Welcome to Freedom Democrats

I'm not really sure what I think of Bob Casey, current PA Treasurer, heavy favorite for the Democratic nomination for Sen. Rick Santorum's seat in the 2006 election. I know I don't like Chuck Pennacchio, Casey's only announced competition for the Democratic nomination.

Casey has consistently over the past 4 months polled double digit leads over lil' Ricky "man-on-dog" Santorum. This is expected to be one of the highest profile Senate races in 2006, with lil' Ricky being the #3 man in the Senate, after all. Over $20 million is expected to be spent on this race. But lil' Ricky has this little problem, see. He just can't keep his mouth shut about his extremist views that most Pennsylvanian's don't like. He's also highly likely to have many principled conservatives (accord to many articles and editorials in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review) sit this one out for his support of the re-election of Sen. Arlen Specter over Rep. Pat Toomey in the 2004 Republican primary).

Why Casey over Santorum?

Two main reasons: Santorum is truly a frightening individual; and it helps to lower the Republican majority in the Senate and removes one of their leaders.

Why am I not sure about Casey?

I don't really know too much about his stance on the issues. His website
has no issues page. I know that he's anti-choice. I don't know if this is something that would try to legislate or just a personal position.

That's my biggest concern with him. Maria over at 2 Political Junkies really doesn't like him because he's anti-stem-cell research; but I like his position (and Rep. Ron Paul's) that there should be no federal funding of stem-cell research (although private sector should pursue it), as that's not a Consitutional power of the federal government, and is forcing people who do have moral objections to finance it in a round-about manner.

Why don't I like Pennacchio?

I've read his positions on the issues, and listened to him speak and talked to him at last month's PA Young Democrats State Convention. He's very big on federal power, and many of his positions lean towards socialism, but my biggest problem with him is his continuing advocation of more victim disarmament laws.

How about Santorum?

Too many to list, but for a brief sampling:
His shameless exploitation of Terry Schiavo;
His ethical problems in Pennsylvania;
His advocacy of a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions;
His statements that the cause of sexual abuse of children by priest's is due to liberalism in Boston;
His utter disdain for individual rights and advocacy of state restriction:

In an interview with the Associated Press, the Senator suggested that the government has the right to prohibit gay and lesbian individuals from expressing love for each other physically. "The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that," said the Senator, "I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society."

"Old Europe" this, "Old Europe" that -- but it looks like our friends across are getting software patents right on the money. MEP Richard Corbett blogs about the recent vote in the European Parliament, and follows up with posts about the great support from his constituents. Bravo!

In case you're unclear why this matters, in a nutshell: inappropriate software patents can greatly inhibit innovation, rather than encouraging it, due to the risk of infringing on trivial patents. This move by the European Parliament will ensure sane regulation, and therefore a marketplace more open to grand new developments.

Technorati Tags: europeanparliament, patents, freeculture, software, softwarepatents

Part of being a Freedom Democrat is being able to offer some constructive criticism to Democrats that don't seem to get it. That includes offering up some advice to Senator Hillary Clinton. Full disclosure, I am not a very big fan of Hillary Clinton's politics, although I do admire her as someone who has been very successful and has shown an ability to be quite the political mastermind. Right now I believe there are more important issues than censorship of video games.

It's also important to note that you can be judged by the company you keep. Joining Lieberman, Santorum, and Brownback to push Tipper Gore-eque legislation isn't going to win my vote over.

Friday night at midnight the long awaited sixth book in the Harry Potter series shall be released. I actually will be at a music concert and unlikely to buy the book until the next morning. But buy it I will. As a fan of Lord of the Rings I've been comfortable with the more juvenile nature of Harry Potter, which resembles how The Hobbit was written. Adam provides a book review of the fifth book and talks about some of the problems with the Ministry of Magic. It behaves like any other government agency would; it's ineffective and arrogant.

The Radical Liberal Mike Renzulli has offered up a defense of being both a libertarian and a Democrat.

I am a libertarian with a small l and a Democrat with a capital D. And I am a Democrat with a capital D on the grounds of expediency, not on principle. I believe I can do more good by having influence in the Democratic Party than I can by joining the Libertarian Party, although I have great sympathy for the Libertarian Party. I believe it's very desirable for them to do well.

The one thing about Democrats (as opposed to Republicans) is that they are at least willing to accept change. I have noticed that it is easier to
convince a Democrat about freedom more than a Republican. Especially
when it comes to war and foreign policy. Since the Democrats are in the
minority around the country, I believe that they will be hungry for
fresh, radical ideas to bring them back into power. I doubt that they
would dump their principles once retaking places like the U.S. Congress
since many of the manipulative and power-hungry Democrats (like former House Speaker Tom Foley) are no longer around. Those that are will retire down the line in which their influence will be limited. I look
forward to my interactions with others and the many campaigns I will be
participating in while furthering freedom in the Democratic Party.

Many of us have similar experiences of explaining why we believe the Democratic Party to be the more pro-freedom of the two parties. I have found many of my Democratic peers to be open to what I have to say. At times they frustrate me, but I know that they are generally more open to listening to me than most Republicans. I was involved in the 2004 Democratic Primary as a Dean supporter, and I look forward to future Democratic campaigns. In the next few days we will be adding information on three potential Democratic Congressional candidates in 2006.

You have to write about politics and post your thoughts here. Full sentences preferred, but not necessary. But what about your own ideology? Does it measure up?

Don't worry.

There's no kind of litmus test or secret handshake among us here. I wanted to be clear on that because there are a lot of diverse folks who may have some misgivings about either (a) Ye Olde Democratick Party, or (b) some of the new-fangled "pro-freedom" ideas we're throwing out.

Seriously: we're open-minded here, and there's no test. If you're willing to give new ideas a spin, and if you're willing to consider the Democrats as a possible solution to America's problems, then you're good to go.

As for the rest - our definition of "freedom", our hopes and fears for the Democrats, thoughts about Howard Dean's Goatee - we'll be discussing these soon enough.

What type of post do I start out with for the new website? Do I simply say my greetings and leave it at that, and wait for everyone to comment on the new site? Do I find some important news story and report on it immediately? Or what about a wonkish policy post that goes on and on forever?

I wonder what your first post will be about.

Perhaps it is best for my first post to be natural, to pretend that this is just another blog post, and act like this is business as usual. That means . . . a wonkish policy post. But I'll keep it short.

Back at the old blog I questioned the assumption that Democrats win on economic issues. Part of Freedom Democrats is forging an economic message for the Democratic Party that will appeal to the majority of Americans. The Republican economic agenda is to enrich those at the top and a neoconomy that rewards wealth and privilege. They will use intolerance, jingoism, and bribery to build the political coalition necessary to stay in power. Democrats have to respond.

The article I linked to pointed out the problem Democrats face on depending on economic issues to win. Excluding the elderly, most of the people that use the welfare state that Democrats tend to defend have an income of $40,000 or below. This is not a political majority in the making at all. Democrats may still manage to win when the issue is support for the elderly, witness the bumbling of the President on Social Security reform. While this may benefit the party in the short term, smart Republicans will learn the lesson. And we have yet to see if the unpopularity of Social Security reform is actually a winning strategy for the Democrats in an election.

One Democratic response would be to expand the welfare state so it provides more middle class benefits. Universal single payer health care is the primary strategy of such progressives. Yet I apologize if I am cynical about this. Ignoring the problems of a single payer system, and there are problems, the strategy seems to have been tried since 1948 with only moderate success in the 1960s. It hasn't worked in the past, why will it work now? We need to improve our health care system, but is a universal single payer system the answer? Will the people accept it?

Jefferson's agrarian democracy was appealing because a very large segment of the American population farmed. FDR and the New Deal was popular for a nation with such a large industrial work force. Today there are so many different sectors in the economy. Agricultural and manufacturing are still there, if declining, but you have service industries as well. And some people divide the service industry up and herald the rise of a new creative class. What unites Americans economically?

We are all (almost all) taxpayers. We are all (almost all) consumers.

As taxpayers, we are paying the government for services. We are, in a way, consumers of what the government provides. Consumers demand both low prices, quality products, and service with a smile. Democrats must reinvent government so that taxes are low but quality services are still provided. Part of this requires new ways of doing things. We also need to revaluate what services we expect the government to provide and what we expect the market to provide.

Part of this process must be grounded in the Constitution. But the Constitution offers little guidance in what we expect from state and local governments. And even the Constitution can be a flawed document. We need to develop a set of ideas, a philosophy of how we view government in the 21st century. How do we go about this discussion?

Your turn.