If you feel you need to discuss alleged deceit, he would like you to call him directly on his cell phone. That number is 770-655-7750.

An interesting list, some spot on, some way off. As a Libertarian I don’t think we’ll see that kind of growth in our efforts. It would be nice, but the recent election over in Augusta indicates that the concept of republicans crossing over and supporting Libertarian candidates just doesn’t hold water. Taylor Bryant got 9.1% of the votes cast in State Senate District 22 and a cursory look at the precinct level tells you that the republican minority in Augusta sat on the couch. The good thing about it is that we now know that there is a viable Libertarian slice of that community that gets it. It’s up to the State LP to help the CSRA affiliate grow it’s numbers and prepare for the local races in Augusta this fall.

You already have an excellent choice to replace Republican Johnny Isakson. Libertarian Chuck Donovan has declared and he will get the nomination at this years Libertarian convention. Chuck is a sharp guy and will give Johnny nightmares in the general this fall. Like all Libertarian candidates, Chuck will be running an asymmetric campaign as we are long on ideas and ideals but chronically short of cash.

I don’t think you’ll see any change in Georgia as far as state house or state senate races are concerned. The republicans and democrats have split up Georgia quite nicely to ensure that change isn’t possible. There will be around 140 or so incumbents with no challengers on the ballot just like 2008. That won’t change until our fair state’s 1943 Jim Crow Ballot access laws are changed. And that ain’t gonna happen by any action we’ll see at the Capitol.

I do have a prediction of my own relating to the fall election in Georgia. I think that Libertarian John Monds, supported by Libertarian candidates for every state wide office on the ballot will break the 20% vote barrier in his run for the Governorship. That will be a event with monumental consequences for Georgia in 2012.

It’s been over a year since I ventured this way and I’d like to offer congratulations on your new site. Kudos to you for continuing the important work of removing Saxby from public office, it will be a while longer before I turn my attention back to him. I am intrigued by your latest post discussing the resignation of Speaker Richardson and would like to inquire as to whether you know of some worthy in that district that would consider running as a Libertarian in the impending special election to replace him.

I’m quite involved at the moment in the special election for state senate in District 22, and have committed to assisting the Libertarian candidate that will run in state senate 42 once Bundlin’ Dave Adelman is confirmed as a US ambassador. The Libertarian party is committed to run candidates in these special elections and is seeking a strong candidate for Richardson’s old seat. Any assistance you could provide would be appreciated.

I’ve continued my online efforts over at my blog, if you’d care to stop by, I’d welcome your input.

http://bludgeonandskewer.blogspot.com/

Good to see you are still fighting the good fight.

Regards,

Shane Bruce

First of all, I do believe that the federal government has incorrectly taken control of things that should be left up to the state, local, or private sectors. By doing this, they are spending tax dollars on things they have no business being involved in. However, I do believe that that job of protecting our citizens is one of the things that falls to the federal government to control and manage.

Secondly, I would agree that the federal government is wasting much of its tax revenue on wasteful programs that should be eliminated or turned over to state, local, or private management. I would even agree that the federal government does a poor job of managing the military and that much of what is spent could be eliminated by better efficiency and organization. The argument could probably be made that the federal government could “afford” this war if they were not wasting all of the money they shouldn’t be wasting.

So, what does all this mean? Let me pitch this whole war thing another way…

Let’s say you have 3 kids. One day one of them is walking down the hall in your house and just drops over dead. No warning. Nothing that you could have done to stop it. A few days later you find out that your child had a rare disease that has no symptoms, and without warning can strike. Since you did not know there was any danger there was no indication that you should do something to protect this child.

To make matters worse you find out that that disease is caused, in most cases, not by something that you did, but rather by the combination of places that you have lived. It is just luck-of-the-draw that your two remaining children also have this disease in them just waiting to strike with no notice.

The doctor tells you that your remaining children could quite possibly live a full life with the disease never affecting them. But, the disease is there and he gives you 50:50 odds that it could strike again at any time. The doctor then tells you that there is an experimental treatment that so far has had great success and would raise the chance of survival to 85% or 90%. There is one problem though. Since the treatment is experimental your insurance will not cover it and the cost is $1,000,000 per child.

You know without even looking that you do not have $2,000,000 sitting in your bank accounts to write this check that has a high likelihood of protecting your 2 children. You are lucky though, the drug company is willing to give your children the treatment in return for you making monthly payments. You review the loan documents and in the fine print you find that if you die before the full $2,000,000, plus interest, is paid back you are obligating your children to continue the payments for you.

You have two choices. 1) Stick to your “no deficit spending” policy that you have for your family and take the gamble that the disease will never strike. 2) Realize that there are some things that you do not gamble with and commit you and your children to $2,000,000 worth of debt.

I think the choice is pretty clear and simple… at least for me. It is not the money the matters, it is about protecting the people that you are responsible to protect. I think you can be pro-war or anti-war, but I don’t think you can simply use the “we can’t afford” it argument to not choose a side. Either we can’t afford it because we shouldn’t be there to begin with, or we can’t afford to not afford it because we should be there. That is the real issue that needs to be decided, and the real issue that Obama had to struggle with.