Go Free Yourself

According to a report from the AP, researchers at the New England Historic Genealogical Society have discovered some intriguing family ties among this year’s presidential candidates:

Barack Obama is a distant cousin of Brad Pitt, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is related to Pitt’s girlfriend, Angelina Jolie.

Also on Clinton’s family tree? Madonna, Alanis Morissette, and Celine Dion.

Obama has a much more politically-charged lineage, including distant cousins like George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, James Madison, Dick Cheney, Winston Churchill, and Robert E. Lee.

Oh, and lest we forget McCain, he’s distantly related to Laura Bush.

Pass the potato salad; family reunions at the White House just got a lot more interesting.

(Hat Tip: Fark.com. You may have noticed I go there a lot. That’s because it’s awesome.)

Ron Paul supporters are all riled up with nowhere to go.

McCain has clinched the presumptive Republican nomination. Ron Paul was unable to get 10 percent in the Republican primary. And now, McCain and the Republican Party are giving Ron Paul supporters the cold shoulder.

The Washington Times reports:

“I don’t think they want them,” Mr. Paul told The Washington Times, adding that indifference doesn’t surprise him because the party’s establishment has deserted traditional conservative principles for big government and foreign intervention.

“We don’t agree with them,” he says. “We agree with the Old Right, and they’re the New Right, which is ‘The Wrong,’ [because] the New Right has morphed into neoconservative.”

This is true. There’s not much common ground here, but the loss is the party’s.

Many of his 800,000 presidential nomination votes were from newcomers to the Republican Party — the kind of dedicated small-donor volunteers the party needs, he says.

Oh well. We didn’t want to be part of your party anyway.

Ah, I love this time of year. Three glorious weeks of college basketball is upon us. As is a $1.7 billion loss in productivity at work, according to MSNBC, as millions tune in to follow games from their desks via online video streaming.

Today’s Dallas Morning News editorial, however, counters that as the most productive workforce on the planet (according to the International Labor Organization), we’ve earned the right to follow the Madness at work.

Besides, even the presidential candidates are joining the fun. Obama picked UNC to win it all, and McCain is running a bracket contest on his campaign website (winner receives McCain swag). Clinton, however, remains tight-lipped—heaven forbid she commit to a position; she might alienate voters.

Let the Madness begin.

I remember once when I was younger, during Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign, my parents came home from voting and I asked who they voted for. My mom replied that voting was a very private matter and I wasn’t supposed to ask questions like that. I felt quite chastised until I realized a few years later that she only said that because she was embarrassed, as a Republican, about voting for He Clinton.

Today, most people (particularly young people) don’t have this same kind of allegiance to a party. However, allegiance to principles still exists; I was reminded of this today during a discussion about the presidential campaign.

You see, my husband, the devoted libertarian and Ron Paul supporter, has a bit of a man crush on Obama. While he doesn’t agree with a lot of his policies (Obama’s no libertarian, that’s for sure), he admires that Obama represents a new kind of politics. Between the Same Old Failed Republicans (McCain) and the Same Old Failed Democrats (Clinton), he represents—for lack of better word—that change everyone is so crazy about. He calls for working together across the aisle to solve America’s problems, he’s a good listener, and he’s a true leader. So, for these reasons (and more, summed up by Cass R. Sunstein’s Chicago Sun Times commentary), my hubby has given up the dream of a Ron Paul ticket and switched sides. His vote is for Obama.

We have several friends, however, who would not vote for Obama if they were paid to do so. They agree he’s a good man with the ability to move people. They might even agree that he is, more or less, the lesser of three evils. But on principle, they’ll vote their liberty-oriented conscience, writing in Ron Paul or maybe even themselves—anyone who is dedicated to limited government and freedom.

As for me, I haven’t decided yet. I dragged my feet supporting Ron Paul because I knew that as soon as I did, I’d be too invested in hoping he could actually win, could actually make a difference—when I knew the reality was he didn’t have a chance. Ron Paul is the only candidate I really believe in, but writing him in seems like a pointless exercise. (Although it would be interesting to see how much of his tremendous grassroots support would write him in.) Obama is undoubtedly the best option of the three, but voting for a big government guy (no matter how charming or pragmatic) still feels wrong.

So what do we do? As libertarians, do we vote our conscience, come hell or high water? Or do we “make our vote count” by ignoring policy differences and picking the candidate we think can win and do the least amount of damage?

I’d love to hear your thoughts…who are YOU voting for?