First, I’ll start by saying I don’t consider Pat Anderson the enemy. There’s just an issue where the two of us disagree philosophically. In fact, this post is mostly about philosophical differences. In fact, that’s all this is.

At a State Convention gathering, more than a few people were talking about “the Stebbins email.” One of the people talking about it forwarded it to me. Here’s the text of the email:

From: Marianne Stebbins
To: Marianne Stebbins
Sent: Wed, May 16, 2012 8:52 pm
Subject: Don’t forget that State Central immediately follows the convention on Saturday

Up for election are the National Committeeman and National Committeewoman positions. The primary contest there is for Committeewoman, where both Pat Anderson, current Committeewoman is being challenged by Janet Beihoffer.

I take care to not twist arms, but would like you to consider that Pat Anderson has been friendly to us, helpful in many ways. Beihoffer has been engaging in some nasty campaigning against Pat, while Pat has been taking the high road.

Please stay for State Central on Saturday if at all possible. This is an important vote for the future direction of our party.

Marianne Stebbins

I don’t have a problem with the RP people who are State Central delegates voting for the candidate of their choice. What I’ve got a major problem with is hearing anyone say that Janet “has been engaging in some nasty campaigning against Pat.” I’ve read what Janet’s said. I’ll stipulate that Janet’s said some hardhitting things.

Characterizing Janet’s communications as “nasty campaigning” just isn’t accurate. A number of Janet’s supporters have taken issue with some of the things Pat’s done. Most of those disputes involve Pat’s lobbying for Racino.

Purely from a limited government policy standpoint, I can’t support Racino. I can’t figure out how a person can be a limited government conservative while supporting giving government another revenue stream to increase the size of government.

That’s why I can’t understand the Paul supporters supporting another revenue stream to government. They’re supposed to be the ultimate believers in limited government conservatism.

I’ve heard Paul’s supporters say that they’re defending the principles of free market capitalism. Racino isn’t free market capitalism. According to their own website, Racino “would be paid for in full by Canterbury Park and Running Aces Harness Park.” That’s an awfully limited market. That’s the opposite of a free market.

It’s time Congressman Paul’s supporters admitted that they aren’t the pure-hearted free market guy their champion is.

Tags: , , , , , ,

One Response to “Paulers for Pat Anderson”

  • eric z says:

    There is consistency with the position on WAR ON DRUGS.

    The libertarian view is that it is not a proper government function. A private sector thing.

    But gambling, presently, is very restricted and subject to intense lobbying by interests wanting to keep a status quo, and interests wanting expansion, but not a general drop of regulation, only their special interest advancing.

    The tax stream is separate. If you give free license to anybody to run any casino or betting game, the problem is as with banks or sellers of insurance. When the time to pay up arrives, is the money there or a “Sorry Charlie” shell. So, as with banks and insurance, you have to regulate against imprudent practices and outright frauds.

    So if you regulate, you tax. And Gary, Grover Norquist is wrong and a royal pain and should go get an honest job and earn his keep as opposed to being kept by whoever it is that bankrolls his mischief. So there.

    This limited government stuff is either a hollow slogan, or something many can haggle over when you go beyond the slogan to details.

    War on Drugs. Stupid and costly and useless.

    War on Islam. Stupid and costly and useless.

    Ron Paul gets many things correct, while being difficult on social responsibilities of government and on the liberty of families to make a full range of reproductive choices.

    All the talk of “liberty” and that slammed shut door??

    There’s disingenuousness there, or else it is a basic inconsistency, my guess, or a compromised position taken to advance politically given moods in the GOP. But that latter thing would be disingenuous.

    I just think the man’s wigged out from delivering too many babies – not because of the cash flow he’s gotten from it, as Dr. Ron, but he just loves the little tykes to where he wants to curb family liberty.

    It is vexing.

    And there is then the entire question of the social responsibilities of government, where you and RP are closer than I am to either of you.

Leave a Reply