The first problem is that Hatch’s lead isn’t as strong as it was when the last poll was conducted almost four months ago. In that poll, Hatch was leading Liljenquist 42-23, an almost 2-1 margin. The latest poll shows him leading 52-37. While Hatch picked up 10 points in that time frame, Liljenquist snagged 14 points. If that trend continues (especially as the media just won’t let up on the debate issue), Hatch may not win Salt Lake County by as much as he needs.

The second problem is that both polls are conducted solely in Salt Lake County, a place with a reputation for more moderate voters. Voters in more conservative areas like Utah County are more likely to vote Liljenquist. This trend might carry over to more conservative areas of southern Salt Lake County like Draper and Herriman. As noted above, thin margins in Salt Lake County could spell trouble if other counties go for Liljenquist. Winning just Salt Lake County has been a losing strategy for many Democrats in state-wide races.

The question now is if Hatch can keep his numbers from eroding too much more before both the start of early voting and vote by mail and the June 26 primary. I’m not counting on it.

• The debate that the Hatch campaign agreed to is a radio debate during work hours on an outlet that is friendly to Hatch, The Doug Wright Show. I knew the Hatch campaign was going for tightly controlled, but to restrict responses this way and have a friendly moderator is stacking the deck a bit too much.
• It’s also been proposed to have the debate a mere week before the primary, long after most vote-by-mail voters have cast their ballots. That’s no accident, and it’s meant to try and secure votes before people would change their mind.
• KSL and the Deseret News offered to host a televised debate between Hatch and Liljenquist. Live. In prime time. I can’t recall having seen such a proposal for a federal or state-wide race. Passing on such a visible offer sends a signal to voters that he isn’t confident that he could out-perform Liljenquist in the debate format. It also seems at least slightly arrogant.
• Despite insisting that the Senator has a very busy schedule and can’t accommodate more than one debate, he somehow found time to write a new song as part of his musical side gig and has hinted at hosting multiple town halls. That mixed message creates a poor image.
• The media is continuing to echo the Liljenquist campaign’s talking points about having additional debates. When the media starts sympathizing with your opponent, it at least blunts the effects of your planned mass media campaign. At worst, it’s going to make the media more hostile towards Hatch.

It seems like if the Hatch campaign were using appropriate damage control, they would quickly and graciously accept the offer from KSL/Deseret News and plan appropriate media blitzes with that massive war chest to try and soften any blow from it. However, it appears that the paid professionals on his campaign staff still have a lot to learn about image control.

I think a lot of it is that we make many conservatives uncomfortable by pointing out cases where they failed to exercise appropriate restraint. The message of limited government is a great sound bite while out of power that often goes to the wayside while in power. This has resulted in Republican presidents presiding over at least half of our national debt during the last four decades. In addition, we’ve seen multiple instances of government being granted power to intrude in personal lives far beyond what any proponent of limited government should be comfortable with, including, but not limited to, the TSA, warrantless wiretapping, prosecution of whistleblowers, retaliation against political opponents, and even the assassination of US citizens without any kind of judicial review, much less a conviction. Libertarians consistent question these expansions of government power, trusting nobody, not even the “right” people, to properly restraint themselves. Granted, some if it is our own doing. As we rail against what we consider to be bad policy, we often leave social niceties at the doorstep. Heck, many of us can be downright obnoxious in our advocacy for Ron Paul as the preferred nominee for president. “They started it” can’t even be a valid defense anymore since both groups have been going at it for so long.

The greatest heresy, however, is putting principle over party. How often have you heard “shut up and fall in line” in regards to a Republican candidate or nominee? I can’t count the number of times that I, as a Ron Paul supporter, have been insulted and berated that I should shut up, sit down, and get behind Romney, as if unseating President Obama is more important than selecting the right candidate. The lack of principled leadership in the face of bad Republican leaders is what left us with a legacy of Republican-flavored big government in the form of Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, TARP, and myriad other fiscal disasters that, had they been proposed and passed by the opposing party, would have paraded around as examples of why not to vote for them. Instead of standing up to these programs, all too many rolled over and took their marching orders.

Let’s get down to brass tacks: libertarians who register as Republicans have as much right to the party as the rest of you. We may have disagreement about the extent to which government should be limited, or as to what constitutes smaller, but we all generally have the same goal, don’t we? Instead of treating libertarians as ideological opponents, it’s time to look at us as allies on a wide swath of issues. We want better Republicans too, and we’ve decided that settling on “electable” candidates hasn’t been cutting the mustard. It’s time to accept at least some of our criticisms as valid to build something better, not kick us in the teeth until we submit to the bullying.

It’s a very common tactic for a challenger campaign, especially one that isn’t as well-funded, to challenge the incumbent to a debate. It costs almost nothing aside from getting there and guarantees that all major and most minor media outlets are going to be talking about it. If the debate performance favors the incumbent, they’ll almost certainly accept the opportunity to allow their opponent to dig their own grave. If, however, the debate performance would benefit the challenger, there’s a strong disincentive to give them the free publicity. Given that the sense was that Liljenquist performed the best in the two pre-convention debates, I can see why Hatch would be hesitant to do it again. Debating, like many off-script events, is not his strong point. (Don’t believe it? Just look up the numerous videos on YouTube where he rips someone a new one for asking a very tough and pointed question.)

The counter to this is that the challenger can then make a stink about it in the press. The public doesn’t like the idea of incumbent entitlement, and refusal to address a challenger and prove your mettle as the better candidate rubs them the wrong way. Naturally, the press, cynical as they all, will jump all over this kind of argument. The backlash from appearing dismissive can be substantial, and it might be worse than a lackluster debate performance.

The question then becomes if you think that ignoring the challenger will do less damage than facing them in a well-publicized and covered debate. Right now, it appears that the Hatch camp is choosing the former, preferring to use the massive campaign war chest to do a media blitz with their army of paid staffers (36 by my last count). As a tactical choice, it might be the right one. Such a long-term incumbent has significant name recognition already, and, sad as it may be, many voters will vote for who they are familiar with.

So what should the Hatch campaign do? Try to have your cake and eat it too. Agree to one or two very closely-controlled debates to show that yes, you’ll face the voters, but minimize your chances for gaffes that can spread like wildfire. And what should the Liljenquist campaign do? Keep on hammering  home that refusing debates is refusing to be accountable, an especially egregious action for a candidate that has already said he will not face the voters again.

Some of the biggest problems facing us as a country are fiscal. All too many Republicans and Democrats are ignoring structural problems in our entitlement systems, instead doubling down on tax cuts and/or deficit spending in the vain hope that it will create enough economic activity to plug the gap without making difficult choices. These elected officials are ignoring reality, kicking the can down the road so that future generations can pay the price for their imprudence.

Dan Liljenquist has a proven record as someone who can tackle these needed reforms. He touched the third rail of politics, entitlements, not once, but twice and lived to tell the tale. The state of Utah now stands to save many billions of dollars in retirement and Medicaid costs. These same reforms are now being implemented in dozens of other states that now look to Utah as a legislative model. Many legislators wouldn’t accomplish in three decades what Dan did in three years.

“But what about seniority”, many will cry. I say the seniority system is nearing its end. Freshmen like Mike Lee, Jim DeMint, and Rand Paul managed to be heard immediately, leading Harry Reid to remark that he had never seen new senators wield such immense influence. Dan has already proved he has the mettle to start working on day one on very serious problems. Despite being new in the Utah State Senate and being told that there’s no way he can propose major legislation, he did the legwork anyway and came out on top, passing arguably some of the most significant legislation of the past decade. Someone who can so effectively sell their good ideas is as valuable on day one as they are many years down the road.

It’s also important to have a senator whose power will not depend on which party is in power. Party power comes and goes. The only way to wield influence in those “off” years is to be a consensus-builder, something Dan has a proven record of. In addition to taking input from within his party and from the minority party, he also reached out directly to those affected by the legislative changes to see how he could win their support. In the end, what started as a controversial change in retirement for state employees became a universally-acclaimed landmark piece of legislation earning Dan the coveted Legislator of the Year award.

A legislator who can build consensus around badly-needed reforms without bench-warming first is something we desperately need right now. Waiting won’t make it better. To borrow Dan’s campaign slogan, it’s time.

Paul’s arguments rely most heavily on adequate enforcement of property rights. Just as you should be able to sue your neighbor for dumping garbage on your lawn, you should be able to sue a company that pours toxic chemicals upstream from you. Pollution, Paul argues, is a form of trespass and should be dealt with accordingly. He argues that environmental regulations all too often create legalized pollution, socialize the costs of pollution across everyone, and provide little or no legal recourse for those harmed. If the true costs of pollution were factored into all activities, be it burning coal for power or operating a pesticide plant, many “cheap” polluting operations would be financially unviable.

Stossel adds a point of nuance to Paul’s arguments, however, by taking the position that some regulation must be required. The best example is that of air pollution from the use of automobiles. We all know that while each individual car cannot produce enough pollution in any given area to prove strict cause-effect liability, and we also know that hundreds of thousands of cars can. How do you go about assessing who has directly harmed who, especially when the plaintiffs and defendants would often consist of the same people? It’s the conundrum of choosing which raindrop to blame for the flood. From a practical standpoint, a strict enforcement of property rights cannot solve this issue. In order to adequately protect these rights, some regulation must be required.

This, of course, brings up two issues: who does the regulating and how much is needed? For the most part, pollution is largely a local issue. In many valley cities (Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Salt Lake City come to mind), pollution is a largely localized issue requiring localized solutions. Federalized solutions may not even be the best ones for pollution issues affecting more than one state. Pollution from Philadelphia most assuredly affects Camden, NJ on the other side of the Delaware River, yet the pollution is very specific to a localized region. Trying to set some kind of national standard or come up with solutions that have little, if any, local input are often ineffective because they ignore the unique peculiarities of each situation. The Wasatch Front, for instance, often runs into a problem of geography. With narrow, deep valleys and frequent inversion layers, poor air quality days are almost guaranteed, even when driving is kept to a minimum and burn bans are in effect. And what solves pollution issues here may not help in, say, St. George.

When evaluating if a regulation is needed, a few simple tests must be applied. First, can both individual liability and individual harm be determined? If so, even via a class of affected people, then the issue would be best handled via legal action. Second, is the issue specific to a city, county, or region? If so, it may be best handled by local ordinances or a compact between various local or state governments involved. In almost all cases, the issue will fall under one of these two tests, so it largely eliminates the need for federal law or action. At the same time, it prevents pollution via stricter controls and better compensates those affected while eliminating the socialized cost of pollution. There’s no good reason why we should continue to work under our current regulatory framework.

PS I’ve heard exactly zero valid arguments for why federal control is better than state or local control. Almost the only thing I hear is the same old FUD that we’d end up with a barren wasteland after clear-cut logging and strip-mining every one of those acres. You know, just like all of the eastern states that own their land. (Oh wait…)

One of the bigger whoppers is that Sen. Hatch was a co-sponsor of the bill in order to “get a seat at the table”, not to necessarily endorse its content. That, however, doesn’t quite jive with his enthusiastic support of the bill when it was initially introduced in May of 2011. Technology companies and prominent technologists immediately expressed concern with the bill and continue to do so, but Sen. Hatch’s “seat at the table” resulted in zero proposed amendments to the bill before he abruptly reversed course. This raises a few concerns.

One, why would you need to sponsor a bill you don’t particularly like in order to amend or improve it? Sponsorship is endorsement, and you, for all intents and purposes, own that bill. Two, you don’t need to sponsor a bill in order to propose changes to it. Almost anyone can propose amendments. And three, what good is that “seat at the table” if it goes unused? Failing to amend a bill that tech companies agree with break some very fundamental protocols of the Internet (including the federally-mandated DNSSEC) is irresponsible at best.

We also have to consider Orrin Hatch’s actions on intellectual property and copyright. This is the Senator who asked, in earnest, if there was a way to blow up a suspected copyright infringer’s PC. The absolute absurdity of such a proposal (not to mention its complete lack of due process) is reason enough to believe that the latest bill to be hawked is just more of the same. This dovetails with the half million dollars Hatch has accepted from the entertainment industry and numerous times he has sought to push similar legislation, including the deeply-flawed ACTA treaty, something that makes PIPA look reasonable. Hatch has also worked to greatly extend the term of copyrights far beyond what most experts consider to be economically beneficial, instead creating a system of government-granted monopoly.

Make no mistake: Hatch’s retreat on PIPA is temporary, and he will waste no time trying to pass similar or worse legislation in this space if given the chance. Let’s not let him have it.

BONUS: Watch Sen. Hatch doubletalk all over himself when it’s just him and a live audience. I’m sure this gave his handlers a headache.

One of the few positive things of the Tea Party crowd (and the members they are electing) is a vehement opposition to political elitism, including the practices associated with seniority. Instead of accepting that you have to outlast your peers to get your desired committee assignments, they have pushed for significantly more technocratic ways of committee selection based on ability. Senators like Rand Paul and Mike Lee (the latter of whom I have significant disagreements with) have managed to wield significant influence in the “deliberative” body of Congress despite being the new kids on the block.

So now that the influence of seniority isn’t as solid of an indicator of influence in the body, does it still have value? Not likely. Now that good ideas and ability are the currency of influence, being in office for a significant period of time without a significant list of accomplishments is a huge negative. Guys like Bennett, who seemingly accomplish little of what the general electorate cares for, get replaced by the brash go-getters who make things happen in short order.

Former State Sen. Dan Liljenquist accomplished two major reforms, state employee pensions and Medicaid, in just three years in office. Doesn’t this seem like the kind of guy who’d get things done in Washington? And, more importantly, don’t those seem like the right things to get done?