WEBCommentary(tm) - I agree and disagree with Saul Anuzis re: Sue Lowden

I can't say that I disagree with the idea Sue is the best candidate on a blanket basis, but I can't agree with the idea on a blanket basis either. If Sue wins the primary, I think she has to surround herself with the Nevada conservative/libertarian intelligentsia, and she also needs new campaign managers. Muth is good to have in her corner. Perhaps Sue ought to enlist Vin Suprynowicz. (BTW, nice to see Sue supporting the Saints. My nephews' uncle from the father's side, Rodney Lewis, played for the Saints.)

I agree with Saul that it would be nice to defeat Harry Reid. I don't, however, believe the goal should be defeating Harry Reid - replacing him with just anybody - instead advancing liberty.

That Lowden has raised more funds than Danny Tarkanian and Sharron Angle shouldn't be the litmus test for deciding who to support. Reid has bank. This means that no matter who wins the primary, that candidate is going to be outspent by a ratio of at least, say, five to one. This also means that Republicans will not win with money, but with a message.

Here is what will come Sue's way: Archon, Archon, and Archon. One of the best things about a competitive primary is that it serves as a dress rehearsal for the general. Get everything out of the way in the primary.

Like Saul said - in different words - Reid is going to throw everything and the kitchen sink at whoever wins the primary. Platitudes will be insufficient to defuse what I see coming. This is where Lowden's supremacy as the candidate becomes suspect, despite her fundraising success - paltry compared to Reid's. So far, Sue has been completely off-message, and recently she was AWOL for a candidate forum. I'm not certain she has the fire power to debate Reid and defuse attacks.

As far as vouching for Sue's conservative credentials, Saul admits that he has known Lowden for years. Perhaps there is some bias involved. Of course, everybody - myself included - has bias, but I can say that I know none of the candidates personally. (I am still trying to gain a better understanding of where all of the candidates stand on the issues, and I even wrote this open letter to Sharron Angle. I let nobody off the hook. Part of me wants to give up on the political process altogether, sticking with watching hockey during the winter and baseball during the summer.) Everything Saul mentioned sounded rather subjective - e.g., opposing higher taxes. Higher and lower are relative positions. Why is Lowden flanked by people like Bill Raggio? Why has Lowden gone out of her way to help defeat genuine conservatives in primaries only to help get big government Republicans elected? What about Lowden's position on national electronic medical records?

Saul reminded us that Sue had been endorsed by the NRA. I'm not sure what kind of barometer this is, considering the fact that Senator Reid has received accolades from the NRA. Is it possible Reid is able to run to Lowden's right? The NRA's support for the Second Amendment has been precarious at best. I'd like to find out where Larry Pratt and Aaron Zelman stand.

Earmark reform? I can't say I'm on board with earmark reform. The words of Frank Chodorov come to mind. It's sort of like trying to clean up the whorehouse, but leave the business intact. The germ of error here is conflating earmarks with spending. Earmarks do not increase spending by one cent. All earmarks could be eliminated, yet government spending - the real issue - still increases.

Objectively, an earmark is a form of Congressional oversight. An earmark allows for the Congress to designate already appropriated funds for a specific use. (Quite frankly, I'd rather have a "bridge to nowhere" than a concentration camp.) Earmark abolition means an executive branch with complete discretion over the allocation of all largesse from the Treasury. President Barack Obama is also opposed to earmarks. And when it comes to "pork" and "waste," I can't think of a single politician who supports "pork" and "waste." Aren't they all opposed to "pork" and "waste"? And where has this gotten us? (BTW, I have to admit this is one of Tarkanian's weakest positions.)

It isn't about the earmarks; it's about the spending! As one who advocates laissez-faire, I say keep the earmarks, but let's see some objective cuts in government spending. It is impossible to cut the overall tax burden without cutting government spending.

I think another Republican candidate in this race assessed the field pretty well when he pointed out - in different words - that most of the other candidates are using regurgitated, NRSC, poll-tested mush from 2008.

This other Republican candidate also came up with what has, so far, been the most aphoristic idea: having the federal government disgorge some of its land. The inverse of the U.S. Treasury spending - or selling - dollars is buying dollars. This would also beget economic diversification. It wasn't WWII that got the U.S. out of the depression, but the end of WWII when the government began to liquidate PP&E. The only thing I can add is that if we want to get people back into homes, we need to figure out where the homes are going. The Fed has been actively buying up MBS, interfering with the price mechanism in the process. The Fed owns a sizable housing inventory. If we are going to get people back into homes, the Fed has to disgorge the MBS from its balance sheet.

Is it just an irony that the "11th Commandment" is invoked to protect only establishment candidates from criticism? But if you are a "Ron Paul Republican," establishment Republicans will smear you and maybe even try to excise you from the party.

Saul makes a peculiar case against Tarkanian: Tarkanian hasn't yet won an election. If winning elections is the standard, then we might as well support Reid who has won several more elections than Lowden. Let's say it's true that Tarkanian isn't the best candidate. This doesn't necessarily make Lowden the best candidate. A doesn't become true because B is false.

I do believe that Lowden's ad is better than Tark's ad. I don't think candidates should run on somebody else's - i.e., Reagan's - record. They should run on their own record. I'm sorry, but I have to take time to shame Tark for that video.

I would like to see some more robust debates. I do know that now is no time to abandon conservative principles and moderate positions. The Democrats are now pirating conservative lexicon - they are on the run. In 1994, one of the few Republican candidates who didn't win as Republicans swept to control of Congress was Mitt Romney. If you check out his debate performance against the late Senator Ted Kennedy on YouTube, you will see why. Apparently, the goal was defeating Ted Kennedy, not advancing conservatism.

Upon inspecting the field of candidates, I could see this becoming a race between Sharron Angle and John Chachas. Angle has the Constitution in her blood and she is articulate. Chachas is the policy wonk who knows the difference between government statistics and the truth - and his delivery is polished. I do like Tark, but I have to confess that his performance in the candidate forum wasn't very impressive. Tark lost me on the consumption-stimulates-the-economy argument. I wonder if he is relying too heavily upon consultants to craft his message. But when it comes to Lowden being the best candidate for the job, I think the jury is still out.

In closing, it would be nice to find out where each candidate stands on the anthrax vaccine issue (military/veterans issue), which I think is a good, real issue that should be addressed. The vaccine is not popular amongst the military and has injured a lot of servicemembers, so trying to stop the program would not be controversial. Most politicians don't seem to care about this issue at all. The policy for my unit was to make us take the shots even if we were about to get out. I had to get three of the shots in the series shortly before my EAS date. Two of the shots I received came after my final physical, which has made it nearly impossible to get service-connection for my subsequent health problems. (I am service-connected for the dozen screws in my shoulder.) I went full-blown hypothyroid and getting thyroid medication through the VA has been like trying to win the lottery. In fact, the VA even wrote into my medical chart that hypothyroidism is asymptomatic and that I don't need thyroid medication. So I went outside of the VA, my lab results showed my TSH at around 15, and I was told that I needed thyroid medication immediately. That's government medicine, gentle reader. Let's follow Israel's lead: Secret IDF anthrax vaccine trial on soldiers to be investigated.

Mark served honorably for four years on active duty in the Marine Corps infantry, and was a Libertarian endorsed candidate for a municipal office in 2002. He has held the NFA Series 3 license (commodity futures and futures options broker) which he did a voluntary withdrawal on so that he can trade futures for his personal account. Since the year 2000, he has spent much of his free time reading the great minds of the Austrian School of economics, such as Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, et al.