What's the Future of the GOP?

Republicans search for a new path to electoral victory.

Let's put ideology aside for a moment.

Karl Rove, architect of the George W. Bush-era Republican victories, says he's sick of fanatics running his party into the ground. So he's devised a strategy to pre-emptively sink unelectable candidates early in the process. He's formed a new super PAC to implement this strategy. It's called the Conservative Victory Project, and it's led by a guy named Steven Law, who was the head of another super PAC, called American Crossroads, which went something like 0-7 in the 2012 election cycle. (Not that anyone's counting.)

Grass-roots conservatives, needless to say, are quite perturbed. "I'm filing the paperwork to form a super PAC to support freedom-loving conservative alternatives to (Karl Rove) on FOX," tweeted former Rep. Joe Walsh. Surely, he won't be the last to counter Rove's efforts.

Suspicions about establishment Republicans are well-founded, but Rove has a point, as well. Purely as a tactical matter, why not weed out inept— or insane—candidates before they start spouting off about a woman's organic ability to prevent pregnancy when raped? I'm no Sun Tzu, but winning elections seems to be a crucial part of politics. And if being right were enough, I'd be buying my lunch with a $20 bill featuring former two-term president Barry Goldwater.

Law says that Republicans have "blown a significant number of races" because candidates prone to the chillingly bizarre have won GOP primaries before falling to Democrats. We need not relive them all. Then again, it's also fair to say that if the "establishment" had gotten its grubby RINO paws on GOP primaries, America would be without some of the most interesting Republicans out there—Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul, for starters. All this only proves that you can be successful and philosophically committed (well, as committed as a politician can be).

Actually, you needn't look further than President Barack Obama, whether you're a fan or not, to see what the entire package looks like—a man who is dedicated to ideology and has the political acumen to spin populist demagoguery and, ultimately, enjoy political success.

So the GOP civil war is based on a false choice. Surely, people exist in America who can placate both sides of the divide. Surely, there are charismatic candidates available to articulate enticing arguments in defense of limited government. Surely, there are limited-government types who can successfully implement fiscal conservative reforms (even in far-flung places, such as Wisconsin) and remain popular.

And just as surely, not every candidate can look the same. The Conservative Victory Project says that its aim is to institutionalize William F. Buckley's rule: Support the most conservative candidate who is electable. The most electable conservative candidate in the Northeast isn't going to be a social conservative. It's that simple.

"If ... people think the best we can do is Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, they're wrong," Rove recently explained. "We need to do better if we hope to take over the United States Senate. We need to get better conservative candidates and win." Rove may be the wrong person to play kingmaker, but what's wrong with the sentiment? Republicans, despite the belief of many grass-roots activists, don't have a crisis of philosophy (the party is about as conservative as ever); they have a roster problem. A message problem. A persuasion problem. Right or wrong, they're not winning arguments.

So though Rove's recent history might not be impressive, he's got a point: If Republicans worried as much about quality as they did about purity, they might be better off.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • tarran||

    Karl Rove reminds me of some of the kids in my high school who were really, really into Student Government.

    They ended up going to ivy league schools, and then became high level bureaucrats in the federal government or large quangos.

    They really, really relished the role of being top men, and hated it when things happened that didn't involve them. Officious prats.

  • Ice Nine||

    You're busted for plagiarizing the Reader's Digest condensed version of Bill Clinton's biography.

  • mr simple||

    This is why I won't vote for anyone who lists anything like "class president" as an accomplishment when running for office.

  • ||

    "They really, really relished the role of being top men..."

    ...TOP men

  • Drake||

    It's fun to see Rove being torn to shreds on Republican site like American Spectator.

  • Ice Nine||

    I'm no Sun Tzu, but winning elections seems to be a crucial part of politics.

    Funny line, David.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The GOP doesn't have to do anything but remain the not-the-Democrats party. This idea that anything significant has changed is silly. They'll continue to be statists-in-waiting, take power, fuck around, and give it back to the Democrats. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    Of course, most of us don't want to admit it, because we want those libertarian strands in the party to take over. But that's not likely to happen except that there might be a stronger libertarian minority and maybe an occasional national win. But the truth is that there's no money and power in small government--not for politicians, anyway.

  • DarrenM||

    They'll continue to be statists-in-waiting, take power, fuck around, and give it back to the Democrats.

    Ultimately, it's up to the voters to keep a constant eye on elected officials, not just around election time. The attitude of too many seems to be to elect smart people and let them run everything. The problem with this, when you have a powerful government, is that the really smart people usually won't put themselves through the crap that comes with it. Instead, what you get are personalities that 1) are in it mostly for the power and 2) have a talent for deception. This is not the kind of person I would want telling me what to do. Some are ok with it, though.

  • Sevo||

    ..."I'd be buying my lunch with a $20 bill featuring former two-term president Barry Goldwater."...
    And getting change back!

  • SugarFree||

    What's the Future of the GOP?

    Ever seen what happens when 200 lbs of shit in a 150 lb bag falls 20 stories onto a hippo in a tutu?

  • Bam!||

    I haven't. Link?

  • Lewis H||

    aka The Warty sex tape

  • SugarFree||

    I wish I had never watched that. Sometimes, in the night, I can still hear the kangaroo screaming as the schoolchildren hacked it to bits.

    OH GAWD! IT'S ALL COMING BACK TO ME NOW!

  • Marshall Gill||

    Sometimes, in the night, I can still hear the kangaroo screaming as the schoolchildren hacked it to bits.

    You don't give it away like you used to do, but every now and then the epic disgusto still comes out.

  • SugarFree||

    They tried to make me respectable. They tried to make me human. I'm not one of them. Sometimes they have to be reminded.

  • Tim||

  • SugarFree||

    That's how I feel most days.

  • sarcasmic||

    Depends. What color is the tutu?

  • SugarFree||

    Pink. All hippo tutus are pink. How dare you!

  • sarcasmic||

  • SugarFree||

    Communist propaganda. Fuck off, slaver.

  • Ice Nine||

    OK, so not all hippo ballerinas are gay. So what?

  • SugarFree||

    I support gay hippo polygamy.

  • sarcasmic||

    Some hetero hippos are secure enough in their sexuality to wear pink tutus. Why must you be so judgmental?

  • mr simple||

    Those pics are shoops. I'm surprised you fell for it.

  • SugarFree||

    You can tell by the pixels.

  • Tim||

    It goes to work for Fox?

  • sarcasmic||

    I hate to say it, but at least Democrats are somewhat honest compared to Republicans.

    Democrats are honest when they say they want bigger and bigger government. Republicans say they don't, but in practice...

    Democrats are honest when they say that they don't care about government debt. Republicans say they care, but in practice...

    Democrats are honest when they say they want the economy to be crippled with crushing regulations. Republicans say they are against regulation, but in practice...

    In the end it's all about abortion and gays.

  • DarrenM||

    In the end it's all about abortion and gays.

    There's a pun in here.

  • SugarFree||

    Is it moral to abort a food baby?

  • SugarFree||

    What about a food baby that is at least 51% burrito?

    ANCHOR FOOD BABY!

  • SugarFree||

    I guess none of you so-called libertarians will defend the rights of helpless food babies. Typical.

  • Otisjay||

    ...that made me spit-take. Well done good sir.

  • carol||

    As a life long member of Team Red I couldn't agree with you more. Rove is the king of the "Read my lips" Republicans and it really pisses him off that silly little folk like me think that the party might actually want to stand for something. If we grubby grassrooters would just get out of the way Rove could lead the Republican party to glory or whatever it is he thinks we should be lead to.

    Did I mention how much I hate that dick?

  • wareagle||

    so what are you trying to say, carol?

  • carol||

    Simply that holier, smarter and greater than thou pricks like Rove are the reason why I'm beginning to wonder if I belong in the Republican party. The smarmy uppitiness of Rove just makes me want to groin punch him.

  • ||

    Yes, and Rove is the captain of the Bush team that led Republicans straight into the 2008 Obama cult.
    Rove and his guys were so entirely 100% fucking awful that they permanently alienated a huge swath of the electorate. people fell for Obama because they were that fucking traumatized from all the ass-raping Bush gave them under Rove's tutelage.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Mostly true.

  • Alex the wolf||

    I understand that GOP has made lots of shit but the current state of affairs probes you wrong.

    The GOP is the only thing standing right now between America and complete collectivization.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    You mean SOME of the GOP

    FTFY

  • Aresen||

    Of course, the last President that Karl Rove supported might have had just a little bit to do with the last couple of Republican defeats.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Ok, you've come close to saying his name. That is a serious infraction among HandR commentors.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

  • Marshall Gill||

    Sure, everyone here loves Bush.

    Idiot, the problem isn't your hatred of BOOOOOSH. It is your constant sucking of Obama cock that everyone hates.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I never even compliment Obama other than this - He is easily better than Bush was.

    Name one law he signed I support other than the START (treaty).

  • wareagle||

    PB,
    even for you, that is an epic level of cognitive dissonance. You claim to support only one law that Obama has signed yet "he is easily better than Bush." On what planet?

    You voted for The Obama twice and the economy/debt/sea of regulation/growing dependency are all what they are. Man up and grab some responsibility, unlike the guy you supported and still support.

  • Marshall Gill||

    No, no, wareagle. He voted for Obama and regularly comes here to felate him but he doesn't support any laws that he has passed.

    Just when I think the shriek couldn't get any more stupid he surpasses even himself.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    He's hands down worse than Bush not only for the governance but for pretending to be some sort of intellectual genius. He has fools like Dowd swooning claiming he has a superbrain.

  • ||

    See this is what I'm referring to.

    shike is enamoured with Obama not because of anything awesome about Obama per se, but because shrike still has Bush administration PTSD.

    And that's partially Rove's fault.
    I'd wager that around 20% of the electorate is still suffering from Bush PTSD.

  • Tim||

    Karl "Romney in a landslide" Rove?

  • Bam!||

    Even though Barry has been sworn in, I'm sure Romney can still win Ohio.

  • Lewis H||

    Rethuglitards are dead to anyone under the age of 25.

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    Why, because they are undereducated fools?

  • Lewis H||

    The longer the GOP continues to ignore reality, the better for the nation and the world.

  • Aresen||

    You mean like Team Blue and the deficit?

  • Lewis H||

    Or they can keep believing that they have done nothing wrong, and that 'low information' voters got scammed by Obama. Keep insulting the 47%,

  • Marshall Gill||

    Keep insulting the 47%

    Is this even possible? They admit to being scum bag looters. How can you insult such people?

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    Yes! Fuck the 47%. And no, you can't insult them. It takes a certain amount of intelligence to be insulted.

  • The Derider||

    Calling elderly recipients of social security and medicare scum bag looters is probably not a path to electoral success.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: The Dehydrated,

    Calling elderly recipients of social security and medicare scum bag looters is probably not a path to electoral success.


    Probably not. It is however a path towards truth. People can do the math; those that know they're getting something for nothing deserve everything it's coming to them when the Great Default comes.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    No, it probably isn't. But calling them the salt of the earth and telling them they're entitled to that money and why we could just increase their freebies a whole bunch if just those icky old rich people would cough up the dough is a pretty sure path to bankruptcy and civil war.

  • Brandybuck||

    First you say that the 47% are a myth, and then you say they can be insulted. You can't have it both ways.

  • KDN||

    You mean like Team Blue and the deficit?

    BUSH'S FAULT! BUSH'S FAULT! BUSH'S FAULT! BUSH'S FAULT! BUSH'S FAULT! BUSH'S FAULT!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Of course the entire deficit appeared in the Bush years - from the surplus Clinton left to the $1.2 trillion his last year.

    CBO forecast for 2012/13 is $845 billion.

  • iggy||

    There's no way in hell the economy should be bumbling along at virtually no growth right now, buttboy. The reason it's bumbling along at no growth is because of the incredible over regulation of the administration, particularly in regards to Obamacare.

    Stop licking his boots.

  • KDN||

    Nah bro. Obamacare's great for business. Check out Aetna's stock price brah.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    GDP growth has averaged over 2% since 2009. You have to weigh the 3% with the -0.1 of q4.

    This was the first financial crash in 70 years. $15 trillion was wiped out in 2008. The whole world is depressed.

  • iggy||

    Yeah, and that 2% growth occurred with virtually no job creation. People talk about the -.1 in q4, but unemployment also increased.

    Furthermore, it's 2% growth with unsustainable government spending and minimal private sector growth. I like that you talk about the minimal job creation during the Bush administration and people call that recovery a 'jobless recovery' but somehow Obama's 'recovery' is supposed to impress me.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    What a load of malarky. The historical relationship between recessions and recoveries is pretty well established - the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery. What we're experiencing now is an outlier on that relationship.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Palin's BP, are you referring to this?

    http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43304

    If so, you're one disingenuous person.

    You're an asshole for thinking one of the most ideologically driven etitlement and enabling Presidents in MY LIFETIME (and I'm Canadian!) is going to somehow be fiscally sound and responsible defies logic.

    It's incredible.

    He spends $1.8 trillion on Obamacare and then looks to make little cuts and then claims surplus! The Liberals in Canada pulled the same stunt in the 1990s here and everyone thought they were financial wizards.

    Man, liberals truly are defective in math. My sister is a burnt liberal in math and everyday I have to explain to her basics about tax, and the concept of INTEREST BEARING debt, and how to save where to cut etc. Their first instinct is to be unicorns but once you sit down with them and explain the ABC's of life, they sorta get it.

    And they do, they become more savage than conservatives. I generalize.

    Then she pulls - and this is classic - "the government is wrong! when it comes to the bull shit red tape (and heaven forbid they ever account for mail THEY LOSE). To which I just nod my head and say, "stop reading your liberal rags because they're for takers, capeesh? You're on the business-property ownership side now. You PRODUCE AND EMPLOY They your blood. They want your blood because they are vampires and they are communists."

    Hey, it keeps us sane.

    End tangent.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    'They want your blood.'

  • Marshall Gill||

    If so, you're one disingenuous person.

    If?

  • Alex the wolf||

    Obama didn´t pass a budget in FOUR YEARS. The last one was beated 99-0 in the senate!!!!!!!!!

  • DarrenM||

    The longer the GOP continues to ignore reality, the better for the nation and the world.

    Yes! One-party rule is definitely preferable. This way we can *really* get things done. Anyone not on board is much more easily dealt with.

  • T o n y||

    One-party rule is preferable to two-party rule with one party overtaken by anti-intellectual fact-averse idiots, but it's not ideal.

  • tarran||

    One-party rule is preferable to two-party rule with one party overtaken by anti-intellectual fact-averse idiots

    Which is why you will hear libertarians advocating for voting for Republicans when the Democrats get too powerful and vice versa. ;)

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Yes, Tony because the Democrats are ushering in a second age of political Englightenment with the flunkies - led by SuperBrain Hollow Man - in their midst.

    Just shut up.

  • iggy||

    Forward, to Tony's communist utopia! I mean, when has a one party state NOT worked?

  • sarcasmic||

    I mean, when has a one party state NOT worked?

    Only because the right people weren't in charge. We have the right people. It will be different this time.

  • Eric||

    I see it like this:

    Republicans = Mentally Retarded, but street-smart guy who doesn't make much money but tries to live within his means.

    Democrats = Harvard educated guy who seems to have everything going for him. Hot wife, great kids, BMW, big house, dinner parties, etc. But he's broke, in debt, his wife is cheating on him, his kids hate him, and he's on the verge of losing his house.

    Neither of these two should be in charge of anything.

    Oh. I forgot to do Libertarians;

    Libertarians = Retarded guy's friend. Brilliant, Sharp, Far-Sighted, but also a deaf/mute, quadriplegic with severe social anxiety disorder.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    ^^

    +1

  • sarcasmic||

    Are you saying we don't have One-party rule?

    Come on. Is there really any meaningful difference between the two major parties?

  • dave b.||

    They don't promise nearly enough free shit.

  • Aresen||

    Eventually, they will reach 40, have teenage kids and turn into Team Red fans.

    Just like their boomer grandparents.

  • Bam!||

    That is what I see as the ultimate problem for Republicans going forward: A rise in singleness and childlessness.

  • T o n y||

    That's a myth. People tend to keep their politics throughout their lives.

    The younger generation was radicalized against Republicans because of the incomparable incompetence of the Bush administration. The continued farcical clown show on daily display by the GOP is not winning them any new followers either.

  • sarcasmic||

    If you're young and not a Democrat, you're heartless.

    If you're old and not a Republican, you're stupid.

    So you are wrong. Only stupid people keep their politics throughout their lives.

  • freeforall232||

    If you're alive and not a libertarian, you're not paying attention.

  • $park¥||

    If you're alive and not a libertarian, you're not paying attention.

    Oh good grief.

  • T o n y||

    Cliches are not evidence.

  • sarcasmic||

    And your assertions are. Sure. Whatever. Don't you have some fallacies that need fellating?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The impact of 'The Daily Show' cannot be overestimated.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    And that's not a good thing. I don't get the fascination with Stewart. He's good...but really...

  • Marshall Gill||

    Of course it isn't a good thing. Nothing like the repeating of idiot Leftist talking points under the guise of "comedy".

    Clearly, the fact that the retarded actually get their political talking points from a supposedly comedic show is an indication that we may actually have reached peak retard.

    Then I read one of shrieks posts and realize that we will never reach peak retard.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't know how many times I've been told by liberals that The Daily Show's audience is like really intelligent and stuff, you know? As if watching by watching the show you become like really intelligent or it shows you're like really intelligent or something.

  • Loki||

    Human stupidity is the only truly inexhaustible resource in the world. If only there was some way to bottle that shit and convert it into energy, we'd be set.

  • sarcasmic||

    Politicians manage to bottle it and turn it into power.

  • entropy||

    And sure enough, they're set.

  • iggy||

    People tend to keep their politics throughout their lives? I guess that explains why 1960's radicals are still so important and why they're all still living in backwoods communes.

    The idea that people keep their political opinions throughout their lives is a blatant lie, Tony.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony is not known for being honest or arguing in good faith.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I've gone from liberal to conservative and now to classical liberalism and all its branches back and forth in my life.

    I want to seek truth.

    Tony's cemented views only solidifies my perception of why he clings to ideas like he does. He stays on one track. There's no quest or journey in Tony's world.

  • iggy||

    ^ Exactly. A lot of people here probably came initially from the right and once would have considered themselves Republicans or at least 'conservative.' My opinions on economics haven't really changed, but my ideas about social issues have done a complete 180. Apparently I don't exist, since no one changes their politics in Tonyland.

  • T o n y||

    Because that's what I said.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Oh shut up, Tony with your vapid, lame interpretations. You sound like pretty boy Justin Trudeau.

    Seriously. Grow up.

    Lewis, I bet there are a lotta takers in that 47% if you're any indication.

    Libs love over blowing stupid commentary on the other side, but from where I sit, they're kings of stupdity.

    Start with Obama and Biden and cull all their idiotic gaffes.

    Fall of the west for real.

  • carol||

    Tony, I was a registered Dem at eighteen. I am ashamed to say it but I voted for Carter. Two years into his administration I saw the error of my ways and changed parties. My kids were both Dems until they hit their mid-twenties. Now they are both registered as Independents but they vote Libertarian and Republican.

  • iggy||

    This is impossible Carol. Tony declared it a myth. When Tony says something and provides no evidence, it has to be true.

  • carol||

    In my senility I forgot that Tony is the fountain of all things good and true.

  • Marshall Gill||

    When you say "fountain of all things good and true" you mean sockpuppet, right?

  • carol||

    Yep. I can only imagine how hard it must be to go through life with someone's fist up one's butt. I say we all chip in and send Tony a case of Prep H.

  • T o n y||

    You are more than fucking welcome to Google the research on this. I said something that is perfectly defensible with data, not to mention more intuitive than some strange force that changes political views with age, and none of that means there don't exist anecdotes that don't fit that pattern. I grew up in a proudly Republican family and trash-talked the Clintons as a youth. Of course then I read some books.

  • Loki||

    I said something that is perfectly defensible with data

    Ten YOU provide the fucking data, asshole. Insisting that other people "google it, it's all right there" is 99.9999999% of the time the surest sign that someone is talking out of their fucking ass. But of course, I already knew that.

  • ||

    ---I said something that is perfectly defensible with data, not to mention more intuitive than some strange force that changes political views with age---

    That strange force is called experience. If you still have the same views (liberal or conservative) at age 40 that you had at age 18, then you aren't paying attention and learning.

    And also, STFU you fuckwad.

  • ||

    ---If you still have the same views (liberal or conservative)---

    SHOULD BE
    ---If you still have all of the same views (liberal or conservative)---

  • Brandybuck||

    I was a registered Republican at eighteen. I am ashamed to say it but I voted for Reagan. Two years into his administration I saw the error of my ways and switched to Libertarian. Twenty five years later I got tired of the petty politics and infighting and quit them too.

  • Loki||

    The younger generation was radicalized against Republicans because of the incomparable incompetence of the Bush administration.

    Actually the incompetence of the Bush administration is quite comparable to that of the Obama administration, so it's not exactly incomparable now is it.

    Hint: throwing out multi syllable words to make yourself sound smarter without knowing what the words mean actually make you sound really really stupid.

  • T o n y||

    No I meant precisely that Bush's incompetence was unprecedented and not likely to be matched in the future. At least we can hope.

  • Loki||

    And I'm saying it's being matched right now. And incomparable is not synonomous with unprecedented.

  • T o n y||

    Did I say it was? Look at definition 1. My computer dictionary puts it this way: without an equal in quality or extent; matchless. That's precisely the word I meant to use, as is every word I use.

    The incompetence of the Bush administration was matchless in its quality and extent.

    I will amend what I said though. A hypothetical future Republican administration is likely to be even more incompetent, because it will believe in governing even less (and thus will be very bad at governing).

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Unprecedented? HOW in the world can you possibly prove this!?

    What a joke you are.

    "I grew up in a proudly Republican family and trash-talked the Clintons as a youth. Of course then I read some books."

    As opposed to others who "don't" read books. As if it's not possible to "read a book" and come to a DIFFERENT conclusion.

    It's funny. I've been addicted to reading since I was, like, 15. If it was published, I probably read it at least once. Obscure Sports Quarterly got past me though.

    Apparently, my observations and intellectual journey are worthless to smug liberals like Tony and their pseudo-critical thinking arguments. I mean, it's IMPOSSIBLE to read great literature and the like and NOT be against Democrats and liberalism.

    Liberalism is dead. Progressivism is killing Western civilization and each time I read Tony and the others here, I believe this more and more.

  • ||

    Obama is actually pretty fucking incompetent. He just hasn't happened to start a war. Instead he's managed to not get a budget passed for four years running, and he's heading towards a likely doubling of the national debt.

    You really can't get more fiscally incompetant than that.

    Also, his economic policies suck balls.
    You can't blame this economy four years out on Bush. This is Obama's economy. He's only claim is that it was just THAT BAD. It was just SO BAD that he couldn't fix it. And "my predecessor was so awful that I couldn't repair the damage he did" is a pretty lame excuse.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Obama didn't inherit a $200 billion surplus and leave a $1.2 trillion deficit.

    As noted, the deficit is headed down.

  • TheAstorian||

    Too late

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I was under 25 and college educated once. Now I'm past 40 and experienced. I now have the wisdom to know I didn't possess much of it then.

  • sarcasmic||

    Part of gaining wisdom is understanding that results don't always match intentions, something that progressive liberals simply cannot compute.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Absolutely. It's something I observed and been interested in ever since.

    Liberals like to come up with a plan, and not bother to follow up on it. THAT'S where they fail and fail immorally and spectacularly.

    It's like starting a fire and then playing the lyre as it burns while putting it out.

    But it's SUCH A GOOD IDEA...are you mean to want to end it? What about the chilren? And then they come up with all sorts of crappy logic and bad stats to support a terrible idea.

    The BASE RATE of anything has no value to them. None.

  • sarcasmic||

    Liberals are all about emotions. They employ reasoning only to reverse engineer a justification for what they feel. They are animals that would fail humanity test and be killed by the gom jabbar.

  • Marshall Gill||

    They are animals that would fail humanity test and be killed by the gom jabbar.

    I present the shriek as exhibit A.

  • ||

    And whenever it doesn't work, it obviously because counterrevolutionary capitalists are sabotaging it.
    it's never because, you know, human beings respond to incentives.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I agree Hazel.

    The guys on Duck Dynasty display more intelligence and common sense than the average Democrat and liberal.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Liberal have faith in intentions,
    Conservatives have faith in laws,
    Authoritarians have faith in the State,
    Libertarians have faith in themselves.

  • ||

    Karl Rove, architect of the George W. Bush-era Republican victories, says he's sick of fanatics running his party into the ground.

    The comedy of Rove talking about sinking people that make Republicans look bad is hilarious.

    This is the guy who spent 5 years defending torture and claiming that victory in iraq was just around the corner.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "So he's devised a strategy to pre-emptively sink unelectable candidates early in the process."

    So how is he going to sink the McCain and Romney?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Uber-nutcase Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) says Karl Rove and American Crossroads are out to get him and his supporters should pony up to stop them.

    Keying off a quote from Crossroads President Steven Law in Sunday’s New York Times, the likely Iowa Senate candidate sent an email to supporters Thursday seeking cash for a potential campaign.

    (Politico today)

  • Lewis H||

    Rethuglitards are the anti-science party. So unless someone loses all their science knowledge at age 40, why would anyone switch?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Shhh! They will bring up mercury in vaccines or some other fringe nut idea that some token Democrat once thought about.

    See, it is all even!

    Iraq = Libya!

    Exactly the same!

  • iggy||

    You know, this is interesting. Republicans are supposedly the anti-science party, and yet when I go to a college, the less scientific a degree is the more liberals take that degree.

    It's almost like liberals know nothing about science or math, but use their voting patterns as a substitute for rational thought.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Only 6% of scientists are Republican - per an oft cited Pew Research poll.

  • iggy||

    I'd like to see the methodology used in that poll. Perhaps more importantly, do they count things like engineers? The reason I ask is because every engineer I know is either conservative or a libertarian. And I'd love to hear you explain to me how one can be an engineer without being good at science and math.

    It's rare that I meet a liberal who can count, much less knows basic scientific principle.

  • Brandybuck||

    No, they don't count engineers. But regardless, the poll is not surprising. The overwhelming majority of scientists work in government funded institutions, the overwhelming majority of which are highly insular universities. Most of them have had no contact with the private sector since age six when they entered the government school system.

  • T o n y||

    Or most Republicans are idiots.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Or most Republicans are idiots.


    Or that over-specialization makes those polled scientists pretty incompetent in all other matters besides their science.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.

  • $park¥||

    That doesn't mean that 94% are Democrat.

  • Hyperion||

    Team Blue cheerleaders love to ignore the fact that the largest voting bloc is now independents and not their favorite team. Red Team cheerleaders are also guilty of this. But I don't really need to stress that point since there are not any red team cheerleaders here, well maybe 2 or 3.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I am independent.

    I vote for the most secular capitalist I can.

    I have said this many times.

    I'm like Buffet minus the billions.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    I'm like Buffet minus the billions.


    Or his wits.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Buffet isn't a capitalist, he's a CRONY capitalist. His dad, Howard Buffet, however, was one of the good guys.

  • ||

    Since scientists are a small fraction of the population it's possible for both parties to be anti-science, and still have most of the scientists in one of the two camps.

    The Republicans happen to have a small faction of creationists who are probably responsible for alienating most biologists. So that probably counts for a lot.

    But the Democrats definitely have huge anti-science camps in terms of enviro-wacko groups like the anti-GMO, organic, hormone free, anti-nuclear and so forth activists.

    I find progressives to be pretty hostile to science and technology in general. They don't like hearing that physical reality, math, or logic renders some of their ideas unacheivable. Half of them seriously think that spiritual energy can change the world.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Hazel, NAILED!

    That's been my observations as well.

    Yeah, there are turds in the GOP camp...but the crap I read on the left...woo, nelly!

    Mind fuck blowing.

  • T o n y||

    Such bullshit. Not believing in clearly established scientific facts is not the same thing as being against certain public policies. It is not a clearly established scientific fact that nuclear power is the bee's knees, it's an opinion.

    Libertarians understand math and logic as the things they can claim support their worldview without having to provide any evidence.

  • iggy||

    By the way, Shrike, why don't we discuss all the Democrats who were in favor of the Iraq invasion until it became politically unfeasible? You guys do realize that there are politicians in this country other than just the president, right?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    They fucked up. I worked against Hil-Dog for her Iraq war vote, her idiot video game violence bill, and Hillarycare.

    Fuck Kerry too. He voted for it.

    Russ Feingold was the only Senator to vote against it and the Patriot Spy Act.

  • Hyperion||

    Give it up, Butthead. Almost all of Team Blue and Team Red are statist morons. Why do you keep shilling for Team Blue?

    You come here and claim to be Libertarian, but then you keep on with the Team Blue Cheerleading.

    Why is every Libertarian leaning member of Congress, GOP? You can't answer that honestly, can you?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Why is every Libertarian leaning member of Congress, GOP?

    I admit its true. The 2-3 that come to mind were elected in 2010/12.

  • Hyperion||

    admit its true. The 2-3 that come to mind were elected in 2010/12.

    Ron Paul started that movement. He was there for a long time.

  • The Derider||

    The people in congress pushing a libertarian view towards abortion are all democrats.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: The Dehydrated,

    The people in congress pushing a libertarian view towards abortion are all democrats.


    Using taxpayer money to pay for destroying life is hardly a libertarian position, quite the contrary: It's pretty fascistic.

  • Hyperion||

    Progressives hate children, except for when they can use them to push for their political agenda(see Sandy Hook), so they want there to be less of them.

    One of them even wrote a book about it, something about a childless future.

    I don't recall, as I wouldn't care, since I don't read left wing garbage.

  • The Derider||

    That's why they supported SCHIP -- because nothing hurts poor children more than government-guaranteed health care.

  • Loki||

    nothing hurts poor children more than government-guaranteed health care.

    Hey, you got something right for once!

  • OldMexican||

    Re: The Dehydrated,

    That's why they supported SCHIP


    And the imbecile here thinks that they did because "the childrunz"... right. Nothing to do with largess, votes, power - nah.

  • The Derider||

    Right, lets ignore people like Rand Paul who want to amend the constitution so every fertilized egg has the same rights as you and me. Real libertarians want the state to police every American uterus.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: The Dehydrated,

    Right, lets ignore people like Rand Paul who want to amend the constitution so every fertilized egg has the same rights as you and me.


    The Constitution does not grant rights. We already have them. Just because people have the means to violate those rights does not mean that they do not exist, and they certainly exist for fetuses and embryos.

    And being against abortion does not make one anti-science, if you ever want to go there. Science is not normative, or at least, it STOPS being science the moment it is used to make policy.

  • Loki||

    B-b-b-but, TEH SCIENSE IZ SETTELLED!!11!!!!

  • The Derider||

    You are still clumsily ignoring the fact that nearly all republicans, including Rand Paul, want the state to police women's reproductive systems.

    That's not the libertarian position. Defending abortion rights is. And Democrats are the only ones doing that.

  • T o n y||

    We already have them.

    Where did they come from?

  • ||

    Tony said:

    Where did they come from?

    Maybe from the same place that utilitarian cost/reward objective functions for maximizing human happiness do.

  • T o n y||

    You mean they were philosophical innovations, realized only by codification in policy?

  • ||

    Tony said:

    You mean they were philosophical innovations, realized only by codification in policy?

    All ethics are philosophical. However, anyone who seriously studies ethics would reject the notion that they are only applicable or realized with codified laws and political policies.

    However, a hack who feigns utilitarianism in order to justify his subjective preferences for laws and policies might see it that way.

    However, see rule utilitarianism. One can think of a right as corresponding to a rule that leads to a greatest good (i.e., having a right to not be murdered, etc.)

    Whether or not policy reflects maximum happiness isn't relevant to the theory.

  • gaoxiaen||

    You used "certainly", so now I'm convinced.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    I'm pretty sure Rand Paul never said that. Cite, please?

  • JWatts||

    "The people in congress pushing a libertarian view towards abortion are all democrats."

    Are you suggesting there are Democrats in congress trying to remove government funding for abortions?

    Oh no probably not. If a Congress critter supports the right to have an abortion and government funding for it, they are NOT a Libertarian.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Aw shucks, Palin is making friends with the troll and his vapid catch-phrase commentary made famous by dysfunctional liberals.

    Rejoice all!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Go back to Glenn Beck TV, you ignorant conservative.

    I am on the side with Ayn Rand and FA Hayek so fuck you.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    No you're not on Hayek's side. Not judging from what I've read from and the links you provide.

    As for Beck, don't get him up here and I don't vote conservative.

    And I'll take that ignorance swipe as a compliment. I mean, I only speak three languages, actually have TRAINING in understanding finance, a Major in history and was a AAA soccer player.

    /bends over and shows ass.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Just a point on my voting record; up here you have but TWO choices - Liberal and conservative. When the liberals were normal and had dignity, I voted for them. Then they became idiots and now I have no choice but to vote conservative. I'm not crazy about them but they're better than the alternative.

    We don't have an Independent option unfortunately unless a candidate runs and that's a rarity.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Lewis H,

    Rethuglitards are the anti-science party.


    While being anti-GMO or anti-fracking is not... am I to believe?

  • T o n y||

    Completely qualitatively different. "The earth is 6,000 years old" is an obvious falsehood. "Fracking is 100% safe" is far from a proven fact.

    But you don't believe in proven facts you don't like, such as global warming, so I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

  • Alex the wolf||

    What difference does it make to me if someone believes that the earth is 6000 years old?

    How about the organic bullshit?

    Being agaist oil?

    Opposing bio technology?

    Opposing free trade?

    What the fuck?

  • T o n y||

    I guess that's up to you.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I would love to give Lewis H a science test.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I'd crush you like a bug in any debate, you Jerry Falwell germ.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Ah, the Palin ad hominen. I was directing at your lover Lewis.

    Moopie, shmoopie.

    Phew. As long as I'm not compared to Chris Matthews or Lawrence O'Donnell. Then it's fight to the death....

  • SugarFree||

    He baits the mousetrap and you slam your hand down and it crushes your fingers. Then you do it again and again. What makes you think that at some point the trap is finally going to learn its lesson?

  • ||

    Surely, there are charismatic candidates available to articulate enticing arguments in defense of limited government.

    For that to be applicable to Republicans, they would have to embrace limited government. When will that be?

  • sarcasmic||

    On the campaign trail. They become big government liberals who oppose abortion once the election is over.

  • Hyperion||

    Why does anyone here bother replying to Tony? He has absolutely nothing of value to say.

    STOP.FEEDING.THE.MORON.TROLL.

  • Brandybuck||

    Karl Rove: No more Rand Pauls, more Todd Akins!

  • ||

    "Republicans, despite the belief of many grass-roots activists, don't have a crisis of philosophy (the party is about as conservative as ever); they have a roster problem. A message problem. "

    What a joke. Republicans have the same amout of philosophical consistency as Democrats: zero. The name of the game is to verbally take the opposite view of Democrats, whether it makes sense or not, and then once elected, join them. They all have one goal in mind. Feed the government more and make it the allotter of individual success.

  • entropy||

    I thought this was a good article about the things wrong with the GOP.

    http://lizmair.com/blog.php?Index=721

    Especially on the subject of ideological consistency:

    Be the party of Milton Friedman economics, or don’t-- but if you’re going to purport to dislike Keynesianism, quit pulling stunts like insisting on higher defense spending or whatever other kind of spending because OMG jobs.

    Be for big government conservatism, or be for limited government—but again, if you’re going to purport to be for limited government, don’t campaign on reversing Obamacare’s Medicare cuts.

    Be for babies, but if you’re going to do that, quit using pro-life values and proposed legislation primarily as a talking point or a way of bringing in campaign donations or of getting diehard pro-lifers to staff your volunteer operations 24 hours a day because no one else will, and actually do the thing you claim you want to do.

    Be for opportunity and the prospect of social mobility, but if you’re going to do that, quit treating education like the #1,053 item on the issue priority list right underneath investigating Lance Armstrong’s drugging as some Republicans do, and start thinking about how you reallocate money away from wasteful programs that benefit people who don’t really need a ton of help to those who are genuinely poor and disadvantaged and who do.

  • ChrisO||

    C'mon guys, it was Rove's good looks that got him where he is today, not his intelligence.

  • Loki||

    I lol'd.

  • buybuydandavis||

    They've actually got a big demographic problem, and it's not Hispanics.

    Look up Pew Research on the Nones - people with no religious affiliation (though they may or may not believe in God).

    http://www.pewforum.org/unaffi.....-rise.aspx

    Republicans have been getting crushed 3-1 in that demographic, and that demographic has been growing. Every generation has more and more Nones. Younger millenials are up to 34%, while the general population has increased from 15.3% to 19.6% in *just the last 5 years*.

    On the bright side, in another survey by Pew, all demographics but black protestants wanted less government.

    So stop promoting religious kooks and kookiness, promote small government, and the republicans can win again.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    good post - but late

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Oddly enough small government is just fine with kooky religions. The bizarre thing is the religious kook will never be happy with a government system so disinterested in dominance that it cannot be utilized to control my swinging, drinking, and pot-smoking ways.

  • Perry5||

    my best friend's half-sister makes $76/hr on the internet. She has been without work for 6 months but last month her check was $15690 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this web site http://www.FLY38.COM

  • MSimon||

    My half-friend's best sister makes taco soup if sufficiently stimulated. Delicious. And in the right venue sells extremely well. She is making a fortune with her taco.

  • grey||

    Doesn't "chillingly bizarre" account for almost every Democrat candidate?

  • MSimon||

    Medical Marijuana prohibition is a crime against humanity and a violation of the religious precept - heal the sick.

    CB1 CB2

  • Frankenchrist||

    Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock *are* the best you can do, Karl. No go away.

  • JWR||

    I'm from Missouri and despite what Rove and others say, Akin or Steelman were not the tea party candidate for senate. His name was John Brunner. And the reason Akin won the primary over Brunner is because Claire's base came out in droves to vote Akin in. She knew she couldnt beat Brunner. They even bragged about it on St. Louis news station on election night.

  • erikemiller@me.com||

    The biggest joke is that this clown Rove has the chutzpah to call himself "The Architect." Is he the George Costanza of the political world?
    So let's look at the track record of The Architect. Won 2000 election by 500 votes after bitter 6 weeks, needed the Supreme Court to intervene, tainted the administration with lack of goodwill before it even started. 2004 was a decent outcome. 2006, Republicans lose Congress. 2008 Republicans lose the Executive branch. 2012 Rove's candidate Romney get's butt handed to him. Rove melts-down on TV. Way to go Costanza!
    And his big idea for 2016 MARCO RUBIO & JEB BUSH. They're just like Reagan don't you know? Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush are carbon based lifeforms jut like Reagan. Jeb Bush. Wow! God save the USA! Let them self destruct. I've had it. At least these's a chance that something may rise out of the ashes. It will be too late anyway.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement