case that Trump didn't know Kovaleski was disabled, and was making fun of him for being wishy washy, as Kovaleski had written one of the original reports on American Muslims who chose to celebrate the 9/11 attack the day it happened, but then tried to claim he had not written such an article when the liberal media smeared Trump for allegedly inventing this calumny on Islam.

And on and on.  Coulter targets the political class, the consultant class, and the media spinners who make a good living in the wealthy counties around Washington, D.C., in Manhattan, and a few other enclaves, by delivering failed policies - or kneecapped, failed campaigns to change those policies - that always only benefit themselves.  And she presents Trump, as a heroic figure who alone is willing to be rude and politically incorrect in bashing these people, calling them out, and disregarding their increasingly hysterical attempts to take him down with their usual smears.

Coulter's romance of Trump is not so much akin to an Ayn Rand story about an industrial titan, the easy parallel the facile might make.  It's far more street.

A few years ago media critic Bernard Goldberg took Coulter to task for being a shock jock.  He was correct (much like Jamie Kirchick may be in this year's conservative Jew vs right-wing blond contretemps with the gay Coulter, Milo Yiannopolous).  (Full disclosure:  I'm a little jealous of Milo's becoming the gay Ann Coulter before I could, though I am not as willing to add to the other "big" blogs at Breitbart - Big Government, Big Journalism, Big Hollywood - by creating and editing Big Black Cock.)

Ann Coulter is a kind of shock jock, a Jacqueline the Ripper as Jane Austen.  And so it's apropos that her admission of Trump is more akin to Howard Stern associate Robin Quivers'  admiration for Muhammad Ali.  Coulter sees Donald Trump as the prize fighter for the Deplorables, the new negroes in the establishment's new version of Jim Crow America. And she thinks the election is going to be a knockout.