Huston’s comments—transcribed and publishedon the web site of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda, California on Wednesday—are the latest twist in a longstanding tale of political skullduggery involving Nixon and his predecessor, Lyndon Johnson. It is a tale that features a secret “X-file,” a mysterious “Dragon Lady” and reports of wiretaps and bugging that has captured the imagination of scholars and conspiracy theorists for half a century.

Like many of Nixon’s actions, this particular transgression was born of paranoia. As the 1968 election approached, Nixon and his aides feared that Johnson would try to help the Democratic nominee—Vice President Hubert Humphrey—by staging an October surprise. When LBJ announced to the nation, just days before the balloting, that he was calling a halt in the bombing of North Vietnam to help fuel progress in ongoing peace talks, the Republicans thought their fears were realized.

Anna Chennault, a Republican activist with ties to the South Vietnamese government, sent word to Saigon that it would get better terms if Humphrey lost and Nixon took office, the FBI would discover. The South Vietnamese dragged their feet, infuriating LBJ who, in a taped conversation released by the Johnson presidential library several years ago, can be heard denouncing Nixon for “treason.”

LBJ ordered the FBI to put Chennault under surveillance and, according to documents at the Johnson library, tracked the machinations of the “Dragon Lady”(as Nixon called her) via intercepted communications at the South Vietnamese embassy. After Nixon won, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover told the new president that Johnson had ordered Nixon’s campaign planes bugged as well.

Once in office, Nixon ordered his staff to investigate the bombing halt and the allegation his campaign had been bugged. Huston, a dedicated and resourceful young conservative who had worked on the 1968 campaign before joining the White House as a presidential aide, was given the job. But his investigation, and the report he delivered to White House chief of staff H. R. Haldeman in 1970, found that both presidents had cause for embarrassment: LBJ for the surveillance of a presidential candidate from the other party, and Nixon for the role that his campaign played in derailing the peace talks
Neither side wanted to push the issue. “I think there was an implicit understanding between two very politically sophisticated people, who had been in the arena for a very long time, to say ‘Hey, look, this thing is over, you know, neither one of us are going to gain anything by stirring up this pot,’” Huston says.

drsmooth wrote:Brat's views on economics - what can be gleaned from the internets - appear to be a bizarro take on libertarian concepts.

For example, he seems to object to viewing economics as anything like science; free markets are more a matter of moral choices than the workings of an invisible hand. That's kewl, but seems out of character for a Randian free-markets bent guy.

So anyway, in the Brat conception, free markets apparently aren't really free, but formed by people, are intentional that is, rather than the result of physics, and/but can be formed only by 'right-thinking' people of the proper moral makeup, said makeup to be determined by....well, it gets hazy pretty quick

After Hillary Rodham Clinton caused a political flap for saying she and her husband left the White House “dead broke” and “struggled” to pay mortgages on their two multi-million dollar houses, the potential 2016 presidential candidate said on Tuesday that her family has been “blessed” and that she appreciates the struggles of working class Americans.

Republicans have seized on Clinton’s comments about her wealth, which aired on ABC Monday at the start of her national book tour and media blitz, as a gaffe that shows the former secretary of state leads a rarefied life and is out of touch. In a live interview Tuesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton tried to correct the mistake.

“Let me just clarify that I fully appreciate how hard life is for so many Americans today,” Clinton told “Good Morning America” host Robin Roberts. “It’s an issue that I’ve worked on and cared about my entire adult life. Bill and I were obviously blessed, we worked hard for everything we got in our lives and we have continued to work hard.”

Clinton explained that she and Bill Clinton had several million dollars in legal debt when they left the White House in 2001.

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Brat's views on economics - what can be gleaned from the internets - appear to be a bizarro take on libertarian concepts.

For example, he seems to object to viewing economics as anything like science; free markets are more a matter of moral choices than the workings of an invisible hand. That's kewl, but seems out of character for a Randian free-markets bent guy.

So anyway, in the Brat conception, free markets apparently aren't really free, but formed by people, are intentional that is, rather than the result of physics, and/but can be formed only by 'right-thinking' people of the proper moral makeup, said makeup to be determined by....well, it gets hazy pretty quick

Everything I know about Brat I learned from this thread. But I for one would not trust a supposed free-market economist who opposes immigration. That's an inconsistency of pretty significant proportions. Also, the idea of free markets as a kind of Nietzschean ubermensch moral system seems close enough to Ayn Rand's views, or maybe old Anarchy, State and Utopia Robert Nozick. Neither were concerned with consequences much or optimal economic output. This is unlike say Hayek, whose libertarianism was very much consequentialist--free markets are good because they produce optimal results.

The other thing--the idea that markets are made by intentional people actually is a pretty solid idea in the philosophy of the social sciences, and one I have a fair amount of sympathy. Consider--a free market populated by good Lockeans will work much better than one populated by Putin's cronies.

Immigration
When addressing the issue of immigration, we must start by securing our border. An open border is both a national security threat and an economic threat that our country cannot ignore. I reject any proposal that grants amnesty and undermines the fundamental rule of law. Adding millions of workers to the labor market will force wages to fall and jobs to be lost. I support proposals that will secure our border, enforce our current laws, and restore an orderly and fair process to allow law abiding individuals to work towards becoming citizens of this great nation.

TenuredVulture wrote:
You can't be for limited government and strict enforcement of immigration laws.

The Dude wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

The Dude wrote:wtf did you quote him then

I quoted Matt Yglesias quoting him, dumbass

No shit sherlock. Still doesn't explain why you would are

drsmooth wrote:I need to know "why you would are" such a sullen dimwit

TenuredVulture wrote:The other thing--the idea that markets are made by intentional people actually is a pretty solid idea in the philosophy of the social sciences, and one I have a fair amount of sympathy. Consider--a free market populated by good Lockeans will work much better than one populated by Putin's cronies.

The Dude wrote:

drsmooth wrote:I need to know "why you would are" such a sullen dimwit

sorry, typed from phone! you lousy name caller!

drsmooth wrote:
you get on me for some reason about a post that references 2 people, neither of whom you recognize,

"The central theme of Brat’s campaign is that Cantor is beholden to business — specifically the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable," wrote Politico in April.

“If you’re in big business, Eric’s been very good to you, and he gets a lot of donations because of that, right?” Brat said at a local meeting of Republicans in Virginia, according to Politico. “Very powerful. Very good at fundraising because he favors big business. But when you’re favoring artificially big business, someone’s paying the tab for that. Someone’s paying the price for that, and guess who that is? You.”

While everyone is focused on Brat's critique of Cantor's immigration stance, that attack came in the broader context of the increasingly potent "crony capitalism" theme. Brat went after Cantor specifically for his support of strengthening the H1B visa program, a policy especially favored by tech companies such as Facebook since it allows them to hire more engineers from overseas. Critics have said that the program allows firms to seek cheaper labor to maximize profits and puts foreign workers ahead of Americans.
It's true that Cantor enjoyed a strong relationship with business, and it went far beyond tech to Wall Street especially. The industry that gave him the most campaign contributions was the securities and investment sector. Individuals from the private equity firm Blackstone were his biggest financial supporters. Cantor went to bat for the industry repeatedly over politically unpopular issues, including the taxation of income at private equity firms at the lower capital gains rate.

That's no surprise: for decades, the GOP and big business have worked closely together to build a political alliance that until recently appeared airtight. But now with Tea Party activist groups charging the traditional wing of the GOP with "crony capitalism"--and Cantor's loss--the balance of power is creeping away from the pro-business faction of the Republican Party.

TenuredVulture wrote:Unlike the first two, though, anti-immigration really is about as anti-free market/limited government as you can get, especially given the rhetoric today. More immigration enforcement would mean more regulation of business, especially small business. You'd have to have INS agents showing up unannounced on farms, construction sites, restaurants, etc. Do you then round up anyone who looks suspicious and can't produce verification of their immigration status? It's going to be great for contractors when the INS shows up at a work site and takes all the workers away.

You can't be for limited government and strict enforcement of immigration laws.