Over the past 48 hours, I’ve been wrestling with myself over which way to go in this runoff for the Georgia Senate race. Essentially, this is a runoff between two big government candidates. One has consistently lied about his record while claiming to be a small government conservative. The other is a progressive who has a decent stance on civil liberties issues.
In 2006, the Cato Institute published a study about the libertarian vote (when I use the word libertarian, it is in reference to the philosophy, not the party unless otherwise noted). There has been a constant debate as to where libertarians should go. The Republican Party almost held a monopoly on libertarian-minded voters:
Libertarians preferred George W. Bush over Al Gore by 72 to 20 percent, but Bush’s margin dropped in 2004 to 59-38 over John Kerry. Congressional voting showed a similar swing from 2002 to 2004.
The swing in congressional voting is significant. In 2002, libertarian voters went from 70 to 23 percent in favor of Republicans to 53 to 44 percent, still in favor of Republicans. No statistics are available for 2006.
A Rasmussen poll shows that libertarians were braking for Barack Obama in 2008, 53 to 38 percent over John McCain.
The reasons for such a revolt are very clear. Republicans, under George W. Bush, have become the party of big government. That’s not to say Democrats aren’t for big government, they are. Republicans just tell you one thing and do another. No one is perfect and I expect some compromises to be made from time to time, but the Republican Party has done a complete about-face. The GOP of the last eight years is not the party of less government and free markets.
And that brings me to Sen. Saxby Chambliss. The man is a fiscal fraud. Sure, he claims to be a conservative. He never has defined what it means. Looking at his record, one can only assume that being a social authoritarian is the sole requirement for the label.
Chambliss displayed his contempt for fiscal conservatism during his first year in the Senate by voting for, adding almost $9 trillion to the unfunded liabilities of Medicare. Chambliss wouldn’t have been enough to swing the vote either way, but he could have gone on record against entitlements.
Additionally, Chambliss has voted for everyone of George W. Bush’s budgets. He has had a mixed record on trade, because he always votes for farm subsidies. In fact, he note only has voted for all three farm bills during his time in Congress, he lead the charge to override Bush’s veto of the bloated bill this year. Chambliss even claimed that the veto would hurt Sen. John McCain’s bid for the White House. McCain voted against it and voted against the veto override.
The farm bill is stuffed with pork and subsidies that only cost Americans more money, not only through tax dollars, but at the grocery store. It stifles competition as Congress picks the winners and losers.
Spending under George W. Bush has skyrocketed, as noted by Stephen Slivinski, by 33% in the first four years. After the first six years, he nearly matched Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald Ford. Bush doesn’t not have the record of a fiscal conservative.
Of course, Chambliss is complicit. His actions of will cause massive tax increases for Georgians down the road. Entitlement spending will consume the budget in 30 years. That and debt service alone will eclipse the current level of spending as a percentage of GDP, which is around 21%.
Chambliss seems to believe that the only things that defines fiscal conservatism is tax cuts. Wrong, Sen. Chambliss. You have to cut spending too. What good is a tax cut, when you aren’t cutting spending. You’re only putting off the tax increases on our kids and grandkids.
He also supported a $30 billion tax increase by signing onto to the Gang of Ten, later known as the Gang of 20, energy plan. That is hardly a pro-growth policy.
Then you look at his record on privacy and Iraq. I understand that Republicans aren’t too concerned with the Fourth Amendment. Chambliss voted for the PATRIOT Act while a member of the House in 2001 and then voted for its renewal in 2006.
The Fourth Amendment says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The “sneak-and-peek” provisions of the PATRIOT Act are enough to make it unconstitutional and a federal judge ruled against parts of the law as such.
Chambliss voted for the Military Commissions Act, which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Parts of that law were found to be unconstitutional in Boumediene v. Bush.
I have no problem admitting that I supported the invasion of Iraq. At first I had some issues with it, but by March of 2003, I was supportive. It took me a couple years to realize what a mistake it was. I can understand arguments against an immediate withdrawal. I disagree with them, but I understand them. As of now, 4,192 American soldiers have lost their lives. Thousands of Iraqi civilians have lost their lives. It’s time to bring our troops home.
This isn’t the entire case against Chambliss, but it is a summary of it. I’m not even getting on the issues with the bailout, his social authoritarianism or votes to write discrimination into the Constitution because that alone would take up another several hundred words.
Jim Martin on other hand would be just as a bad on economics issues as Saxby Chambliss, and possibly much worse. While I am not a supporter of the FairTax, the DSCC did run a dishonest ad against the proposal. It gave Martin an opportunity to show his independence by disowning the ad, but he chose to defend it, so I don’t necessarily trust him to break away from his party. If the votes were needed…where would he go? I’m not saying Chambliss is willing to break away either. He voted 92% of the time with the position of the Bush Administration.
I also don’t know that much about Jim Martin. There are too many issues that he has either been silent on or has a position completely contrary to mine.
One thing that concerned me was seeing Barack Obama praise Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm for her “great knowledge and great interest” on economic issues. Really? Michigan had the worst economy in the United States during a time when the rest of the country was doing relatively well, even if the causes of the economic expansion were a bubble. Unemployment in the state has been over 6% since November 2001 and is now at 8.7%, the highest in the nation.
Martin has a much better stance on civil liberties issues. He opposed the war in Iraq, but has not taken a strong stance on bringing the troops home.
I cannot vote to send Jim Martin, who identifies himself as a “proud progressive,” to the Senate to vote for the economic agenda of Barack Obama and Jennifer Granholm. I am wary of giving Democrats too much power because they will do just as Republicans did.
As far as I see it, voting for Chambliss or Martin aren’t options for me, though I’ll listen to arguments otherwise. I’ve been debating this with myself for the last 48 hours. Initially I was supporting Martin. I wrote it here twice, but after thinking about the race, I am leaning towards skipping it on my ballot right now. If it were a House seat, elected to a two year term, it would be different. I was wrong to just react out of emotion without considering the long-term consequences.
Sell your candidate to me. I’m voting in the PSC and Court of Appeals races, but I am so tempted to leave the Senate race blank. I am willing to listen, but I need to be convinced note to another way right now because either way, Georgia loses.
I’m sure you read this elsewhere, but I’m posting what I wrote on Peach Pundit for others to read.
I found it telling that no one on Peach Pundit addressed my argument (except for the democracy fetishist). I think the threat of permanent government involvement in the health care system is real enough to hold my nose and vote for Chambliss.
Am I wrong, or is health care farther down on your list of issues that it’s not nearly a problem to you as it is to me?
Wrestling with the lesser of 2 evils? Mr. Pye I am a lurker reading post here and many other blogs. The item that seams gets under you skin most is the patriot act, a George Bush policy that most people loath. No I’m not a fan of it but what do you propose to do to watch activity that could kill many thousands of your fellow citizens or maybe even you. That act does have sunset provisions. What would the Democrats have done if they were in power? I suspect something worse. Senator Chambliss has demonstrated at least once the ability to listen to and vote the will of his constituents with the failed immigration bill. Some will agree with that decision and some will disagree but he did change his support because of the pressure he received from home. Can or will he change especially due to the fact the Republicans are completely out of power. Who knows? Time will tell. Jim Martin will support polices of the new administration. That is what he has said he will do. To me that means Supreme Court appointments. We could have 2 new openings ready for another Ginsburg or Souter. The Senate must to not reach the magic 60 number. A mandate like that would give the legislature too much power and I fear cases as damaging as New London will be common. Do what you wish. I for one will vote for him and revisit my decision in 6 years. We do not get a chance to revisit appointments to the Supreme Court.
I’m right there with you Jason. Right now, I’m leaning towards skipping it and voting D in the PSC4 race…any info on the Appeals race? I had heard about McGuire and Edenfield but am not familiar w/ either of the two who made the run-off.
Thanks for your thoughts. Please, call me Jason.
The PATRIOT Act allows the government to have the ability to spy on its citizens. There are documented cases where the PATRIOT Act has been used to arrest or convict individuals for crimes that do not in anyway relate to terrorism, including New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer.
The PATRIOT Act is the most egregious violation of the Constitution since the incarnation of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
Ben Franklin said it best, “[those] who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”
What would the Democrats have done if they were in power?
As I recall, Democrats expressed more concerns over the initial legislation than Republicans and ten Democratic Senators voted against its renewal. No Republicans voted against it in the Senate, and only a handful in the House.
We could have 2 new openings ready for another Ginsburg or Souter.
I’ve heard Stevens and Ginsburg may be ready to step down. If so, the balance on the court stays the same.
Senator Chambliss has demonstrated at least once the ability to listen to and vote the will of his constituents with the failed immigration bill. Some will agree with that decision and some will disagree but he did change his support because of the pressure he received from home.
The anger over the bailout was just as strong from his constituents. He still voted for it. So much for that theory.
I want the case for Chambliss. Not fear.
I think the only way for a libertarian to vote for Chambliss would be to vote against Martin. With what you noted, it is apparent that neither candidate fully embodies the ideals of limited government, but if the libertarian decides to vote, he/she must choose the issue that is most important to them. With the current issue being the economy as most polls showed, the libertarian would have a hard time with either candidate. Thus, I predict most libertarians will not vote in this race at all.
Jason my friend, you are correct sir in your assessment of the situation.
People should not live in fear of losing their rights.
And Ben Franklin was very correct in that if we give up our liberty for a sense of security then we deserve neither one. Our nation must learn to find within itself the true needs that make us who we are and not what someone wants us to be.
The Doctor
I can’t just skip an election.
I agree that this race is definitely a voting of the lesser of two evils.
I have always preferred the White House and Legislative Branch to be split politically, as gridlock leads to less Federal laws being passed generally.
To do nothing (not voting) is not an option. It is obvious Martin is a Schumer puppet, and will do anything he is TOLD to do.
With the promise today of Obama Executive Orders (he looks to be Authoritarian, Fascist, no?), and the possibility of a 60 D Senate with filibuster-proof authority, I’m voting against Martin and the Democrats.
I’m voting against Martin and the Democrats. We do not need a socialist like Obama (now he’s promising mucho Executive Orders, maybe Fascist is more accurate than Socialist) running the show with a filibuster-proof vote.
As much as a joke as Chambliss can be, he is the lesser of two evils when considering the alternative: an Obama / Schumer puppet in Martin.
An executive order enhancing Embryonic Stem Cell research is a good thing, and is reversing an idiotic decision made by the previous administration.
Sorry to get off topic, just a response to Mike’s multiple mentions of fascism.
We could have 2 new openings ready for another Ginsburg or Souter.
I’ve heard Stevens and Ginsburg may be ready to step down. If so, the balance on the court stays the same.
-Stevens is 88, Ginsburg is 76 Scalia and Kennedy are both 72, Breyer is 70 Souter is 69. Within the next 4 years health problems could force any one of the justices to retire.
Senator Chambliss has demonstrated at least once the ability to listen to and vote the will of his constituents with the failed immigration bill. Some will agree with that decision and some will disagree but he did change his support because of the pressure he received from home.
The anger over the bailout was just as strong from his constituents. He still voted for it. So much for that theory.
-I was thinking about “Immigration” bill President Bush tried to push through not the bailout. Both Chambliss and Isakson withdrew their initial support after pressure from home.
I want the case for Chambliss. Not fear.
-Fear? No not now I think but it is coming.
Stevens is 88, Ginsburg is 76 Scalia and Kennedy are both 72, Breyer is 70 Souter is 69. Within the next 4 years health problems could force any one of the justices to retire.
Speculation encourages fear.
Stevens and Ginsburg have been holding out for a Democrat to take the White House. I’m sure Scalia and Thomas will wait for a Republican, if the GOP can find someone to carry the torch.
I was thinking about “Immigration” bill President Bush tried to push through not the bailout. Both Chambliss and Isakson withdrew their initial support after pressure from home.
But they didn’t withdraw their support after pressure over the bailout, which was arguably much mor intense.
This may not be a logical case for Chambliss, but don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough. If you read the Reason interview with Ronald Reagan, that some libertarians are so fond of quoting, you see that there are many things that libertarians would not like about Reagan (the same things they don’t like about Republicans these days). The Republicans did grow government too much, but I’m convinced the Democrats would have been far worse had they been in power after 9/11 (e.g. Woodrow Wilson, FDR). Elections are often choices between bad and worse (the same goes for choices in life, in general, apart from politics). As for the Republicans, they blew it a few months ago when the Republican brand was taken over by the Lou Dobbs-Tom Tancredo wing of the party. George W. Bush, John McCain, Chambliss (I believe), and I were on the right side of the immigration reform debate all along.
The problem is Chambliss not good. He has been a poor Senator and he has constantly turned his back on fiscal conservatism.
The immigration bill was a terrible piece of legislation, mainly because of REAL ID provisions. Otherwise, I support immigration.
To a previous poster, it seems to me that the case for Chambliss would incorporate fear.
To me, nothing has changed regarding Chambliss. A lot of us didn’t want him to win before the election and now that the Democrats are pushing 60, I haven’t changed my mind. Like Jason, I had contemplated voting for Martin but decided against it not because I’m “fearful” of the Dems hitting 60 but rather due to a feeling that my work is done–Buckley hit a great number for a Georgia Libertarian in a Senate race and my vote and activism played at least a very small role in that. I have no desire to help either of these remaining candidates with my vote.
I agree Chambliss and Isakson are terrible senators but will Martin be any better for fiscal conservatism or worse. This is a choice of getting 5 percent of what you want or 1 percent. In 6 years we can throw either under the bus but within the 6 year time frame who will do the least damage. Besides is their a chance Chambliss will modify his views? What chance would we have with Martin? Again I would point out that the Supreme Court is a life time appointment I would like a chance, however small, to keep radical activists off the bench. We know where Obama stands in 2001 he said ““The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says only what “the states can’t do to you and what the Federal government can’t do to you and the Warren Court wasn’t that radical.”
He also said he was not “optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts,” but he would likely have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.
Should we tip the scales more to his favor?
As far as the Immigration issue I do not have ill feelings toward the illegal worker in this country. I understand why they come here. First we should secure the boarders. Then we should fix or create a guest worker program that is quick and easy so we know who is here. We need it to protect us and them. Us first.
I agree Chambliss and Isakson are terrible senators but will Martin be any better for fiscal conservatism or worse.
I think that question is very much in the air, as I elude to in my post.
The effects of Chambliss’ votes will be felt over the long term.
Whatever votes Martin may cast could be short term.
Besides is their a chance Chambliss will modify his views?
No one has given any indication that he will change his tune.
We know where Obama stands in 2001 he said ““The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” The Constitution says only what “the states can’t do to you and what the Federal government can’t do to you and the Warren Court wasn’t that radical.”
This has been completely misinterpreted. I wrote a post about it here.
You are not giving me the case for Chambliss. You are giving me your fears.
Voting for Chambliss now is a strategic move to prevent a 60-40 split in the U.S. Senate. That may be the only reason to vote for him, but right now it is enough. That in itself is not fear, but logic.
Fear is the motivation behind such a vote.
I think it would be a mistake for Libertarians to stay home in this election or to skip over this one on the voting card. It would render us irrelevant in a lot of people’s minds. I have already been getting calls about how the Libertarians are going to go on this race. People are interested. To say that we are just not voting in this race is going to lead to fall out for our Party. If you support Martin, support him, same for Chambliss. But I think Libertarians, the leadership of the party that is, should hold a press conference saying that these are the issues that we embrace and this is what we expect from our next United States Senator. We need to inject ourselves in the debate on this one. Believe it or not, people are interested in how Georgia Libertarians feel right now.
As far as fear, I voted for Buckley out of fear-fear that the other two might get elected/re-elected and continue to screw things up. We have a decision to make now.
You are not giving me the case for Chambliss. You are giving me your fears. … Fear is the motivation behind such a vote.
I think you’re assuming something that isn’t true. You’re assuming that the only reason to vote for someone is because of a positive action they either have done, or will do. You completely leave out the utility of legislative roadblocks.
I’ve written in another situation that
It was true in Davis’ case, and I think it can be true in Chambliss’ situation, albeit in a much more limited sense.
I also think that it depends on whether this “fear” is well-grounded or not. It’s not “playing on fears” if what we’re warning against has a good likelihood of occuring.
It is my position that Chambliss may possibly be the 40th vote that would uphold a filibuster on Obama’s health care plan. Despite all of Chambliss’s other transgressions, if he joins the GOP in opposing universal health care, then it’s worth having him in office for six more years. We can always roll back farm subsidies or biofuels legislation, but we cannot roll back universal entitlements.
I guess the questions are (1) whether the Democrats will try to nationalize the medical industry during Obama’s first term, and (2) whether we should be fearful of Obama’s health care plan. I say the answer to both questions is yes. If you agree, then I don’t see why we need to give you a case for voting for Chambliss.
Doug,
You are making a great case for voting for Chambliss. I will hold my nose as I do it, but I plan to vote against one power rule in Washington. We saw that for six years and it got us nowhere. I realize this is a tough choice, but I maintain that Libertarians need to be a part of this debate. We need to be front and center talking about Allen Buckley’s candidacy and why 50.1 percent of the people voted against Saxby Chambliss. Even so, we have to keep another vote for total Democrat rule out of Washington. Mr. Martin has made it clear he is on board with the policies of the left. I appreciate him being honest with us about that. So, we have to judge him by his words. I am going with Chambliss, but if Libertarians sit this one out, we can expect nothing but sneers and jeers when we try to weigh in on everything else.
Doug,
I understand your reasoning, but the man has cast many votes that will negatively impact us in the future.
Gentlemen: we do not need absolute power in Washington and voting for Martin could give that power a home.
I am beginning to think that the only reason to vote for either is that Martin will be easier to unseat in six years.
Several people have hit the correct nails squarely on the head.
We do not need another Obamacrat in the Congress.
I do not trust either of them. Yet I believe we will see a wave of conservatism among Congressional Republicans, largely for self preservation.
The only sensible avenue is to deny the Obamacrats another seat. For that alone, I will vote for Saxby.
I will vote for Jim Martin in the runoff, for the same reason I usually Democrat or Libertarian:
What passes for “Republican”, since as long as I can remember, is founded on the opposition to (and defeat of) the separation of church and state. That’s “founded”, as in “central policy component”. Devaluation of the rest of the First Amendment has been a means to that end.
I think it’s negligent to vote for (or abstain from voting) anyone who has supported this regime, and Chambliss is one of those people.
the man has cast many votes that will negatively impact us in the future.
I think fear of what can happen is a legitimate emotion in this case.
What Chambliss has done is more easily reversible than say, the future of ObamaCare. Universal entitlements will grow the size of gov’t exponentially when compared to say, a farm bill.
Things like the Patriot Act? That’s much more easily reversed than having an electorate in which only 45% pay taxes while 55% pay nothing.
What Chambliss has done is despicable in my opinion. I have sworn to NEVER vote for him again. The only question whether I will vote against Chambliss by driving to the polling place & putting an “X” next to Martin. I may just stay home. I just don’t know yet.
Hey Doug, are you still going to the UT/Vandy game?
Hey Doug, are you still going to the UT/Vandy game?
Did you sell the tickets? If not, then I’ll be there.
Jason, I’m afraid I can’t make much of an argument either way. As a libertarian, I would say that it is easier to “fix” bad economic decisions later than it is to recapture lost civil liberties; we can elect a crew who will re-privatize the companies that the Bush and Obama administrations nationalize, but recapturing lost civil liberties tends to take more drastic action, if history is any indication. At least, that’s part of my own rationale.
As for me, I made a promise to Saxby that he would lose my support if he voted in favor of the $700B bailout, and I intend to keep my word.
NR, I see where you’re coming from. The problem is defining “civil liberties” in today’s society. The goal of the Left over the last half century has been to create rights that would further their cause to what they believe is equality. Healthcare is an example of such. An equal distribution of income is another.
This became the goal when the Greens, the feminists, the ethnic minorities, & the workers groups finally decided to unite & attack as a huge united front, rather than individually. This is how they have separated themselves from communism & is, in my opinion, one of the few examples where the group has accomplished more than the individual. What they’ve done is create “rights” (or write laws) that have furthered their doctrine w/o violence.
Once ObamaCare is implemented, under the present definition of civil liberties, this is one that will be virtually impossible to take away.
Bloated spending, immigration, Patriot Act; these are all easily reversible by an enthusiastic leader & an electorate ready to “change” the way things have been done.
The others? They won’t be changed because it will become their “right”
After last weekend Doug, I didn’t even care to try. I’m sure it’ll be the 12:30 game that Saturday so we’ll have to leave at what, 7-ish?