blog

A problem solver, not a bomb thrower

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 06:33:21 +0100

Our endorsement for the Republican presidential nomination

The 2012 American election season has begun. Whereas President Barack Obama has no serious contender for the Democratic nomination, the Republican Party has a field of six contenders (after Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain dropped out of the race) who are fighting to carry the torch of America’s “conservative” party. While the policies of today’s Republican Party are usually at odds with the liberal philosophy (liberal, not in the sense of America’s political discourse, but in the real meaning of the term), this time we find that there may be a representative of a GOP closer to what real liberals stand for.

As a matter of clarification for American audiences, when we talk about “liberalism” we are not referring to left-wing, big-government policies and politics, but to fiscally responsible and socially tolerant ideas. In other words, and as our motto reads: open minds, open markets and an open world. Call it a centrist view, if you wish. Having said that, we are independent and do not agree with all the policies of the Democratic Party, although we do find ourselves usually siding with them as the “lesser evil” in today’s American political scenario.

After many years of having no choice but supporting the Democratic candidate, we are pleased to finally see a Republican presidential candidate who’s not afraid of defying right-wing orthodoxy, denouncing uncivil rhetoric and putting moderation and common sense at the heart of his campaign. No wonder he put service ahead of party to serve as U.S. Ambassador to China under President Barack Obama. You probably know who we are talking about by now. Yes, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman.

Since launching his presidential bid last June, Mr. Huntsman has become the no-nonsense, moderate option among the Republican contenders. He has avoided the uncivil rhetoric of his rivals. He has kept true to his beliefs and ideas –which are pretty conservative (after all he was elected twice as governor of Utah) but not extreme at all. He has not pandered to the right-wing extremists who nowadays control much of the political machine of the GOP. Unlike what many believe (ourselves included) will be the GOP nominee this year, Mitt Romney, he’s not a phony. He answers the questions directly, without calculating how his answers may be seen by the custodians of far-right orthodoxy. When listening to Mr. Huntsman, we get the impression that we know what we would get, were he elected president of the United States. But what would we exactly get? The best indication lies on Mr. Huntsman’s record as governor, ambassador, government official and businessman.

During his time as Governor of the State of Utah –arguably one of the most conservative states in the country–, Mr. Huntsman avoided any kind of ideological crusades. He was a conservative, yes. He cut taxes on individuals and businesses, created a 5% flat tax, introduced school vouchers, implemented market-based healthcare reform without a mandate and signed some anti-abortion laws. But he was also a centrist. He supported action on climate change, endorsing a cap-and-trade system, and joined the Western Climate Initiative. He supported comprehensive immigration reform and opposed any hard-line rhetoric against undocumented immigrants. He cut sales taxes on food, which mostly affects those with lower incomes. He supported an increase in the federal minimum wage. He cut restrictions on the sale of alcohol. He implemented tax credits for solar energy projects. And to the surprise of many, in one of the most conservative states in the country –a state dominated by the Mormon Church–, he supported legislation that would have allowed civil unions for same-sex couples. He also supported bills to allow two unmarried, co-habiting adults to sign a "joint-support declaration" to gain inheritance rights and medical decisions for one another as well as a bill to outlaw employment and housing discrimination for LGBT people.

Unlike Mitt Romney, who has been on both sides of almost every issue, Jon Huntsman knows where he stands and he’s not walking away just to get a few more votes. He’s not a panderer, and even though we don’t agree with him on some issues (for instance, on abortion rights), he’s a tolerant man. Unlike all his contenders for the GOP nomination, he is not a divisive figure and is not willing to be one in order to get the nomination.

What about his presidential campaign? Governor Huntsman has avoided the vicious attacks against President Obama that the rest of the Republican candidates have so shamefully used. He has instead focused on the issues. Mr. Huntsman has put forward a sensible, pro-growth economic plan that would make government leaner and more efficient, cutting spending where it needs to be cut, including defense spending, the Holy Grail of the far-right. Mr. Huntsman recognizes the necessity to address America’s biggest economic problem, its massive debt. Unlike the rest of the GOP contenders, he has made clear that you can’t just cut taxes at any cost (he was the only Republican who didn’t sign Grover Norquist’s famous –or infamous– anti-tax pledge).

Mr. Huntsman has unique foreign policy qualifications and understands the world –after all, he has lived overseas four times. He has a deep knowledge of the emerging Asian markets, speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese, and has been involved in international trade negotiations as a United States Trade Representative and as a businessman. He understands where the future of the global economy is heading to and, unlike Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama, he would put trade at the center of his foreign policy agenda.

But perhaps what makes Mr. Huntsman so unique –and different from his GOP rivals– is his desire to move America’s political discourse to a more civil and respectful direction, starting with his own party. Mr. Huntsman is repelled by bombastic comments and hateful rhetoric, something common among today’s conservatives. Although he’s personally anti-abortion, he hasn’t used the rhetoric of social conservative groups on the subject. He’s respectful of those who support abortion rights. He was the only Republican candidate, along with Ron Paul, to reject the signing of an anti-gay marriage pledge. He has reiterated his support for civil unions for gay couples –the same position President Obama has taken. His speeches stress the need to unite, not divide. He sounds like a problem solver, not a bomb thrower, and judging by his record, we can believe his words.

There’s not much to say about Newt Gingrich –talking about bomb throwers–, Rick “Pastor-in-Chief” Santorum, Ron “Not-So-Libertarian-On-Civil-Rights” Paul, and Rick “Cowboy” Perry. But, what about the frontrunner, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney? It would be nice to know what he truly believes in. Is he the 1994 centrist who described himself as "pro-choice" and distanced himself from the right-wing of the GOP to win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat? The 2002 moderate who described himself as "progressive" to win Massachusetts governorship? The 2008 presidential candidate who tried to out-conservative Jerry Falwell on social issues? Or the 2011 “moderate conservative” who is trying to get the nomination again? We may never know what Mitt truly believes in, if anything, but it seems he would do anything to get what he wants.

America’s poisoned political discourse desperately needs leaders who will not pander to the extremes but, instead, will look for common ground. Despite his errors and some flawed policies, we believe President Obama is such a leader. Now it’s time for the Republicans to find a leader capable of putting ideological purity aside, and injecting some common sense and pragmatism back into the party of Abraham Lincoln. America needs a centrist, fiscally responsible and socially tolerant alternative to the Democratic Party. We believe Jon Huntsman would be able to start this balancing act in American politics. It may be ironic that moderation is coming from Utah, or maybe not. After all, there’s no one better than a westerner to lead a rebellion.

This is not a general election endorsement, but a party primary endorsement. Because of his common sense, because of his character, because of his vision for his party, we are proud to endorse Jon Huntsman for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Another blow to Argentine liberalism

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:13:48 +0100

The dissolution of the Civic Coalition

The 2011 Argentine general election that took place on October 23^rd had a significant impact on the political system of this Southern Hemisphere country. The most obvious one was the resounding victory of Cristina Kirchner, who was re-elected with 54% of the vote. Her “Front for Victory” –a political alliance that, at its beginning included members of the always ideologically unpredictable Peronist Party, some members of the Radical Civic Union and other center-left politicians, but that now mainly consists of the Peronist Party– now starts its third consecutive period in government (it came to power in 2003 under the current president’s husband, Nestor Kirchner, who died from a heart attack in 2010). Another outcome of the election was the re-taking of Congress by the government party which, with the help of many provincial allies and former opposition figures, will control both chambers of Congress after losing its control in the 2009 legislative election. There is yet another result from this election, one that deeply saddens all those who, for once, thought that a liberal force was finally going to play a factor in Argentine politics. The past election marked the dissolution of the Civic Coalition, a centrist grouping of different political parties and civil society groups that was born at the beginning of 2007 under the leadership of Representative and anti-corruption fighter Elisa Carrió and grew to become the second most-voted political force in that year’s election. Even though the Coalition was born as a non-ideological force based on the principles of “ethics, republic, economic development and a fair distribution of income,” it was clear that its program of government had a distinct liberal tilt.

When it was born in 2007, its main members were the “ARI” party (Spanish acronym for “Support for an Egalitarian Republic”), founded by Elisa Carrió, a former member of the Radical Civic Union; “Union for All” (UPT ), a district party founded by Patricia Bullrich, a former centrist member of the Peronist Party who left that party in the mid nineties because of the corrupt political machine that controlled (and continues to control) it; “Generation for a National Encounter” (GEN), another district party founded by former Radical Margarita Stolbizer; the Socialist Party (PS) and other former Radicals and independents. This “Civic Coalition” of centrist and center-left groups and parties came second in the 2007 presidential election, with 24% of the vote. After the election, former presidential candidate and leader of the Civic Coalition, Elisa Carrió, became the de-facto leader of the atomized opposition in Congress. The Civic Coalition became the main opposition to the government’s illiberal policies. However, not all members of the coalition wanted to follow this path of strong opposition. Soon after the election, the Socialist Party left the Coalition and formed its own bloc in Congress. The same happened with the social-democratic GEN party, which distanced itself from what their leader considered “a turn to the right” of the Civic Coalition. Many members of Carrió’s own party, ARI, left the coalition as well and some of them even joined forces with the government’s Front for Victory. Other ARI partisans, which reluctantly accepted Carrió’s decision to found the Civic Coalition, remained in the coalition but were deeply concerned by Carrió’s embrace of centrist and liberal figures such as UPT leader and Representative Patricia Bullrich, newly-elected Senator María Eugenia Estenssoro, the former head of the Central Bank Alfonso Prat-Gay and intellectual Fernando Iglesias, a founding member of Global Democracy and member of the World Federalist Movement.

As long as the Coalition’s electoral prospects were good, ideological tensions within the Coalition’s two remaining parties –ARI and UPT– remained calmed. Also, Carrió’s strong grip over the leadership of the Coalition helped keep it together (she even defied the left-wing of her own party by making Bullrich her right-hand woman in Parliament).

Ideologically speaking, the ARI party was born as an anti-corruption party with a center-left message after the Argentine political and economic crisis of 2001. Her founding figure, Elisa Carrió, however, had no problem in describing herself as a “liberal” from the beginning –a word that, in Argentina, is associated with conservatism and even the past dictatorships, which would amaze most individuals who call themselves “liberals” worldwide. Of course Carrió didn’t mean to associate herself to that meaning of the word. She was one of the politicians who dared to challenge the understanding of the majority of Argentine public opinion on the real meaning of the liberal philosophy. On the other hand, Union for All was founded by Patricia Bullrich as a centrist liberal political party in 2002. In 2003, Bullrich run for mayor of the City of Buenos Aires in an alliance with the liberal-conservative Recreate Party (Recrear), led by economist Ricardo López Murphy. López Murphy later decided to join forces with conservative businessman (and nowadays Mayor of Buenos Aires) Mauricio Macri and both created the PRO party. Bullrich, in contrast, preferred to found, alongside Elisa Carrió, the centrist Civic Coalition.

In other words, and under the risk of oversimplifying the sometimes loosely-defined ideology of both parties, we could say that the ARI party resembles the left-wing of the UK Liberal Democrats (although not always), and UPT is closer to the so-called orange-book wing of the Lib Dems. Again, this is just a simplification to help orient our readers around the world.

After the poor performance of the Civic Coalition in the national primaries of August (it came last nationally with only 3.3% of the vote), tensions between the two parties started to become apparent. The left-wing of the ARI party boycotted Bullrich’s campaign as the main candidate of the Civic Coalition for the City of Buenos Aires’ congressional seat. Carrió, whose power had been deeply delegitimized by the dismal result of her presidential ticket in the primaries, was no longer in a position to defend Bullrich from the left-wing’s attacks. The Coalition remained together, however, until the general election in October, when Bullrich was the only Civic Coalition candidate who was able to win a seat in Congress. The fact that the only seat won by the CC came from the UPT party and Bullrich’s aspiration to be the leader of the Coalition’s deeply reduced bloc in Congress, generated the ire of the left-wing of the ARI party, who had long resented her strong influence and her role as the second most-visible face of the Coalition. With this scenario, on November 19^th, the national assembly of the ARI party unilaterally decided to dissolve the coalition with UPT and form its own separate bloc in Congress, which effectively meant the end of the Civic Coalition. The new leadership of the ARI party, no longer under Carrió’s control, decided to “reclaim the party’s progressive, center-left identity,” which they thought had been lost by associating themselves with liberal and centrist figures like Bullrich under the Civic Coalition banner. What’s ironic about their decision is that other figures like Estenssoro and Prat Gay, as liberal and centrist as Bullrich, were accepted as “progressives” and remained in the ARI party, which makes us wonder if this was really a matter of ideological differences or simply a dispute for power.

Thus, after being a voice for freedom and liberal values during the last four years –and the main brake to the government’s illiberal policies–, the Civic Coalition has sadly reached the end of its life and, with it, the dreams of many Argentine citizens who thought that a liberal political force had finally arrived to the country’s muddled political system have been shattered.

It’s time to balance Denmark’s politics

Thu, 15 Sep 2011 03:50:26 +0100

Our endorsement for today's Danish general election

Danes go to the polls today to choose a new Parliament and a new government. While the current Liberal-Conservative administration has some good results to show on the economy, its policies on immigration and other social issues –highly influenced by the far-right Danish People’s Party, on which support the current government depends– have been disappointing to say the least.

We strongly believe in the importance of a balanced representative democracy. The center-right has governed Denmark for the past decade. We believe it is time for change. Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the Social Democrat leader, has the potential to become a good Prime Minister and we would be glad to see Denmark choose its first female PM. But our wish for a center-left government does not imply full support for a leftist agenda. We believe that there are certain economic policies set forth by the current administration that should continue –among them, the focus on fiscal responsibility. That’s why we are glad to see centrist parties gaining ground during this campaign. According to recent polls, the Social Liberals (Radikale Venstre) and the Liberal Alliance are expected to be the big winners in Thursday’s election night.

Denmark needs to continue focusing on fiscal responsibility and, at the same time, become a welcoming country to immigrants. A prosperous Denmark requires both. The center-right passed the first test. It failed the second miserably. We hope a future center-left government led by Thorning-Schmidt’s Social Democrats and supported by the Social Liberals and the Socialist People’s Party finds the right balance to pass both tests.

Finally, if we had a vote in today’s election, we would cast the ballot for the Social Liberals. SocLibs are the only ones that, we believe, understand that the key to a prosperous Denmark lies on both, a strong economy and an open and tolerant society. Vote for an open and liberal Denmark. Vote Radikale Venstre!

Vote for democracy on May 5th

Wed, 04 May 2011 23:47:19 +0100

Our endorsement for the AV referendum in the United Kingdom

On Thursday, Britain will have the opportunity to vote in a referendum to replace the “First-past-the-post” electoral system for the so-called “Alternative Vote” system. Much has been said about both systems and their positive and negative aspects. We believe FPTP is a relic of the past, an unfair system that punishes smaller parties –including the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and UKIP– and gives disproportionate power to the big two parties, the Conservatives and Labour. There could be no better proof of this than the distribution of seats that resulted from last year’s general election. In 2010, under FPTP, the Conservative Party obtained 36% of the popular vote and 47% of seats in Parliament (306), the Labour Party got 29% of the votes and an astonishing 40% of seats (258), the Liberal Democrats got 23% of the votes and only 9% of seats. In other words, the difference in popular votes between Labour and Lib Dems was of only 6%, but Labour more than quadrupled Lib Dems in seats. How can anyone with democratic values defend such an unfair and undemocratic electoral system?

The Alternative Vote system (also known as “AV”) is not the truly proportional and democratic system we would like to see in the UK, but it’s an enormous improvement compared to FPTP. AV would give voters more choice and add a dose of competition to an often static political system. Perhaps the funniest thing during this referendum campaign was the attitude adopted by the Conservative Party. Conservatives have nothing to fear from AV, on the contrary, they wouldn’t be much affected by it. It’s very likely that the Labour Party would lose more seats under AV than the Tories. Yet the Tory Party machine has been the most vocal opponent of a switch to AV. One must wonder if this strong opposition is a product of their disdain for any kind of change (after all, they’re called “conservatives” for a reason) or just plain foolishness on their part. We’re rather surprised to see such a strong push on behalf of the NO campaign by David Cameron. He had no need to be such an active player in this referendum. Is he so unsure about his leadership within the Conservative Party?

On the other hand, Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has been a strong supporter of the YES camp, but he has lacked the spine to get most of his party’s MPs on board. If he can’t even convince his own party’s MPs to follow his leadership, can he be trusted to lead a government? He’s starting to look as a weak an interim leader, not a serious contender for the next election.

Voters can be short-sighted sometimes. Many so-called “progressives” and left-leaning voters will be tempted to vote NO just to punish Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and his party for what they see as a betrayal of “left values.” That would be a terrible mistake. This is a once-in-a -lifetime chance to improve a discredited and undemocratic voting system. Do they really want to waste this opportunity for a misguided view of Mr Clegg’s party’s role in this government (which, by the way, we think has been superb)?

It’s time for the so-called “progressive majority” to show how progressive it really is. Is it progressive enough to see beyond tribalism and short-term disillusion with a political party that happens to be the major force of progressive change in Britain’s history? Or is it as foolish and short-sighted as their supposedly reactionary Conservative rivals? On Thursday, we’ll know the answer.

It’s time to move forward again.

Mon, 02 May 2011 06:35:00 +0100

Our endorsement for the Canadian federal election.

Canadians will go to the polls on May 2^nd to choose a new Parliament. If we have to choose one word to describe the nature of this election campaign, that word would be disappointing. It was a campaign plagued with negative attacks coming from all sides and all parties, except the Greens, who were undemocratically excluded from the televised leaders’ debates. Crucial issues like climate change were totally avoided by the big parties, who preferred demagoguery over substance. However, one man’s demagoguery and populism stands out among the rest: Stephen Harper’s.

During the last years, Canada has experienced an administration that mastered the politics of irresponsibility. From environmental policy to tax and fiscal policy, Harper’s Conservatives have led Canada through an irresponsible and unsustainable path: giving tax cuts to big polluters, turning a surplus from the previous Liberal government into a large deficit, showing contempt for parliamentary democracy and government openness, and having no plan at all to fight climate change and reduce Canada’s environmental footprint. A country that used to be a symbol of progressive and forward-looking politics is now moving backwards on many fronts: backwards on social mobility, backwards on environmental sustainability, backwards on social progressivism, backwards on openness and integration. That’s not the kind of Canada we want to see. Stephen Harper’s time is up. His presumed economic management skills –which we certainly don’t see– do not make up for the kind of backwardness he and many of the members of his party represent.

What about the opposition?

It’s pretty clear by now that Michael Ignatieff is not the best campaigner. We like his intellectual background and think he would make a good Prime Minister but, unfortunately, most Canadians are not seeing that. The Liberal campaign has been weak and has lacked a clear message (to say the least) from the beginning, while the apparently revitalized New Democrats have used the usual dose of populism they are so accustomed to, promising billions in new spending and, at the same time, a balanced budget with no pain involved. This is as irresponsible and populist as Mr. Harper’s agenda, the only difference being ideological. Finally, the Greens have put forward a comprehensive plan but have decided to concentrate on winning Elizabeth May’s riding instead of running a truly national campaign. We don’t blame them. Ms. May has a very good chance of winning the seat (now in Tory hands) and this could prove vital to the party’s success in future elections. Plus, they have avoided the kind of populism the NDP and the Conservatives have so shamefully exploited during the campaign.

With this scenario in mind, and facing the danger of a Conservative majority government –which, we think, would be very negative for Canada’s prosperity–, we have decided to make a rather unappealing series of endorsements.

Federally, our official endorsement goes to the Liberal Party, as the best champion of liberal ideas and tolerant policies and politics in Canada.

At the riding level, we endorse the candidate best placed to prevent a Conservative victory, be it the Liberal, NDP or Green candidate (except the Bloc Québécois).

Finally, we want to make a special endorsement in the Saanich-Gulf Islands riding, where Green Party leader Elizabeth May is in a tight race with the Tory incumbent. We support Ms. May and wish she becomes a strong voice for green policies in Parliament.

At this point, we believe the most important thing is to prevent a Conservative majority. That’s why we urge voters to vote strategically. However, in those ridings were Liberals and New Democrats have the same chance of beating the Conservative candidate, we strongly support the Liberal candidate. A Liberal majority is out of reach, so we are open to the idea of a Liberal-NDP(-Green) coalition government to move Canada back to progressive and consensus-based politics.

It’s time for Canada to move forward again. Do not vote Conservative.

Vote for the lesser evil

Sun, 31 Oct 2010 06:49:36 +0100

Our endorsement for Tuesday’s midterm elections

Americans will go to the polls on Tuesday, November 2^nd,to choose a new Congress. As liberals –in the real, classical meaning of the term–, we find it difficult to select one party over the other. On issue after issue, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party contain numerous illiberal and even authoritarian elements that we find quite unpalatable. Moreover, over the last decade, both parties have proven to be incapable of dealing with America’s most pressing issues: the federal budget deficit (currently at $1.4 trillion or 12.3% of GDP), the national debt (currently at $13.6 trillion or 94% of GDP), unsustainable entitlements, skyrocketing health-care costs and the energy and climate crises (U.S. carbon emissions represent 19.91% of the world’s total). By keeping on spending more than the country can afford, Democrats seem unwilling to take the federal government’s red ink seriously. On the other hand, while they like to stress the need to cut government spending and reduce the deficit, Republicans keep pushing for unaffordable and unsustainable (and frankly unfair) tax cuts, making the problem even worse. (It should be noted that it was under President George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress that the national debt grew by more than $4 trillion, the biggest increase under any administration in U.S. history.)

In the 2006 midterm elections, Democrats took over control of both houses of Congress promising an ambitious agenda. In 2008, they increased their majorities in both chambers and won the White House. They even got a filibuster-proof super-majority of 60 seats in the Senate for the first time in decades (which lasted seven months until Massachusetts chose a Republican to occupy the late Ted Kennedy’s seat). Did they take advantage of those super-majorities to address America’s problems? The unfortunate answer to that question is, no, they did not. On issue after issue, Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration have lacked the spine necessary to address the issues facing America. No climate bill. No serious energy bill. An incomplete health-care bill that solves the problem of coverage but does little to control skyrocketing costs. No comprehensive immigration reform. No closing of the scandalous and shameless Guantanamo Bay detention camp. No repeal of the infamous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” No repeal of the discriminatory “Defense of Marriage Act.” And to top it all off, no credible strategy to deal with America’s massive national debt and out-of-control federal budget deficit.

Why should we even bother to consider endorsing a party with such a record (or, should we say, non-record)? As depressing as it may sound, the alternative to the Democrats is even worse.

After being in the political wilderness for two years, Republicans seem to have learned nothing from their mistakes. On the contrary, instead of acknowledging their mistakes, they seem determined to perpetuate them if returned to power. They like to talk about fiscal responsibility, the need to cut the deficit and reduce the national debt, but their policy prescriptions would drown America into an even deeper fiscal hole. (After all, they were the ones that managed to take the country from a $236 billion budget surplus to a $1.3 trillion deficit and increased the national debt from $9.8 trillion in 2000 to $14.4 trillion in 2008.) Now, they want to cut more taxes and propose no serious spending cuts. How would that help to cut the deficit? How would that reduce the national debt? If the Democrats’ lack of action is perpetuating America’s fiscal crisis, the Republicans’ plans would mean no less than economic catastrophe. In addition to these economically unfeasible proposals, we have to add a willingness to interfere in people’s most personal decisions. Even when they like to portray themselves as the defenders of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers’ interpreters, they seem to forget what Thomas Jefferson called a “wall of separation between church and state” and the content of the first amendment to the Constitution they supposedly defend. They even seem to forget the part of the Declaration of Independence that states that “all men are created equal.” (Apparently gay and lesbian individuals are not deserving of the same rights.) In summary, the Republicans’ plan is a combination of fantasy-world economics (which would lead to an even bigger fiscal crisis) and a cruel religious fundamentalism that specializes in stigmatizing certain groups within society.

With this scenario in mind, we find nothing else to do but to (reluctantly) endorse the current conservative party in America –that is, the Democrats–, rather than the reactionary party –also known as the Republicans. Yes, this is uninspiring, disheartening and even boring. But what else can we do? We love America. We still think America is a beacon of freedom and hope. We hope Democrats can grow a spine and push for the changes America desperately needs. We also hope those reasonable Republicans left can take back their party from the fundamentalists and reclaim the proud legacy of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan.

This is a rather unexciting endorsement, but an endorsement nonetheless. We urge Americans to cast their ballots for the Democrats on Tuesday, except on two important races: the Florida Senate race, where we have endorsed Independent candidate Charlie Crist, and the Rhode Island Governor race, where we strongly support Independent candidate Lincoln Chafee.

This may be unexciting, but remember: it could always be worse. Vote for the lesser evil. Vote for the Democrats.

New Yorkers will choose a Governor, not a (fake) moralizer.

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:06:05 +0100

RealLibs endorses Andrew Cuomo for New York Governor

New Yorkers choose a new Governor on November 2^nd and the choice could not be clearer. This race is between an experienced, inclusive and pro-business Democrat like Andrew Cuomo and a divisive Republican figure like Carl Paladino. While Mr. Paladino offers extremist right-wing rhetoric with no real substance, Mr. Cuomo has put forward a sensible plan to balance the state budget (putting the main focus on cutting wasteful spending and unnecessary bureaucracy), boost economic growth and promote equal rights for all New Yorkers.

Mr. Paladino’s divisive strategy will (fortunately) not succeed in New York. New Yorkers want solutions, not demagoguery. New Yorkers want inclusive leadership, not a candidate that is happy to stigmatize an entire segment of the population in order to get a few more votes. New Yorkers will choose a Governor, not a (fake) moralizer. Apparently, Mr. Paladino has not realized that yet.

We are proud to endorse Andrew Cuomo for Governor of the State of New York. In the meantime, we urge Mr. Paladino to check his calendar. He may have forgotten what century he’s in.

For more info visit www.andrewcuomo.com

The right person for the job

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:22:32 +0100

RealLibs endorses Alex Sink for Florida Governor

As America’s fourth largest state –and one of the most important points of entrance to the U.S.–, Florida matters to the world. During the last years, Republican-turned-independent Governor Charlie Crist has adopted a pragmatic agenda focusing on solving Florida’s problems instead of pushing for divisive and ideology-driven policies his former party is so used to pursue.

Florida is a microcosm of America: Diverse, multicultural, and big. Florida needs a governor that will listen to all Floridians, putting policy ahead of partisan politics. In this race for governor, only Alex Sink, the Democratic candidate, has demonstrated that ability. Ms. Sink has adopted a solutions-oriented message, putting ideology aside and stressing the issues that really matter to most Floridians: economic recovery and job creation. Ms. Sink knows that, in order to put the economy back on track, the state needs to promote innovation, boost enterprise and reduce unnecessary red tape. Moreover, Ms. Sink’s business background has provided her with the skills necessary to govern Florida at a time when difficult decisions will have to be made.

We believe Alex Sink will continue with the legacy of pragmatism and centrism of Governor Crist. She is the right person for the job and we are proud to endorse her candidacy for Governor of the State of Florida.

For more info visit www.AlexSink2010.com

Vote for independence from the two-party machine

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:04:06 +0100

RealLibs endorses Charlie Crist for U.S. Senator

Floridians will choose a new Senator on November 2^nd and their decision could shift the balance of power in Washington. There is one fact Floridians (especially Democrats and center-left voters) should keep in mind: This is not a three-way race. Democrat Kendrick Meek has no real chance of getting elected. This race is between Independent candidate Charlie Crist and Republican candidate Marco Rubio.

During his time as Governor of the Sunshine State, Charlie Crist has demonstrated what reaching across the aisle means. He’s a true maverick, and independent that will put policy ahead of partisan politics. He has a record to prove it. As governor of America’s fourth largest state, Charlie Crist has resisted the pressures from his former party’s powerful right-wing machine. He has adopted a moderate line on social issues, supported public education, and put forward pragmatic economic policies.

We urge Democrats to realize that a vote for Meek is a vote for Rubio and his extremist, right-wing agenda. It is still not too late for Mr. Meek to drop out of the race for the good of the state. We also urge independents and moderate Republicans to pull the lever for Charlie Crist.

We believe Governor Crist has served Florida well, and he should have the chance to continue serving Florida in the U.S. Senate. On November 2^nd, vote for independence from the two-party machine, vote for Charlie Crist.

For more info visit www.charliecrist.com

A true Independent for Rhode Island

Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:02:51 +0100

RealLibs endorses Lincoln Chafee for Rhode Island Governor

Rhode Island chooses a new governor on November 2nd. Based on the latest polls, this contest has turned into a two-horse race between Democrat Frank Caprio and Independent Lincoln Chafee. We are proud to announce our support for former U.S. Senator and Independent candidate Lincoln Chafee.

During his years in the Senate, Mr. Chafee demonstrated what being an independent is all about. Probably the last representative of the once powerful (and now non-existent) liberal wing of the Republican Party, Mr. Chafee fought for liberal values such as personal freedom (he was a powerful voice in favor of a woman's right to choose and the only Republican Senator that supported marriage equality), environmental protection (he voted against allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), fair taxes and fiscal responsibility (he voted against both the 2001 and 2003 federal tax cut bills that increased the deficit and the national debt) and a common-sense foreign policy that respects human rights (he was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against authorizing the use of force in Iraq).

But Mr. Chafee’s record is not the only reason why we are endorsing his candidacy. He has put forward an ambitious plan to turn his state around. On the economy, Mr. Chafee’s plan would help bring the state budget under control and make the corporate tax structure simpler and fairer. On education, Mr. Chafee is committed to a strong system of public education that provides opportunity to all Rhode Islanders. On the environment, Mr. Chafee plans to re-connect businesses with sustainability and push for the development of renewable energy. Moreover, Mr. Chafee has also said that he would champion marriage equality legislation if elected and supports immigrant-friendly policies.

We believe Lincoln Chafee represents the true essence of liberal Republicanism –a liberal tradition that has been sadly replaced by right-wing populism and demagoguery in his former party. Mr. Chafee is a true independent and a real liberal, and that is why RealLibs.com endorses him to be the next Governor of the State of Rhode Island.