LibertyMage
09-05-2009, 10:12 AM
http://www.libertymage.com/skins/andreas_01/img/jimrutledge.jpg
Jim Rutledge (http://www.rutledgeforussenate.com/), a candidate who will be running for Barbara Mikulski's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Mikulski) senate seat, attended a recent Campaign for Liberty meeting in Baltimore County. I made extra sure to attend the meeting given the opportunity to dissect a candidate first hand.
It is difficult to predict how a politician will act once in office. Their slippery nature makes them hard to grasp and Jim's non-existent political career did nothing to help form my expectations of the statesmen he would be. Would this candidate become Jim the demagogue, Jim the holy warrior or Jim the defender of liberty? Undoubtedly there is a real person somewhere in every snake oil salesmen. I attempted to read between the lines at our recent chapter meeting to get to the core of Mr. Rutledge in hopes of giving the people of Maryland a preliminary idea of the man behind the mask.
Storytime
The meeting started of with some brief comments about recent chapter activities and quickly moved the focus to Mr. Rutledge. He started off with a speech that lasted about thirty minutes.
The disguise Jim chose to wear to the meeting was undoubtedly that of the storyteller. This was unfortunate for me as I have a strong aversion to hot air. This was also bad for Jim as he is not a great orator.
Jim spoke with a flourish. On several occasions I suspected he was getting ready to pull a rabbit out of a hat. He finished his sentences with a series of nods as if his periods bumped into a bobble head doll. The show was definitely a bit over the top and I found myself wondering what the waitress thought about the ordeal.
I don't recall much of his speech. There was a good bit about persecuted ancestors, hidden weapons and a cobbler that just happened to be on his own "campaign for liberty". The only thing that I gleaned from Jim's speech was that Banksy was right about proverbs (http://www.thehighdefinite.com/2009/04/weekly-banksyism-2/) when they are overused and under-supported.
Wasting more time talking about Jim's speech is pointless. Simply put, it was not good. However, I don't hold that against him. The only way his speech detracts from his qualities is that he would be terrible at inspiring the masses. That is to say, he would be terrible at demagogy.
On the Issues
After the song and dance, Jim took questions for about 60 minutes covering various topics.
The way Jim responded to questions was a bit incoherent in that you received only part of what you were looking for with other topics injected here and there. It was asking the deli counter for a corned beef sandwich and having half a corned beef, half a pastrami, and half a cold cut lobbed at your head.
Jim was also a bit squishy with his positions. I'm not sure if the rest of the room noticed that I was taking notes but Jim surely did. There was at least two occasions where I lifted my pen and it seemed that the velocity of Jim's voice and the direction his opinion was traveling changed.
The first question Jim was offered was about his position on drug prohibition. He made a long and mostly toothless point about how we need to rethink our position on drugs. I followed this question up, as any good interviewer would, by asking Jim to actually answer it. More specifically, I asked him if he would reform drug laws or abolish them. He started his response by stating the laws needed to be reformed. However, this was one occasion he noticed I was taking notes and his response finished on a much more liberty-minded tone.
I don't remember what the second question was but I made sure to take no notes on it. The question took about three years to be delivered. I'm not sure anyone knew what was asked but Jim surely answered accordingly. The only thing I remembered to take notes on was that absent minded questions get absent minded answers.
The third question was about how Jim interpreted the commerce clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause). This was a very poignant question as Jim Rutledge, a lawyer, should be fluent on topics such as constitutional law.
Tossing back a half meatball sub, Jim seemed to fumble with the question and rambled a bit. He eventually worked things out and stated that the current interpretation allowed for too wide of power in the federal government.
The final question, offered by myself, was about Jim's stance on foreign interventionism and our policing of the world. If there was ever an example of how a direct questions get direct answers this was it. Jim elaborated that our interventionism has gotten us into trouble around the world. His position was that we should not be acting as the world's police or injecting ourselves into international conflict.
There were a few other questions asked. Here are some comments and some points that Jim made:
-Capitalism is superior to other economic systems
-Jim is against a public health plan
-Price fixing hurts economies
-Jim is against subsidizing business, even local companies
The Man Behind the Mask
Jim does not play the part of the patriot. Certainly some of his responses were appealing. However, Jim showed his cards more then once. He dropped lines such as "confiscation of private property shouldn't happen without a specific reason". On certain issues, such as drug prohibition, he took center of the road positions. His positions were not always concise and I didn't feel his conviction on some issues.
A tried and true proponent of liberty knows the dangers of government, can articulate his position clearly and never bends to outside influences. It seems to me that Jim failed on all three duties.
Jim does not play the role of the orator. When a politician who is a great orator speaks, such as Barrack Obama, you can be assured that you are hearing exactly what he wants you to hear. You will almost never be subject to the turbulence upstairs.
I am utterly confident that I was subject to every stammer, fumble and inconsistency that Jim's brain assembled as his left hemisphere tripped over the right. What you get with Jim is indeed the real honest Jim.
That is not to say that I don't think Jim would stretch the truth. His fear of the pen has already pushed that point. What I mean to say is, if Jim was to attempt to pull over the wool it would not have the slightest effectiveness.
Jim does not play the role of the typical horse-trading Republican. A McCain, Romney or Graham, will take safe, watered down positions they feel are politically practical. You can almost count the focus groups some Republicans have held by the way their pre-packaged arguments fit into puzzles so nicely.
Jim displays his shoot from the hip style in the way he openly collects his thoughts and articulates his position. "What article was the commerce clause again? Let me get out my pocket constitution...ah yes!" Jim's positions are dangerous to the status quo. Certainly his unfiltered nature is not a quality that Republican leadership desires in a candidate. It is my belief that Jim's positions do indeed come from the heart.
Jim does not play the role of a demagogue. The utter majority of politicians are accompanied by manufactured demons. Our elected fear-mongers warn that these demons wait around every corner, ready to destroy the economy, blow up the country or sell lead toys to our children.
Jim is willing, and happy, to say that maybe we have created some of our own problems and we need to consider a non-government approach. In fact he said just that - and he did it with a smile.
The Bottom Line
Looking back this piece seems to be a condemnation and at the same time a commendation. Indeed, it is just that. My assessment of Jim is that he is what I call a 50% patriot.
A 50% patriot is someone who can't always be counted on to adhere to his or her own principles which may only be on target 75% of the time. When the phenomenon known as "political practicality" occurs most politicians cave to the will of party leadership and sell their souls. We have seen time and time again how unknowing, inarticulate and malleable Republicans crumble when it is time to stand against the biggest government intrusions. I believe it is possible that Jim may fall into this group.
That is not to say his candidacy doesn't lean in the direction of liberty. A black and white reading of his platform may cast Jim in a positive light and certainly some of his answers were appealing to the liberty minded individual. Jim is cut from a more individualist cloth then most. However, I feel Jim definitely has one foot on the middle of the road. Mises warned (http://mises.org/midroad.asp) where that lead us.
If I had to estimate I would say he would probably be more disposed to protection of the liberties of his constituents than the hobgoblin that currently occupies the seat. If he were more concise on his positions, more capable of expressing his views and more steadfast in his beliefs we very well may have had a ballgame.
As his candidacy stands, Jim will get no support from me. If there is to be any future for freedom in this country then 50% patriots must learn that they will support liberty or find other avenues of work. I won't give him a dime of my money or a minute of my time until he shapes up.
However, this doesn't mean the game is over for Mr. Rutledge. In fact, the game hasn't even started yet. I think he is a promising candidate that be a jewel in the rough. If his campaign starts emulating something more concrete then a wet noodle my tune may change.
Until then, I will be watching for other candidates who may enter the race. That sentence points out the real question about the race for Mikulski's seat. Where is our candidate?
http://www.libertymage.com/
Jim Rutledge (http://www.rutledgeforussenate.com/), a candidate who will be running for Barbara Mikulski's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Mikulski) senate seat, attended a recent Campaign for Liberty meeting in Baltimore County. I made extra sure to attend the meeting given the opportunity to dissect a candidate first hand.
It is difficult to predict how a politician will act once in office. Their slippery nature makes them hard to grasp and Jim's non-existent political career did nothing to help form my expectations of the statesmen he would be. Would this candidate become Jim the demagogue, Jim the holy warrior or Jim the defender of liberty? Undoubtedly there is a real person somewhere in every snake oil salesmen. I attempted to read between the lines at our recent chapter meeting to get to the core of Mr. Rutledge in hopes of giving the people of Maryland a preliminary idea of the man behind the mask.
Storytime
The meeting started of with some brief comments about recent chapter activities and quickly moved the focus to Mr. Rutledge. He started off with a speech that lasted about thirty minutes.
The disguise Jim chose to wear to the meeting was undoubtedly that of the storyteller. This was unfortunate for me as I have a strong aversion to hot air. This was also bad for Jim as he is not a great orator.
Jim spoke with a flourish. On several occasions I suspected he was getting ready to pull a rabbit out of a hat. He finished his sentences with a series of nods as if his periods bumped into a bobble head doll. The show was definitely a bit over the top and I found myself wondering what the waitress thought about the ordeal.
I don't recall much of his speech. There was a good bit about persecuted ancestors, hidden weapons and a cobbler that just happened to be on his own "campaign for liberty". The only thing that I gleaned from Jim's speech was that Banksy was right about proverbs (http://www.thehighdefinite.com/2009/04/weekly-banksyism-2/) when they are overused and under-supported.
Wasting more time talking about Jim's speech is pointless. Simply put, it was not good. However, I don't hold that against him. The only way his speech detracts from his qualities is that he would be terrible at inspiring the masses. That is to say, he would be terrible at demagogy.
On the Issues
After the song and dance, Jim took questions for about 60 minutes covering various topics.
The way Jim responded to questions was a bit incoherent in that you received only part of what you were looking for with other topics injected here and there. It was asking the deli counter for a corned beef sandwich and having half a corned beef, half a pastrami, and half a cold cut lobbed at your head.
Jim was also a bit squishy with his positions. I'm not sure if the rest of the room noticed that I was taking notes but Jim surely did. There was at least two occasions where I lifted my pen and it seemed that the velocity of Jim's voice and the direction his opinion was traveling changed.
The first question Jim was offered was about his position on drug prohibition. He made a long and mostly toothless point about how we need to rethink our position on drugs. I followed this question up, as any good interviewer would, by asking Jim to actually answer it. More specifically, I asked him if he would reform drug laws or abolish them. He started his response by stating the laws needed to be reformed. However, this was one occasion he noticed I was taking notes and his response finished on a much more liberty-minded tone.
I don't remember what the second question was but I made sure to take no notes on it. The question took about three years to be delivered. I'm not sure anyone knew what was asked but Jim surely answered accordingly. The only thing I remembered to take notes on was that absent minded questions get absent minded answers.
The third question was about how Jim interpreted the commerce clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause). This was a very poignant question as Jim Rutledge, a lawyer, should be fluent on topics such as constitutional law.
Tossing back a half meatball sub, Jim seemed to fumble with the question and rambled a bit. He eventually worked things out and stated that the current interpretation allowed for too wide of power in the federal government.
The final question, offered by myself, was about Jim's stance on foreign interventionism and our policing of the world. If there was ever an example of how a direct questions get direct answers this was it. Jim elaborated that our interventionism has gotten us into trouble around the world. His position was that we should not be acting as the world's police or injecting ourselves into international conflict.
There were a few other questions asked. Here are some comments and some points that Jim made:
-Capitalism is superior to other economic systems
-Jim is against a public health plan
-Price fixing hurts economies
-Jim is against subsidizing business, even local companies
The Man Behind the Mask
Jim does not play the part of the patriot. Certainly some of his responses were appealing. However, Jim showed his cards more then once. He dropped lines such as "confiscation of private property shouldn't happen without a specific reason". On certain issues, such as drug prohibition, he took center of the road positions. His positions were not always concise and I didn't feel his conviction on some issues.
A tried and true proponent of liberty knows the dangers of government, can articulate his position clearly and never bends to outside influences. It seems to me that Jim failed on all three duties.
Jim does not play the role of the orator. When a politician who is a great orator speaks, such as Barrack Obama, you can be assured that you are hearing exactly what he wants you to hear. You will almost never be subject to the turbulence upstairs.
I am utterly confident that I was subject to every stammer, fumble and inconsistency that Jim's brain assembled as his left hemisphere tripped over the right. What you get with Jim is indeed the real honest Jim.
That is not to say that I don't think Jim would stretch the truth. His fear of the pen has already pushed that point. What I mean to say is, if Jim was to attempt to pull over the wool it would not have the slightest effectiveness.
Jim does not play the role of the typical horse-trading Republican. A McCain, Romney or Graham, will take safe, watered down positions they feel are politically practical. You can almost count the focus groups some Republicans have held by the way their pre-packaged arguments fit into puzzles so nicely.
Jim displays his shoot from the hip style in the way he openly collects his thoughts and articulates his position. "What article was the commerce clause again? Let me get out my pocket constitution...ah yes!" Jim's positions are dangerous to the status quo. Certainly his unfiltered nature is not a quality that Republican leadership desires in a candidate. It is my belief that Jim's positions do indeed come from the heart.
Jim does not play the role of a demagogue. The utter majority of politicians are accompanied by manufactured demons. Our elected fear-mongers warn that these demons wait around every corner, ready to destroy the economy, blow up the country or sell lead toys to our children.
Jim is willing, and happy, to say that maybe we have created some of our own problems and we need to consider a non-government approach. In fact he said just that - and he did it with a smile.
The Bottom Line
Looking back this piece seems to be a condemnation and at the same time a commendation. Indeed, it is just that. My assessment of Jim is that he is what I call a 50% patriot.
A 50% patriot is someone who can't always be counted on to adhere to his or her own principles which may only be on target 75% of the time. When the phenomenon known as "political practicality" occurs most politicians cave to the will of party leadership and sell their souls. We have seen time and time again how unknowing, inarticulate and malleable Republicans crumble when it is time to stand against the biggest government intrusions. I believe it is possible that Jim may fall into this group.
That is not to say his candidacy doesn't lean in the direction of liberty. A black and white reading of his platform may cast Jim in a positive light and certainly some of his answers were appealing to the liberty minded individual. Jim is cut from a more individualist cloth then most. However, I feel Jim definitely has one foot on the middle of the road. Mises warned (http://mises.org/midroad.asp) where that lead us.
If I had to estimate I would say he would probably be more disposed to protection of the liberties of his constituents than the hobgoblin that currently occupies the seat. If he were more concise on his positions, more capable of expressing his views and more steadfast in his beliefs we very well may have had a ballgame.
As his candidacy stands, Jim will get no support from me. If there is to be any future for freedom in this country then 50% patriots must learn that they will support liberty or find other avenues of work. I won't give him a dime of my money or a minute of my time until he shapes up.
However, this doesn't mean the game is over for Mr. Rutledge. In fact, the game hasn't even started yet. I think he is a promising candidate that be a jewel in the rough. If his campaign starts emulating something more concrete then a wet noodle my tune may change.
Until then, I will be watching for other candidates who may enter the race. That sentence points out the real question about the race for Mikulski's seat. Where is our candidate?
http://www.libertymage.com/