Who the hell is G.E. Smith?

Austin’s advertisements are working. I noticed the G.E. Smith for President ad on the right-hand sidebar, and browsed the site of yet another candidate for the LP’s presidential nomination. This guy has some serious policy positions—it sounds very intelligent—kinda wordy—but overall, this guy would be someone to have on say, a legislative affairs or policy strategist payroll.

And really, the only LP presidential candidate to actually afford one of those would be Wayne Allyn Root, who I support to capture the LP nomination (that’s second, however, to Ron Paul).

42 Responses to “Who the hell is G.E. Smith?”

  1. Dog's New Clothes Says:

    Is the Saturday Night Live Band going to be his running mate?

  2. Joey Dauben Says:

    Haha! I totally forgot about that.

  3. globalist_elitist Says:

    G.E. Smith is globalist_elistist. That ad is for a fantasy campaign site. I want to sponsor TPW, and I don’t have anything to sell, so I linked to my u4prez site. I took that name “G.E.” because I thought it would be obvious, it’s me, g_e. “Smith” is for Adam Smith, but also “G.E. Smith & the Tonight Show Band.” Sorry if I got your hopes up thinking it was a real campaign.

  4. globalist_elitist Says:

    I meant SNL band. But hey, I have no shame. If Wayne Root wants to hire me, I’m available.

  5. Dog's New Clothes Says:

    I just visited the site. Definately not a real campaign, unless they’ve secretly changed the Constitution to allow 29-year-olds to be president.

  6. matt Says:

    I caught it as soon as I saw Andrew Jackson as the worst president. That plus the initials and the Adam Smith reference made it a dead giveaway. Thanks for sponsoring the site, GE.

    I think Kubby will be able to afford consultants after he wins the nomination. He’s a good debater and his positions are strong enough to mop the floor with the rest of the LP candidates. Since the LP nomination seems to be decided by the convention debate and not by the runup campaign, he sure seems like the one to beat.

  7. George Phillies Says:

    Joey writes: “The only LP candidate to afford (right hand side bar)...” Evidence that the Root campaign can compete with any of several other Libertarian campaigns, financially, remains inobvious.

    Apparently you only looked at the right hand side bar recently, because Phillies 2008 had one up there for several months. At some point, you reasonably estimate that you have saturated the given audience.

    Phillies 2008 is currently running Google Adwords. We’re currently closing on a million and a half impressions.

    The notion of a Constitution/Libertarian fusion ticket is a bit odd, given the severe lack of overlap of the two parties and their positions on important issues.

  8. Carl Says:

    Um, he listed Andrew Johnson as the worst president. Different guy. Even drunker than Jackson.

  9. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    Andrew Jackson blows too, but not as bad as Johnson. Picking the best was the real difficulty.

  10. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    And I sincerely apologize if it wasn’t abundantly clear that it was a fake campaign. I hope the ad doesn’t discredit TPW. Maybe Kubby or Phillies or Root should buy my ad spot.

    I was inspired to make that site when debating Andy about the lack of economics in Kurt McManigal’s platform. But I really don’t see a lot of sound economic thinking on any candidate’s page. Kubby thinks we can eliminate the income tax by increasing the exemption, and that cuts in spending should be equally applied to paying down debt and tax cuts. TAX CUTS are what create the surpluses to begin with! And this is particularly true of the top marginal rates.

  11. matt Says:

    I guess I just saw the name Andrew, thought central banking, and jumped to conclusions. Good call on Andrew Johnson, though. He was awful. Perhaps our current president will be remembered as being somewhere between Andrew Johnson and Uylysses S. Grant ethically, which is to say bloody close to the bottom of the list.

  12. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    I don’t think Grant had bad ethics. He surrounded himself with corrupt people. There is a difference. He didn’t benefit personally from the corruption. He was also the last president until Truman with even a remote interest in defending the civil rights of African Americans.

  13. matt Says:

    “The notion of a Constitution/Libertarian fusion ticket is a bit odd, given the severe lack of overlap of the two parties and their positions on important issues.”

    George,
    If you attempt to get into a game of “who’s more libertarian” with Ron Paul, you will lose. Your support of the Federal Reserve and the income tax make this clear.

  14. matt Says:

    “I don’t think Grant had bad ethics. He surrounded himself with corrupt people. There is a difference. He didn’t benefit personally from the corruption. He was also the last president until Truman with even a remote interest in defending the civil rights of African Americans.”

    I think he was corrupt. Of course I can’t prove it since most of the charges are innuendo and I recognize that. What is clear is that he surrounded himself with the startlingly corrupt. The corruption of these post-war hacks is one of the reason why they were voted out. A less corrupt Republican president in the 1870’s might have kept his nose clean long enough to create a dynasty of Republicans who cared about civil rights for African Americans in the south. It didn’t happen, and rampant corruption is one of the biggest reasons why not.

  15. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    David Duke also opposes the income tax and the Federal Reserve. Does that make him more libertarian than Milton Friedman?

  16. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    The strikes going against Phillies are:

    Pro-Central Bank: So were Friedman and Hayek
    Pro Income Tax: So was Friedman
    Pro-Vouchers: So was Friedman
    Anti-NAFTA/WTO, etc: So is Ron Paul
    Anti-immigration: So is Ron Paul

    This is stupid. The only way that government can ever be scaled back is for it to begin running surpluses, and the only way that that can happen is through supply-side tax cuts via the income tax. Destablizing the dollar and recapitalizing our debt would make things worse, not better. You people deny economic reality. WE HAVE DEBT. We have entitlements that people are truly entitled to (they paid in). Then again, if poverty is seen as a good thing (which by many of you, it is) then I guess none of this matters.

  17. matt Says:

    No, but it does make him more libertarian than someone else who has a similar civil rights record but is in favor of those two things.

    Neither Paul nor Phillies is a racist. Their positions on abortion, though they differ, are both historically libertarian positions. Neither is as “pure” as Kubby on the immigration issue. All other things being equal, and I think they are, it comes back down to taxes and inflationary policy, and I think Paul is more libertarian on both of these.

  18. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    Why do you think Milton Friedman supported (lower) income tax and (automatic) central banking? Was it because he loved goverment or feared liberty?

  19. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    Matt - Since this is a thread about G.E. Smith (haha) and not Ron Paul or Milton Friedman, would you mind evaluating my positions on interest rates and inflation and telling me how it’s “not libertarian” or not better than the current regime or not good for the economy, etc.?

    http://www.u4prez.com/index.php?do=rate&act=profile&user_id=2128#inflation

  20. matt Says:

    Certainly not, but that doesn’t mean that Friedman’s (and Phillies’) positions are historically pure libertarianism. And that’s possibly ok, since both would be exponentially better than what/who we have now. Baby steps are getter than nothing.

    My only point is that Phillies has no business insinuating that Ron Paul isn’t libertarian enough, which is apparently what he’s doing.

  21. matt Says:

    I’m reading the positions now, I like the lower interest rates and the deregulation. It would be a big improvement over what we have now, but still not as good as abolishing the Federal Reserve because future administrations would be sure to be less disciplined.

  22. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    The Fed is far removed from any administrations. Bernanke is in there for fourteen years. Keynesianism is dead. Monetarism and supply-siders rule the day. Starting with Carter’s appointment of Volker, a radical shift, Reagan, the Bushes, and Clinton have all made excellent appointments to the Fed. That’s why the past 25 years have been the most price-stable in the history of the U.S. But the Fed’s role in the inflation game is not nearly as important as the federal government’s role. Fiscal policy trumps monetary policy. Surpluses will create an environment of low-interest-rate, low inflation; rather than a monetary-backed high-interest-rate, low inflation. Which would you prefer? The good news is: WE ARE ON THE RIGHT PATH. We just have to get the war-mongering in check. We would be running huge surpluses—even at the big-spending, high-tax levels of today—if not for this god damned war.

  23. [email protected] Says:

    One of the duties I still retain is purchasing advertising for the Kubby campaign. I love TPW, but as George says, once there’s saturation, it’s not a great investment. Everyone here knows who Kubby is, and everyone has probably formed an opinion about him. While I’d love to throw some money Austin’s way, I wouldn’t do it on behalf of the Kubby campaign right now.

    Maybe later, though. As the convention approaches and Kubby remains the only plausible candidate, it might be worth it to boost enthusiasm for the post-nomination campaign.

    George has been going with Google AdWords, which is good for “contextual targeting.” The advertising I’ve been buying for Kubby has been site-specific, via Blogads, on left-leaning sites, for several reasons.

  24. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    Knap and George - I agree with the “saturization” concept, but I would think having an ad here would engender you good will among the people who do already know you; show you’re being supportive, etc. It’s $30. But hey, I don’t like the game of spending other people’s money. peace.

  25. Jackcjackson Says:

    Wow, someone who writes here doesnt know GE/UA? Or the u4prez thing? huh?

  26. [email protected] Says:

    GE,

    I’ve bought ats at TPW before (back when Austin used Blogads), and will do so again. As far as doing so for Kubby goes, I’ll only be doing so at times and for reasons that make sense to me in terms of getting the campaign the best bang for its limited buck.

    Kubby has a policy of “left outreach” in any case, but right now it’s especially important. Ron Paul has generated a little buzz on the left because of his libertarian foreign policy position, but the lefties were quick to notice that some of his other key positions are both anti-libertarian and very, very non-left (e.g. immigration and gay rights). Best to catch them AS they’re souring on Paul, but hopefully while they’re still mulling the possible value of libertarianism, than to wait.

    I can’t say the strategy has yielded a lot yet, but then we’ve only run a few ads on a few blogs. Once Doug Scribner is finished with the TV commercial, we’ll probably start running Flash ads with an excerpt of it.We’ll probably also run Google ads at some point, but not until after the audience for those ads is done investigating and dismissing George.

  27. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    Knapp - I like the strategy. Wait until the Dems pick a nominee (it won’t be long) and you will be able to pick up on some disaffected former supporters of the candidates who don’t get the nod.

  28. matt Says:

    Especially if said nominee is Hillary.

  29. George Phillies Says:

    The above claim that I support vouchers is false. Those of you who are interested in my actual positions should try reading my web site.

  30. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    Tax credits, vouchers, whatever. Don’t be so sensitive, Georgy.

  31. Carl Says:

    G_E: Sorry, supply side tax cuts won’t increase revenue. They did when marginal rates were 70%. Now, when they are down in the 30s there is likely a net loss of revenue when taxes are cut. Remember, the Laffer Curve zeroes out at both 100% and 0% marginal rates. Evidence indicates that the Clinton Administration came closest to the maximum on the Laffer Curve.

    Tom: Listened to Stephanie Miller with Ron Paul. The love affair is real, and yes, they know his rightwing side. And not all leftists are pro-immigration. Listen to Ed Schultz sometime. Immigration is an issue that transcends the left-right divide.

    Ron Paul has something that none of the LP presidential contenders has: an ort of credibility.

  32. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    Carl - Yes, the Laffer Curve is a CURVE, and at some level, tax cuts will not produce more revenue. We obviously have not gotten there yet because Bush’s tax cuts have produced RECORD revenues. We are going to be running a surplus by 2008 or 2009, DESPITE the massive spending. Sorry, but you’re wrong. EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE? Clinton? Um, no. Your evidence is non-existent. We have no way of knowing where revenues are maximized until we cut taxes and revenues are decreased. That hasn’t happened. And there’s certainly no reason to believe that we’re even close.

  33. [email protected] Says:

    Um … isn’t the goal to get into the correct “revenues go DOWN” sections of the Laffer Curve?

    There are two such sections—one is on the near side, where tax CUTS reduce revenue to government. The other is on the far side, where tax HIKES reduce revenue to government.

    I want to be in that near section, not in the far one OR in the middle area where government is raking in more money to raise hell and cause accidents with.

  34. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    What do you suppose we do about debt and entitlements? We can never scale back government so long as we have debt. We can never abolish entitlement programs so long as a new class of entitlees enrolls through FICA to pay for the benefits of current retirees. Decreasing revenues is a recipee for a perpetual welfare state and Depression.

  35. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    I should have said we can never REALLY scale it back.

  36. [email protected] Says:

    g_e,

    Wow, coincidence … you need to read the latest over at my blog, on holding good policies hostage to bad ones.

    Tom

  37. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    Already read it, already responded, and you, sir, are wrong.

  38. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    Tax cuts produce more revenue. There is no holding anything hostage to anything. I say cut taxes. Let revenues soar. Pay SS benefits from the main account. What you’re suggesting is absurd and will never, under any imaginable circumstances, be even remotely politically possible.

  39. Carl Says:

    Were I to put up a fake presidential campaign, I would headline it: tax carbon instead of labor. The FICA tax needs to be replaced with an anynomous tax. Until that happens, the entitlements will continue. A carbon tax which would double energy prices would collect about the same as FICA/Medicare. Both taxes are about equally regressive.

    THe current income-history based SS could then be phased over to a simple flat payout to everyone—on the low end. Those with a history of low incomes could live well. Those with a higher income history will need to save an invest in order to continue their lifestyles. The result would be a giant reduction in actuarial burden.

    We could also reduce our “defense” burden by making part of the carbon tax a tariff. With NAFTA, Canada and Mexico are exempt from the tariff portion, so we don’t bankrupt them, but we do put a hurtin on terror-supporting countries, and reduce our need to patrol the Persian Gulf.

  40. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    Carl - I encourage you to make a page at u4prez. It could help publicize your holistic politics.

  41. Carl Says:

    I might just do that—eventually.

  42. G.E. Smith Says:

    I encourage people to take part in the site. A limited-government presence—be it conservative or libertarian—is desperately needed there!

Leave a Reply