Ted Cruz Leads Republican Primary Poll, Rand Paul Comes In Second

After Texas Sen. Ted Cruz staged his 21-hour quasi-filibuster last week opposing government funding for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Public Policy Polling finds him leading in the polls of Republican primary voters at 20 percent. However, running right behind Cruz is Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 17 percent, within the poll’s +/- 3.6% margin of error. Following Cruz and Paul is New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie at 14 percent, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 11 percent, 10 percent each for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, 4 percent for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, and 3 percent each for former Sen. Rick Santorum and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Varying degrees of conservatism predicts support for Cruz, Paul, or Christie. Republicans who identify as “very conservative” prefer Cruz, those who identify as “somewhat conservative” support Paul, and “moderate” Republicans prefer Christie.

While Cruz’ speech won him support among the Republican primary base, a plurality (41 percent) of Americans viewed his speech as an “unnecessary” political stunt,” according to a HuffPost/YouGov poll. Thirty-two percent viewed the speech as a “good way to make an important point.”

Nevertheless, even after the 21-hour long speech, nearly half of Americans still do not have an opinion of Ted Cruz, and roughly equal numbers have a positive or negative opinion of the Senator. This suggests that Cruz’ move earned him support among prospective Republican primary voters without garnering too much attention of moderate voters.

Cruz’ strategy appealed to opponents of the health care law, as 61 percent would rather use the budget process to force a repeal of the health care law even if it shuts down the federal government. Had moderate voters been more aware of Cruz’ speech, they may have been less supportive, since most Americans prefer Congress to compromise even if they don’t like the result. Nevertheless, the HuffPost/YouGov poll found divided support for cutting off ACA funding as part of any budget agreement, with 39 percent in favor and 41 percent opposed.

While a plurality may view Cruz’ marathon speech as political grandstanding, it may still have been a strategic move because it has done more to bolster support among prospective Republican primary voters than to disenchant voters in the middle.

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.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Varying degrees of conservatism predicts support for Cruz, Paul, or Christie. Republicans who identify as “very conservative” prefer Cruz, those who identify as “somewhat conservative” support Paul, and “moderate” Republicans prefer Christie.

    So traditional conservatives like Cruz, libertarians like Paul, and liberals like Christie.

  • Calidissident||

    I would say that's accurate. Although I don't think "libertarian" and "somewhat conservative" are synonyms.

  • CE||

    No, but many libertarians call themselves "somewhat conservative", because they really want to cut spending.

  • GroundTruth||

    This is really the great point that needs to be made: the media do want to give up their stranglehold on the mass public perception that one is either "conservative" or "liberal". At this point, enough people self identify as "libertarian" that if they started to be identified as such in these polls, the Republicans might actually have to start taking them seriously.

    Words have meaning, and they shape thoughts.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I don't know how many people self-identify as libertarian, but many self-described conservatives would probably be libertarians if their views (and not labels) were taken into account.

  • PapayaSF||

    +1

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I would like to see the second choices for those respective groups. My suspicion is that the second choice of the Cruz voters is likely Paul, and vice versa.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Cruz will solidify his advantage (probably later this week, next Tuesday at the latest) when his master strategy comes to fruition and he stands triumphantly over the broken and bloodied body of ObamaCare. He will raise the torch of liberty high as he leads a charge of heroic libertarian Republicans into the Capital and then ultimately on to the White House. He will usher in a new golden age of personal liberty and free markets, bending even the most reticent Democrats to his iron will and unalloyed principles.

    Traitorous skeptics like Matt Welch and Peter Suderman will crawl on their knees to the White House, bowing and scraping to the man who led Washington and the nation out of their downward spiral, begging forgiveness for not embracing the overwhelming magnitude of his great vision. And He, Ted Cruz, in his infinite grace and beneficence, will forgive them. Though their martini glasses shall go empty.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    He's going to force Liberty on the country!

  • sloopyinca||

    Leave my (unborn) child out of this! If anybody's gonna force Liberty on the country, it's gonna be us!

  • Brett L||

    Sloop,

    I know I'm new to this parenting thing, but I don't think Billy Ray Cyrus is the optimal parenting role model.

  • sloopyinca||

    Hey, we end the contest prior to the birth and our children mostly don't get exploited. Mostly.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    It's true. They are not exploiting their own children. They hired child labor to do the bidding of Baby Reason and Baby Liberty. It's so cute! Babies forcing tiny babies to work in tiny crevices of their salt mine.

  • sloopyinca||

    What do you mean "hired"?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Hired the way one "hires" a mule team. Hired the way one "hires" a diesel engine.
    You know, bought.

  • ||

    That is one cute kid.

  • sloopyinca||

    Why thank you.

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh, I can make good-looking offspring. Observe.*

    *at least they're well-dressed.

  • Brett L||

    Jesus Christ, do babies really get that big in a single year? I'm going to have to rework the baby's room.

  • sloopyinca||

    Just don't feed them after midnight and you'll be fine.

  • Brett L||

    What about bathing? Can I use water?

  • sloopyinca||

    Go for it. It's been working for me pretty well.

  • Brett L||

    My wife just saw little Reason and thinks she's beautiful. And then threatened to literally castrate me if she gets pregnant less than a year after giving birth.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I told Banjos earlier, but I will repeat: you gotta spring for a better cable package, or something to do beside boning all the time.

  • ||

    Nah, they are taking the Catholic Churches approach by trying to drown the world in Libertarians. Let 'em have at it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This is still a more credible scenario than the one where the GOP loses the senate and/or house because of partial shutdown.

  • CE||

    If the government shuts down, who cares who wins the Senate or the House? They won't have any money to spend and the debt ceiling will stop them from borrowing more.

  • sloopyinca||

    Fucking ^^^THIS^^^!!!!!!

    Shut it down and keep it shut down. Come back into session to individually vote to re-fund essential governmental functions like a (much smaller) military, some border security and a few other things...gradually. The rest of them will all end up like Milton.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I don't disagree, I'm just ridiculing the defensiveness and tribal loyalty of our Team Orange Cosmotards.

  • Killazontherun||

    They do get comically prickly when anyone criticizes the editors opinions. I can only imagine the cognitive dissonant breakdown Hugh would have if Matt, Nick and Peter aired a video debating their own disagreements.

    Sorry, Hugh, there are no gatekeepers here. Maybe you would have better luck with that over on Frum's site.

  • ||

    They do get comically prickly when anyone criticizes the editors opinions.

    Oh, the projection. Any criticism of Cruz or the GOP strategy is met with knee-jerk accusations of being secret socialists™ or suckups to the DC elite, but only people who criticize THAT are trying to be gatekeepers? Because, you know, dissent from the Holy GOP Gospel can only be traitorous blasphemy.

    Never go full SIVtard, guys.

  • Killazontherun||

    You can't tell a projector from a microscope. The Holy GOP Gospel is that which is coming out of Peter King's mouth and that is what Suderman is repeating. I have no connection to the GOP. Suderman says for them to retreat and live to fight another day, I say they should die on that hill this day. See the difference?

  • ||

    The Holy GOP Gospel is that which is coming out of Peter King's mouth and that is what Suderman is repeating.

    Suderman is expressing the belief that people will react negatively to this action and it will jeopardize more effective attempts to get rid of or defang Obamacare, King is actively TELLING people to blame Cruz as a powerplay.

    That you think any similarity could only be because Suderman secretly loves big government is exactly the plank in your eye that I'm talking about, my choice of wording notwithstanding. You simply can't believe anyone could honestly disagree on tactics and that any seeming disagreement is really proof of treachery, because heaven forbid that people with the same goals disagree on how to achieve them.

    I have no connection to the GOP.

    Of course not, you simply can't fathom that anyone could disagree with the Holy Gospel of Cruz (that accurate enough for you, Tulpa?)

  • Irish||

    This is still a more credible scenario than the one where the GOP loses the senate and/or house because of partial shutdown.

    Yep. There are more Democrats in districts that are trending Republican than there are Republicans in districts trending Democrat. That means the Republicans definitely are going to have more of an opportunity to pick up seats than the Dems.

    Anyone who believes differently is deluding themselves.

  • sloopyinca||

    Not to mention this is an almost certain trend in midterm elections of second-term Presidents.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I remember all the predictions that there was just no way, given trends and retirements, that the GOP would not win the Senate in 2012.

  • Irish||

    And I remember all of the predictions in 2010 that the GOP would run wild, which obviously did happen.

    I personally don't think the GOP retakes the Senate in 2014, but I can't imagine they lose the House. There are too many safe districts for the Republicans.

    Plus, you're ignoring the fact that the Republicans ran fucking Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock in 2012. If they run anyone who isn't completely insane, they win both of those seats. Plus, the idiocy of Akin and Mourdock made an awful lot of people uncomfortable with the Republicans in that election.

    No one saw that storm coming. The Republicans could have taken the Senate with a less idiotic choice of candidates.

  • Brett L||

    The Republicans could have taken the Senate with a less idiotic choice of candidates.

    Well, if they had less idiotic candidates, they wouldn't be the GOP.

  • Irish||

    It's like Catch-22 with a greater emphasis on unfortunate rape comments.

  • ||

    The biggest challenge in business is finding and keeping good people.

    The same is true in politics. A while back we tried to unseat a mayor, who was a complete train-wreck, and could not come up with a good candidate. Finding non-idiot choices is a real challenge.

  • sloopyinca||

    The biggest challenge in business is finding and keeping good people.

    Remind me sometime to put you on to a good manacle salesman.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    There is always such a fool running for the GOP. Even in years they win big they have a Christine O'Donnell.

    Mourdock and Akin were, like Cruz, like Angle, like O'Donnell Tea Party anti-establishment candidates. The public tends not take to them, but people with strong partisan or ideological stances love them.

  • Irish||

    Mourdock and Akin were, like Cruz, like Angle, like O'Donnell Tea Party anti-establishment candidates.

    One of these is not like the others. I'll give you the hint: It's the one who not only got elected but is currently leading all Republican candidates for a prospective presidential run.

    I realize you don't like him, but how in good faith can you put Cruz on a list with Angle, O'Donnell, Akin and Mourdock?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -One of these is not like the others.

    Yes, one ran in Texas.

  • robc||

    The public tends not take to them

    I drove from Owensboro to Bowling Green during the 2010 primary season and their was literally a 100%/0% Paul vs that guy McConnell hand picked whose name Ive forgotten yard sign difference.

    it wasnt just strong partisans. It was EVERY SINGLE KENTUCKY REPUBLICAN* that supported Paul over the establishment candidate.

    *not technically true, Paul only got 58.8% of the vote in the primary. The yard sign statistic is true. 100%. I did not see a single Grayson** sign.

    **I saw his name while looking up the Paul percent of vote, I really couldnt remember it up above.

  • Hugh Akston||

    And once Team Red is in charge, everything will be great forever! After all, they say all those nice things about markets and small government, so we can totes trust them to follow through once they have a firm but moistened grip on the rigid levers of power.

  • Irish||

    Yeah, but I desperately want to retain a split government. Obama with both houses of Congress again would be devastating.

  • John||

    The problem is that the dems have to be brought back to sanity. You tell me how to do that other than a few soul crushing defeats. Defeat made the republicans better.

  • sloopyinca||

    Defeat made the republicans better.

    Hahahahahahahahahaha. When? IIRC, they fought the nominations of Rand Paul and Justin Amash tooth and nail.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Defeat made the republicans better.

    Why does 'give him another chance, maybe he will stop hitting you now' come to mind?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    No, they haven't. McCain is still the same warmongering POS he has always been.

    It is more accurate to say that defeat has allowed libertarian Republicans to take more control of the party apparatus and governing. Less a case of old dogs learning new tricks than new dogs chasing out the old ones.

  • Irish||

    It's actually more accurate to say that a few states have trended libertarian and allowed people like Paul and Amash into positions of government. It's not that the whole party has moved. It's that a few areas have.

    The Republican party over all is still as horrible as ever. Still prefer them to the Democrats, but that's basically just by default.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I would agree with that assessment, but the Republican party is sufficiently federalized that I wouldn't quibble with saying that it has gotten better overall, even if the gradient of improvement is not uniform.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I actually do think the Republican Party, and conservatives in general, have 'gotten better' (at the same time Democrats have steadily gotten worse) from a libertarian perspective.

    But I do not think GOP defeats did that, I think Ron Paul's campaigns did.

  • robc||

    at the same time Democrats have steadily gotten worse

    Is that even possible?

    Who is the libertarianish Democrat in the House or Senate?

    Widen?

    Yeah, Im not sure you can get worse than 0.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -at the same time Democrats have steadily gotten worse

    -Is that even possible?

    Compare Clinton, William with Obama, Barak.

    I like Wyden, as far as it goes. It is safe to say that Wyden breaks from his Party's orthodoxy in a libertarian direction far more than Cruz breaks from his in the same way.

    If the 2016 election were Paul vs. Wyden that would be rather nice.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    LOL. Wyden is your example of someone you'd rather have as President than Cruz? I like Wyden relative to his party, but he's not even as good on breaking with his party as, say, Moynihan.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I can name easily name many areas where Wyden has broken with his party ideology in a libertarian direction.

    You are struggling with coming up with half of that for Cruz.

    He's criticized and voted against the estate tax.
    He voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
    He has vocally led the fight against the NSA surveillance.
    He voted against the Bailout in 2008.
    He has voted with Republicans to cut capital gains taxes.
    He worked with Paul Ryan on entitlement reform involving privatization.

    And this does not count pro-libertarian stances Wyden has taken that, while associated with liberals more than conservatives, are hardly liberal mainstream issues (supporting doctor assisted suicide for example).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Oh, I forgot to mention his votes for NAFTA and CAFTA.

  • Tejicano||

    Choosing between Team Blue and Team Red is like choosing between a mouthful of dung or a mouthful of warm dung.

    What we really need is an election where you can either vote for one guy or the other OR vote against one guy or the other. I want the choice to cancel some ding-dong's vote for Dipshit A without giving my vote to Dipshit B.

    And if any dipshit ends up with more negative votes than positive votes he can never run for office again - anywhere.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen King! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Able to shake the Foundations of the Earth! All shall love him and despair!

  • Brett L||

    I think that's a little hyperbolous. I mean, I don't think most of the H&R commentariat thinks Cruz is a libertarian, just one of the least hostile Senators to our cause. If I've only got 530 bullets come the revolution, I give him a pass.

    Also, I don't understand (still) what else someone who opposes Obamacare is supposed to do. Should he sit and vote in another 54-46 vote and lose gracefully? Can't Mitch McConnell or John Kyl already do that for the GOP?

  • Homple||

    Yes, Republicans are expected to lose gracefully. They usually meet or exceed expectations.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Of course one thing the American public likes is an ungraceful loser, eh? If that does not cause the necessary groundswell, then what will do so?

  • CE||

    Guns may run out of bullets, but guillotines never run out of gravity.

    /French revolutionary

  • Brett L||

    Guillotines have such an air of excess and, frankly, the French about them. What if we just gibbeted them at the high-tide line like the pirates they are?

  • SIV||

    Traitorous skeptics like Matt Welch and Peter Suderman will crawl on their knees to the White House

    Welch gets a full time gig as a "Republican strategist" on MSNBC and the shorter-half of the cosmotarian power couple goes to work for Cato on "gun safety policy".

  • Sevo||

    ..."the shorter-half of the cosmotarian power couple goes to work for Cato on "gun safety policy"."

    Oooh, nasty!

  • Cytotoxic||

  • sloopyinca||

    Fortunately there are only two nutball candidates and they will split that 29% vote. Then we can get a uniter like Chris Christie that moderates will support to get the remaining portion of it and roll into the White House in 2016.

    /typical Neocon douche

  • CE||

    ...running right behind Cruz [at 20 percent] is Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 17 percent...

    In other words, the Tea Party anarchist wing will get 37 percent, while the Republican Establishment Romney clone will get 63 percent and the nomination.

  • Brett L||

    Ugh. Jeb Bush is the kingmaker of the primaries. Please don't let him throw in with Marco in some misbegotten Hispanic outreach grand plan.

  • CE||

    Looks like you have a future as a Republican strategist. Can I be your agent for TV appearances and book deals?

  • Brett L||

    No, look. Its a no-brainer. Marco and George P. Bush (Jeb's son) are both handsome, light of skin but dark enough to be "authentic", and at least George P. and Jeb speak really excellent Spanish. So the GOP will go with a Rubio-Christie ticket and only the incompetence of the Democrats will keep them from losing 47 states.

  • Homple||

    What do you have against Hispanics? They only want to work hard, assimilate, and have their children achieve the American Dream, unlike the unemployed and unemployable native born layabouts.

  • sloopyinca||

    Except for their hot-tempered nature and excessive passion, they're model citizens.

  • Brett L||

    Aaron Hernandez is a great example.

  • Pathogen||

    The RNC/GOP is not a Suicide Pact!

  • Brett L||

    Are you sure? Because the seem pretty intent on killing their own viability.

  • Pathogen||

    It's funny because it's true.... sadly.

  • GroundTruth||

    And like Romney, he will loose.

    Go bold, or go home!

    Paul / Amash 2016! & Cruz for Secty of State when they win. (Or Cruz / Amash, with Paul as SOS, that would work too.)

  • sloopyinca||

    And we're gonna need the Old Man (Dr Paul) for SecTreas for the lulz.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Judge Napolitano for AG

    Ted Nugent for Sec of Interior

    Baylen Linnekin for Sec of Agriculture

    The Jacket (not Gillespie, just The Jacket) for Sec of Homeland Security

  • sloopyinca||

    We could keep that dog-fucker lady on at HHS and just give her a promotion.

    The dude that started Khan Academy for Sec of Ed

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I think the dog fucker was at CDC. The sheep fucker runs HHS.

  • sloopyinca||

    My bad. I get screwed up on which government employee is fucking which domesticated animal all the time.

  • Irish||

    Stossel for Press Secretary.

    Lucy Steigerwald for Secretary of Keeping It Real

    Milton Friedman's corpse for Fed Chairman.

  • Finrod||

    Eric S. Raymond for FCC Commissioner.

  • John C. Randolph||

    No, Peter Schiff should be the treasury secretary. Or, as he would put it, the secretary of debt.

    Ron Paul should be the next secretary of State. It would be a nice change for the country's top diplomat to be someone who doesn't assume that all foreign officials are vassals or enemies.

    -jcr

  • Irish||

    In a perfect world the Republican nominee for president would be Ted Cruz and Rand Paul would run as the Democrat.

  • Calidissident||

    Not sure about a perfect world, but it would at least be a sane world

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -In a perfect world the Republican nominee for president would be Ted Cruz

    On what grounds do you make this comment? Are you a libertarian? What are your favorite libertarian positions that Ted Cruz has taken? What libertarian positions has Ted Cruz taken outside of the areas where the conservative mainstream agree with us?

  • Irish||

    Sorry. I forgot that Ted Cruz was an establishment sleeper agent that's been in deep cover since he was a twenty year old at Harvard and is purposefully trying to undercut Rand Paul.

    When you remember that, it's easy to see why Ted Cruz is such a threat.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You have no substantive answer then?

  • Pathogen||

    Show us on the doll where Ted Cruz touched you...

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You fellows say you are libertarians.

    You are obviously quite excited about Ted Cruz.

    Certainly it should not take you this long to tell us what libertarian positions you admire that he has taken.

  • Pathogen||

    Ahhh... but what is the alternative?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Rand Paul?

    Remember that guy?

    The establishments of both parties hope you do not, and Ted Cruz likely hopes the same.

  • Pathogen||

    I like Rand, and would like to see his political carrier move forward as well, Rand seems to have a soft spot for Cruz. I don't recall ever hearing Cruz describing himself as a Libertarian, though some of his statements seem to sympathize with Libertarian ideology, whether that is political posturing, or some deeper "altruism", only time will tell. At this point in time, he's still better than a rock....

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    At the present time I do not think Cruz and Rand are even comparable. One has not differentiated himself from a 'Jim DeMint' Republican conservative and the other has continuously taken bold libertarian positions on important issues. Rand Paul is who libertarians should rally around.

    Paul's star was on the ascendancy, so to speak, and then here comes Ted Cruz. He apes the bold move that Paul performed several months ago, and while taking no political risk suddenly he has displaced Paul in the polls and, seemingly, in the commentariat here.

    All those who feared Paul's rise and his increasing selling of libertarianism can rest easier now. The Democrats can rest that none of their supporters will be peeled off by any positions Cruz might take, and conservative Republicans can stop thinking about the intellectual challenges that someone like Paul was offering and go back to thinking liberty=hating Obama.

  • SIV||

    Rand Paul? Oh yeah,he and his dad endorsed Ted Cruz.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Ditto Peter Thiel, who contributed ~1/5th of Cruz's Senatorial campaign fund IIRC.

    Thiel is, of course, your standard conservative: a gay millionaire who strongly supports legalizing drugs and gay marriage, and who is anti-war in Iraq.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Over Dewhurst.

    Yes, they are practically blood brothers!

  • robc||

    Rand Paul?

    He had Rand running as the D candidate. Cant you fucking read?

  • Irish||

    He had Rand running as the D candidate. Cant you fucking read?

    Yeah. Plus, I had Cruz as the Republican specifically BECAUSE of his more conservative tendencies relative to Paul. Cruz is about as libertarian as someone who is a conservative could be.

    He's clearly a conservative and I'm not denying that. I just don't think that attacking someone I align with on 90% of issues does me any good.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -He had Rand running as the D candidate. Cant you fucking read?

    That was Irish, not Pathogen, whom I was responding to there (his 9:17 post which read 'Ahhh... but what is the alternative?').

    That you did not catch this makes your second comment ironically amusing, no?

  • robc||

    It was the start of the subthread, everyone under it was working on that premise, so it didnt matter who you responded to. The subthread premise held all the way down.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Ah, so you were wrong, demonstrably so, and now you want to try to argue that in some technical sense you were not so wrong.

    I wonder what you will be saying if this much more complex political scenario you are so sure about plays out differently than you think.

  • robc||

    Ah, so you were wrong, demonstrably so

    And in a simul-post, I demonstrated that I was right, you responded to Irish.

    So fuck you, you liar.

  • robc||

    Also, looking up thread, you responded DIRECTLY to Irish, ignoring his Paul as D candidate comment.

    So dont try this "I wasnt responding to Irish" bullshit, you abso-fucking-lutely responded to Irish.

  • Irish||

    He not only responded to me, but his response to me was the start of this subthread.

    Irish|9.30.13 @ 8:16PM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    In a perfect world the Republican nominee for president would be Ted Cruz and Rand Paul would run as the Democrat.

    Bo Cara Esq.|9.30.13 @ 8:58PM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    -In a perfect world the Republican nominee for president would be Ted Cruz

    On what grounds do you make this comment? Are you a libertarian? What are your favorite libertarian positions that Ted Cruz has taken? What libertarian positions has Ted Cruz taken outside of the areas where the conservative mainstream agree with us?

    ^^ That's the start of the subthread. My point was that Ted Cruz would be noticeably Republican due to his conservative tendencies and is about as good as we could do in that party. Meanwhile, Paul is more 'liberal' in his social policies and would therefore be the Democrat.

    Bo can't let any moderately positive comment about Ted Cruz go though, so we ended up with this subthread.

  • robc||

    Bo can't let any moderately positive comment about Ted Cruz

    Bo is blue Tulpa, so he will never admit he was wrong.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    No, I started this subthread because while I can understand completely how a libertarian can be excited about Paul being one of our 'two choices' for President I wanted to see some reason for a libertarian being excited about Cruz in the same position. So I asked for one. Pathogen then defended Cruz, as did you Irish. So I asked again, what is so great, from a libertarian perspective, about Ted Cruz?

    And then Pathogen said 'ahh, what is the alternative.'

    And I said, Rand Paul. Pathogen had never put forward Paul as an alternative. Why would any libertarian fawn over Ted Cruz when we have Rand Paul on the national spotlight?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -you responded DIRECTLY to Irish, ignoring his Paul as D candidate comment.

    robc, with all due respect, you cannot see how this undercuts, not supports, your argument?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The assumption here seems to be that libertarianism is essentially a form of radical centrism, and that we should expect to find as many issues from what would be considered "leftist" politics as we would from "right-wing" politics.

    That being the case, exactly how many issues do you think progressives and libertarians hold in common, anyhow? I could bring up a laundry list of ways in which Cruz differs from your standard conservative, but I would rather hear a definition so that I don't waste my time on issues you would consider specious. Cruz hasn't declared a position regarding drug legalization. Abortion (which Cruz opposes) is a contentious issue in libertarian circles. Cruz opposes gay marriage. Given this, I think the one place where you can really indict him on libertarian principles is his position on gay marriage (which has never been a position fundamental to libertarianism) -- and to be honest, those are the only areas I can think of where progressives and libertarians explicitly agree.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am not offering an alternative from the left. If any alternative is to be offered, it should be Rand Paul. He has, unlike Cruz, actually taken bold libertarian stances on several issues, and in a way that has helped educate more Republican and conservatives to our values.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I mean, my goodness, with so much cheerleading over Cruz here one would think we would not be over half an hour and still not one example of his libertarianism has been offered.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    [Rand Paul] has, unlike Cruz, actually taken bold libertarian stances on several issues

    Like what, as distinguished by sympathy with progressivism? The only one I can think of is drugs -- Paul holds the same views on gay marriage and abortion as Cruz.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, I do not care whether anyone has taken stances 'distinguished by sympathy with progressivism.' I am only talking about libertarian positions distinguished from traditional conservative Republican positions. Here we are still and no one can point to Cruz doing this.

    Paul has come out for drug legalization. When Cruz was calling for people not to 'rush to judgment' on the NSA surveillance Paul had long spoken out on it. Paul has spoken out against felony disenfranchisement. Mandatory minimums. Foreign adventurism. Military spending.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Cruz has also talked about military spending, articulated disagreement with foreign adventurism (he was one of the opponents to war in Libya and Syria), and as you allude to he also opposed NSA wiretapping (which he filibustered along with Paul, if you'll recall). He also appears to be far more committed to traditional areas of conservative agreement with libertarians than most.

    This all seems substantially right-libertarian to me. It's also in keeping with Paul politics, sans drug war issues where he has maintained a discreet silence.

    (BTW, how the hell is Paul's position on felony disenfranchisement "libertarian"? It might be a good position to hold outside of libertarian politics, but it has nothing to do with NAP.)

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Cruz did not filibuster about surveillance. Paul filibustered about drones and Cruz helped keep the filibuster going by asking him some questions.

    Cruz has talked out of both sides of his mouth about defense spending, touting that he is a 'fierce advocate' of the military, its recruitment and supplying it. Paul has made much more unequivocal stands there.

    Of course he was against war in Libya and Syria, they were 'Obama's wars.' I have yet to hear him condemn interventionism in general.

    As to Paul's position on felony disenfranchisement, I think it does comport better with the NAP (to think otherwise allows felons to be ruled by others with no say), but even if you do not accept that argument I would point out that Paul grounds his arguments against it in the broader libertarian condemnation of the war on drugs and expansion of criminal codes.

    I am frankly non-plussed over the sudden crush on Cruz by so many libertarians. I expect conservative Republicans from safe seats to strongly oppose things like Obamacare, just as I would expect a Democrat from Oregon to strongly oppose, say, torture or the Iraq War under a Republican administration. I wish them well when they do, but I do not give much credit.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Cruz has talked out of both sides of his mouth about defense spending, touting that he is a 'fierce advocate' of the military, its recruitment and supplying it.

    So has Rand Paul. So did Gary Johnson (my preferred candidate in the primaries and the general) in 2012. You do realize that sounding like a pacifist is one of the things that killed Ron in the primaries, right?

    I expect conservative Republicans from safe seats to strongly oppose things like Obamacare

    Cruz also opposes farm subsidies (which is not in character from a Texan Republican), audit/abolishment of the Fed, and plenty of other fiscal conservative measures which are outside his party's mainstream.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Paul has been less equivocal on that issue than Cruz.

    Auditing the Fed is fairly mainstream among conservative Republicans nowadays.

    As to Cruz position on the farm bill it, the way he explains it himself, it was motivated far more by traditional conservative Republican concerns than libertarian positions (that too much in the bill went to things other than welfare for farmers).

    -Unfortunately, the current farm bill gives far less attention to the needs of farmers than it does to politicians and special interests. For an issue as critical to our nation’s safety and American livelihoods as ensuring a reliable food supply, I am disappointed that Washington’s cynical politics have again trumped any real reform.

    Any meaningful support for farmers and ranchers in this trillion-dollar bill is unnecessarily held hostage to the unchecked growth of food stamp entitlements and numerous other programs unrelated to farming. This farm bill costs 60 percent more than the 2008 bill. Nearly 80 percent of it consists of a massive expansion in food stamps, trapping millions in long-term dependency. It fails to provide a true safety net for farmers in difficult years, fails to fully target assistance to those most in need, subsidizes massive agri-businesses, and fails to prioritize farm aid over duplicative programs, promoting unrelated programs from green energy to housing.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2013/.....than-good/

  • Pathogen||

    I still cannot see why any support for these politicians is zero-sum. Frankly, I prefer them both in Senate, and fear the risk inherent in their replacements if they run for President. I think our nation was fortunate for both to be elected, will we be so luck next time? A bird in hand an all...

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -I still cannot see why any support for these politicians is zero-sum.

    I am fairly sure only one person can be the candidate for the Republican Party in 2016.

    Let me ask you this, does Cruz's rise make it more, or less, likely that one person will be Rand Paul? If even his supporters here are struggling to offer up a libertarian stance in an area outside of the common overlap of conservative Republicanism-libertarianism, then what good will be gained for libertarianism for that one person to be Cruz rather than Paul?

    Rand Paul is the closest thing we have had to a 'libertarian moment' on the national scale.

  • robc||

    I am fairly sure only one person can be the candidate for the Republican Party in 2016.

    Which is why, if you would learn to fucking read, the poster above suggested Cruz for the GOP candidate and Paul for the Dem candidate.

    Let them both run.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Let me help you 'f*cking read' the conversation you are so sure about.

    -Irish|9.30.13 @ 8:16PM|#

    In a perfect world the Republican nominee for president would be Ted Cruz and Rand Paul would run as the Democrat.

    -Bo Cara Esq.|9.30.13 @ 8:58PM|#

    -In a perfect world the Republican nominee for president would be Ted Cruz

    On what grounds do you make this comment? Are you a libertarian? What are your favorite libertarian positions that Ted Cruz has taken?

    Pathogen|9.30.13 @ 9:17PM|#

    Ahhh... but what is the alternative?

    reply to this


    Bo Cara Esq.|9.30.13 @ 9:21PM|#

    Rand Paul?

    Remember that guy?

    -Pathogen|9.30.13 @ 9:44PM|#

    I still cannot see why any support for these politicians is zero-sum.

    -Bo Cara Esq.|9.30.13 @ 10:10PM|#

    -I still cannot see why any support for these politicians is zero-sum.

    I am fairly sure only one person can be the candidate for the Republican Party in 2016.

  • robc||

    Rand Paul would run as the Democrat.

    You cut this part out when you responded.

    Thats one of two premises of the entire fucking subthread.

    If Paul is the D candidate, as Irish suggested, why is Cruz as the R candidate such a problem?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Paul is, of course, a Republican and is not going to be the D candidate.

    Irish said

    -In a perfect world the Republican nominee for president would be Ted Cruz and Rand Paul would run as the Democrat.

    I replied wondering why in the world a libertarian would find Cruz running as a 'perfect world?' I asked, why would a libertarian be excited about Cruz?

    Then there were a few exchanges which were solely about Cruz and my questioning of his libertarianism.

    THEN Pathogen said:

    -Ahhh... but what is the alternative?

    The context is clear there, what is the alternative to Cruz?

    To which I replied, Rand Paul. I then explained that since Rand Paul is a Republican and Ted Cruz is a Republican, and only one can be the GOP national candidate in 2016, that this is indeed a zero sum game between the two.

  • robc||

    I replied wondering why in the world a libertarian would find Cruz running as a 'perfect world?' I asked, why would a libertarian be excited about Cruz?

    Because with Paul running as a D (in Irish's dream world) Cruz may be the best available serious candidate.

    Amash would be better, of course, but he aint running for Prez in 2016.

    Of the guys who appear to be running that arent named Paul, as he is the D candidate in the perfect world, Cruz is the most libertarian.

    Which isnt saying much.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I cut that out because I do not see anything problematic with a libertarian being excited by Rand Paul as a nationally nominated candidate. It was Ted Cruz in the same position that left me wondering why libertarians should be excited.

  • robc||

    You cut out a key part of the scenario.

    Cruz is only "exciting" if Paul is the D candidate.

    If Paul is running as an R, then, duh, of course Cruz is behind him.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    You are deliberately misconstruing the conversation, as Pathogen no doubt was assuming that you were responding to the entirety of Irish's comment and not only your fallacious interpretation of the selected quote.

    Just about everyone here supports Rand Paul over Cruz, if asked to pick.

  • robc||

    You are deliberately misconstruing the conversation

    Exactly.

    But not rejecting it in his initial response, Bo accepted the Paul as D candidate premise that Pathogen was also working from.

  • Irish||

    I don't know how we got to this point based on a one sentence joke post that I didn't think anyone would respond to.

  • robc||

    I don't know how we got to this point based on a one sentence joke post that I didn't think anyone would respond to.

    You "praised" Cruz with Bo around. Its like bringing up food trucks in a Tulpa thread.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Because it's Bo.

    Leave no unfulfilling Socratic dialogue unstated, lest the thread actually have a point!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I realize you find your 'Socratic dialogue' line to be mighty cute.

    But my point has not taken a coy Socratic tone. It has instead been rather clear: why should libertarians be excited about Ted Cruz, especially when his rise in political fortunes could undercut Rand Paul's? I do not think I could have been more clear about that.

  • robc||

    BECAUSE PAUL IS THE D CANDIDATE AND CRUZ IS THE 2ND MOST LIBERTARIAN OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CLEARLY RUNNING IN 2016.

  • Benjamin||

    I agree. Not excited at all about Ted Cruz. He easily fits the "War on Women" narrative. He also seems comfortable shifting around on issues like immigration and drugs. Paul has maintained consistency and let's be honest, just appears more trustworthy to stick to libertarian principles. Paul also appears to be a better communicator of the libertarian message (his speeches to black audiences are waay more authentic than most GOPers). And he looks more presidential now that he has a stylist.

    Of all the wackos, Paul and Amash are the most legit.

  • Pathogen||

    And he STILL hasn't indicated on the doll just where exactly Cruz had touched him, Jesus tap-dancing Christ... what is the point of that fucking doll...

  • ||

    So I've gone over this thread, and basically I can't see anything here, aside from being against farm subsidies, that indicates something libertarian about Cruz. You guys really can't name anything else? For all your claiming Bo is trolling, that's pretty sad.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I'd say his foreign policy stances, stance on NSA wiretapping, and an unusual level of commitment to fiscal and social issues on which conservatives find agreement qualify him as libertarian leaning and certainly unconventional among conservatives.

    As I asked Bo above, which areas of libertarian thought does Cruz abandon (besides War on Drugs) which are not also abandoned by Rand Paul and his dad?

  • ||

    Ok. I'm not as familiar as most here are with Cruz, so I'll take your word on those stances (though it does confirm my impressions of some of his policy stances). Thanks for answering.

  • Pathogen||

    And yet, I still don't understand what his/her hang-up with Cruz is...

  • Swiss Servator, Kneel to Zug!||

    Blue Tulpa FTW!

  • Len Bias||

    Here's my question about Cruz: According to about.com, to be a president, one must "be a natural born U.S. citizen. Someone may be born abroad, but only if both parents were citizens of the United States."

    He was born in Canada to a Cuban Father (who wasn't naturalized until 2005). Therefore, he can't be president.

    Why isn't the liberal establishment all over this fact in order to put out his fire? Or, do they want the GOP to get their hopes up and waste time building up a guy who can never be president?

  • sloopyinca||

    Obama didn't meet those qualifications, as Hawai'i was a territory when he was born and the rules for natural born citizenship at the time called for both parents to be American citizens for one born in a territory or protectorate.

    But there is a birther movement already brewing on the left. I would imagine they're just waiting to come out of the woodwork after the '14 midterms.

  • Len Bias||

    Interesting. I imagine the media might lend support to this Cruz birther movement.

  • sloopyinca||

    When you think your full house is the best hand at the table, you wait for your opponent to keep tossing chips into the pot.

  • Calidissident||

    Hawaii became a state in 1959, Obama was born in 1961

  • sloopyinca||

    Whoops. It fell under the "both parents are citizens or the sole citizen parent must have resided in the US for at least 5 years after age 16". That law was in effect from 12/24/52 to 11/13/86.

    I don't really give a shit and I think the law itself is idiotic and outdated. He should be a natural-born citizen "by soil" in my opinion, but that wasn't the argument that was made on his behalf.

  • Tejicano||

    Another technical point - I'd say about as pointless but the truth - when Obama's mother gave up her US citizenship her minor children (that would be Barry) lost their citizenship too. So regardless of his birth status he technically is not a US citizen.

  • Calidissident||

    Tejicano, can you give a reliable link about Obama's mom giving up her citizenship, as well as a reliable link that confirms that that would indeed mean Barack lost his citizenship? This is the first time I've ever heard that, and I have a hard time believing this wouldn't have been bigger news if true. I'd appreciate it if you could give anything on this topic

  • Calidissident||

    "It fell under the "both parents are citizens or the sole citizen parent must have resided in the US for at least 5 years after age 16". That law was in effect from 12/24/52 to 11/13/86."

    I think that only applied to kids born abroad. The Court has held since the 1860s that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. That's why there was the conspiracy about him being born in Kenya.

  • General Butt Naked||

    A state has to marinate in the juices of freedom for at least 2 years before it being official. It's in the constitution.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Well, the Democrats were able to elect a president that was not born of woman at all, but forged from the black iron of the Kaaba itself that he might impose Sharia on all mankind. So they probably can't afford to get too snippy over dual citizenship.

  • Len Bias||

    He would only impose Sharia over all of mankind if it was OK with Putin.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    it was OK with Putin Valerie Jarrett

    FIFY.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    The Cruz birthers don't seem that serious yet, they just like to snark about the Obama Brither Tea Party loving a man born in socialist Canada.

    Of course that will definitely change if Cruz enters the primaries and starts to do well.

  • Pathogen||

    I'm sure DNC operatives sift through Cruz's garbage on a nightly basis..

  • Brett L||

    Nah, the Republican operatives do all the opposition research and cc the DNC. Can't have someone who didn't wait his turn.

  • Pathogen||

    The NSA will auction off all the dirt on Cruz, to the highest bidder of course...

  • Brandon||

    They're keeping it as a hole card.

  • ||

    Wait, I have been hearing all day that Cruz's fillibuster and the loooooooming government shutdown will be the death of the republicans because this strategy is wildly unpopular with voters. Shouldnt the moderate republicans be winning this poll? One GOPer, who did not want to be named, complained that ending the exemption for congresscritters would be hurtful to real, hardworking people and disrupt their lives. Shouldnt that guy be at the top of the poll?

  • Irish||

    Wait, I have been hearing all day that Cruz's fillibuster and the loooooooming government shutdown will be the death of the republicans because this strategy is wildly unpopular with voters.

    This has been the most hilariously delusional day I've seen the media have in a good long while. Well, at least since the gun control vote.

    Obamacare is more unpopular with more people than the shutdown is. If the Republicans manage to save us from Obamacare with this (admittedly unlikely) most people will be unbelievably happy. If the Republicans lose on this and Obamacare gets implemented, the ravages of this horrible law will get hung around the neck of every swing state Democrat in the country.

    Leaving the Obamacare aspect out of this equation makes absolutely no sense, which is obviously why the media keeps doing it.

  • Calidissident||

    "Obamacare is more unpopular with more people than the shutdown is. If the Republicans manage to save us from Obamacare with this (admittedly unlikely) most people will be unbelievably happy."

    I don't necessarily think this is the case (though I wish it was). The poll cited in this article shows that more people oppose cutting Obamacare funding as a condition of any deal than favor it. Nearly a third of people who support repeal think that the Republicans should nonetheless not shut down the government in an attempt to repeal it. I believe the poll in Welch's article earlier showed that 60-70% of people oppose a government shutdown. Obamacare may be unpopular, but it's not that unpopular.

    Note that I'm just giving a descriptive analysis here. I'm not saying poll numbers should be the primary driver of the behavior of politicians. That said, if I was the GOP, I would send the Senate a bill delaying Obamacare for a year, cutting spending, stop talking about cutting funding for OCare (momentarily) and portray the Dems as the rabid ideologues unwilling to compromise.

  • Irish||

    I believe the poll in Welch's article earlier showed that 60-70% of people oppose a government shutdown.

    Obamacare's disapproval rating is like 55%. The difference is that Obamacare has HUGE levels of strong disapproval. There is not the same level of searing hatred at the prospect of a government shutdown as most people opposed to Obamacare have of that law.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    There is also a difference in intensity between opposition to government shutdown and opposition to Obamacare, proportional to the amount in which both will affect voters in their day to day. Right now the feeling that I get is that voters mildly disapprove of shutdown, but that ObamaCare is truly loathed.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Right now the feeling that I get is that voters mildly disapprove of shutdown, but that ObamaCare is truly loathed.

    Shades of Pauline Kael?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    No, shades of understanding cardinal preference and understanding polls.

    Under what rubric or logical axioms would you assume that a bill with more impact on a person's well-being would be less strongly opposed/supported than a bill with less impact?

    The scheming of the eunuchs at the Porte is important to freaks like us who inundate ourselves in politics. To the extent that they matter to voters, it appears to be as an index of character (f.e., Newt's approval/disapproval didn't change substantially until the infamous plane ride meltdown: http://www.nydailynews.com/opi.....-1.1001582).

  • Irish||

    I don't even know what Bo is arguing here.

    Every poll where they break up strong disapproval versus mild disapproval shows that a large portion of the disapproval over Obamacare is of the strong variety.

    I have seen no similar public outcry against a government shutdown. The media is freaking out, but people are not marching in the street over this. That's in no way similar to Pauline Kael's Nixon quote since my argument is based on polling evidence as to Obamacare's unpopularity.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Irish, here is the most recent poll on the subject. It does not break down response by strength of agreement, but notice it actually puts the two things 'head to head,' with averting a government shutdown trouncing reversing the health care law.

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2.....rel10a.pdf

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The Pauline Kael moment comes from your key assumed premise that a government shutdown will have less impact on more person's well-being than Obamacare is (especially in the short term where much of Obamacare is not going to even be implemented).

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Uh, what? Name some specific ways in which a government shutdown will impact the average person's life materially. My assumption is not proven; it is deductively argued from the starting premises that a government action or inaction does not have impact unless otherwise proved and that substantial proof has been offered -- both by supporters and opponents of ObamaCare -- to show that the bill will have substantial impact on a person's life. That is not a "Pauline Kael moment" in the sense of assuming that my group of friends (which is, btw, more liberal than conservative) is similar to the voting pool.

    Here's what pisses people off about the way you debate things, Bo: you only occasionally offer arguments (which are characterized by some premises, propositions, inferences, and a conclusion), but you love to throw out leading question with unfavorable assumptions like they're candy. I don't know if you think it is useful in a Socratic sense, but it's mostly annoying since the questions you ask are not intended to refine thinking, but seem to be to snipe at people with a different view from your own. This question in particular is silly, since what Pauline Kael said is substantively distinct from what I am arguing.

    Feel free to make a counter-argument, btw. Counter-arguments don't annoy me; circular discussions with no point or fruitfulness do.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Name some specific ways in which a government shutdown will impact the average person's life materially.

    This is exactly the Pauline Kael moment.

    First of all, a lot of people simply work for the federal government, either directly or indirectly. I wish it were not so, you wish it were not so. But when they get furloughed they are and their families will feel it with a bit more immediacy than the rather vaguer effects of Obamacare.

    Second of all, a lot of people get some government benefit. Some may see no disruption, but they will be worried there will be. This is quite common as the electorate is, as I imagine you would agree, not well informed on what will continue and what will not. Either way, these people are the quintessential figures from public choice theory where benefits are concentrated to them while the costs are diffused among the populace. They are very active politically, especially when those benefits are threatened.

    You act as if you do not know such people. As a libertarian perhaps you do not associate with such people, or you do not 'see them' in the above categories. This is what I mean by the Pauline Kael moment, a bunch of libertarians sitting around saying 'of course no one will miss the government when it shuts down, I mean, I see it as pretty worthless!'

  • ||

    Actually Bo, the last time I remember a shut down there was the same tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth beforehand, but after it went into effect everyone calmed down. The vast majority saw no effect or only a slight nuisance, and I vaguely remember some in the media joking about it as a non-event.

    The opposite will happen with Obamacare.

    If you are looking for someone in a bubble and in denial, look to that jugeared fuckwit in the white house. He keeps lecturing to us about how much we are going to love it.

  • robc||

    Exactly.

    As I said in a thread earlier today, a friend of mine got pissed at the last government shutdown because he was declared "essential" at the last minute.

    He wanted the time off.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    robc, I would like to thank you for helping me with my Pauline Kael moment argument. Your comment here helps a great deal, thanks ;)

  • robc||

    That counters your argument.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Of course it does, robc. You know someone employed by the federal government who did not mind the last shutdown, so of course no one is going to be upset about this coming one. That certainly does undercut my claim of a Pauline Kael moment going on here (how could Nixon have won, no one I know voted for him!).

    Again, my thanks.

  • robc||

    Isnt the same at all.

    I suggested one piece of data.

    How you apply it is up to you.

    It only takes one counter-argument to prove that all government employees will be pissed. Which was my only point, dont assume its universal.

  • robc||

    disprove

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    a lot of people simply work for the federal government

    You're having your own Pauline Kael moment. According to BLS, the total percentage of people working for government is 7%. Of that percentage, most (~4-5%) work for state governments. Of the percentage that's left, most of these are DOD employees or military personnel. Finally, of the small percentage left (according to the OPM, about .6% of those currently employed). About 50-60% are estimated to be deemed "essential". The percentage of the workforce impacted is negligible.

    Second of all, a lot of people get some government benefit.

    You should read this, as you are apparently confused by what a government shutdown entails: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....will-work/

    Suffice it to say, that group is not very large.

    The problem seems to be that you are operating on assumptions, whereas I know what a government shutdown entails. The number of people to be affected outside DC is very, very small and largely localized to D constituencies. Assuming that it doesn't last for very long, most people will not notice it as most people do not make use of the services that will be shut down in any meaningful way.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    ObamaCare in contrast impacts every voting person in the country, and places obligations on every person over 26. It is substantially more impactful on the broad base of voters than a shutdown -- not in terms of feelings or general impressions, but in actual terms.

    Now please stop with the fucking leading questions and insinuations. It makes you seem like a jackass (removing the Esq. wouldn't hurt that, either).

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Much of Obamacare is going to be delayed. Some people will benefit from it, some will be negatively impacted. How many people realize the negative impact and appropriately locate it to Obamacare (rather than 'insurance companies' who for years have been seen as having incomprehensible billing practices and unpopular changes in service) remains to be seen.

    I certainly would like it if no one is bothered by a federal shutdown (and realizes we do not need 'non-essential services' to be done at all, ever again). I certainly would like it if Obamacare ushered in a wave of public anger. But the world rarely works in such a easy fashion (Romney quite publically campaigned to repeal Obamacare on his first day in office, but few voters seemed moved to vote for him and against his opponent).

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Much of Obamacare is going to be delayed. Some people will benefit from it, some will be negatively impacted.

    Goddamit, Bo. This is exactly the sort of statement that has made you an object of hatred around here. It is a statement which states nothing and reveals nothing -- *any* policy will benefit some and negatively impact others, something which any dumbass could have elucidated. Since we are on an anti-ObamaCare libertarian blog which has had many articles (and much polling) on the subject, I supposed you would have been acquainted with the many ways in which ObamaCare *significantly* and *negatively* impacts a broad base of people, starting with the penaltax and going down the list from there.

    As shown by polling, many people seem to have a strong view on ObamaCare based on its future impacts, many of which have been related to them by their employers, insurance agencies, and from picking up on the debate (which was almost unavoidable even for low-info voters).

    Once again, a member of the commentariat has made a substantive argument and -- even now -- you refuse to say for or against, and continue on with your asinine Socratic questions and your condescending suggestions regarding the character, or otherwise irrelevant bases, for a logical statement which could be proved or disproved.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That the law is going to benefit some is fairly important in judging its overall popularity and the amount of resentment which will translate into electoral victory. That, in combination with my other points, is hardly 'asinine Socratic questions' ( and I know you think this is cute [talk about condescending], but Jeez Louise there were not even any questions in my comment, much less 'Socratic' ones).

    You are convinced that the resentment about a law which will harm some but help others, which will be largely delayed in impact for quite a while, and which deals with an already complex area of the economy which has long been a chronic source of anger will somehow, among an electorate known for ignorance and apathy, suddenly bring forth concentrated, mass, sustained support for Cruz et al., actions to end it, but on the other hand the first government shut down in 17 years, which will be covered extensively by the media at the least with tiny violins aplenty, will of course be accepted as no big deal.

    Of course any disagreement with that much be 'asinine Socratic questioning.'

  • ||

    *must be

    This was darius404, doing his(?) utmost to bring substance to the conversation. You're welcome, plebes.

  • Calidissident||

    True. But almost all of those people are voting GOP anyways. And the number of people who dislike it, but not strongly, is enough to drive that number under 50%. I'm sure there are also a few leftists who dislike it for being corporatist and not sufficiently socialist. Most people are against raising the debt ceiling unconditionally, and most support spending cuts (as a general concept, at least). I think going for spending cuts, and a delay of Obamacare, is much more politically feasible (even ignoring public opinion) and would be more politically advantageous to the GOP than shutting down the government to try and defund Obamacare, which would IMO almost surely fail in the end, especially given the GOP's track record on these things. On top of that, it's definitely a step in the right direction from a libertarian POV

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It was a poll of Republican primary voters, not the general public.

    It was also done by the PPP which is fairly notorious for being a Democratic polling outfit.

  • sloopyinca||

    Fucking Banjos. She ordered me a couple of new action figures the other day on Amazon. I just got home and found this on the bar. The other is almost as bad.

  • sloopyinca||

  • ||

    *Snicker*

    My wife buys me rifles.

  • ||

    And really nice shirts.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm sorry, but the "I'm With Stupid" shirt you wear every Christmas is a bit of a joke around here.

  • ||

    Heh. I think you meant the one she wears.

  • Brandon||

    That's pretty lame, but we don't need the status-update/bragging preface to the comment, thanks.

  • sloopyinca||

    You know who else was a grammar nazi?

  • Brett L||

    Strunk and/or White?

  • Pathogen||

    Adolf Eichmann?

  • SIV||

    Go-balls
    had no balls
    at all!

    But he had a PhD in Kraut lit.

  • General Butt Naked||

    So I started reading John McAfee's blog today.

    It's pretty nuts. I recommend it.

  • Restoras||

    Holy mother of god. Olbermann is doing analysis on TBS. I'd love to se Pedro hurl a fastball at his face.

  • sloopyinca||

    Te Rangers epic collapse is almost complete. Just a couple more hours and it will all be...hold on, they're clawing back.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    MLBtv allows me to skip KO, but it's surprising that TBS thinks that this is any better than bringing Limbaugh into the booth for a postseason NFL game. There should be a massive old white republican uprising against having this guy anywhere near sports anymore.

  • Restoras||

    I just got a smart tv...looking forward to trying MLB.tv next season.

  • Dave Krueger||

    Don't worry. By 2016, every republican with any intellectual horsepower will be in disfavor, opening the door for the same kind of idiot clown show they had in 2012. After Bush, the only respectable move possible for republicans was to disband the party and beg forgiveness from the electorate for that embarrassing eight years. Needless to say, the republican party wouldn't know the respectable thing if they fell into a ocean of it.

  • Restoras||

    Lacks originality.

    D-

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    Very lame. And probably plagiarized. It's hard to tell, since you guys use the SAME FUCKING WORDS over and over.

    Go back and study this thread. Notice how what you said really didn't have anything to do with the conversation?

    Notice how you are attacking people who are not even on this thread? Notice how lame you sound?

    "Needless to say, the republican party wouldn't know the respectable thing if they fell into a ocean of it."

    All I'm saying is if you thought this was a clever line you should kill yourself.

  • Dave Krueger||

    Very lame. And probably plagiarized.

    I promise from now on I will try to aspire to the level of discourse exemplified by this rebuttal.

    Go back and study this thread. Notice how what you said really didn't have anything to do with the conversation?

    No thanks. While I always read the article, I rarely read or "study" all the comments under any article before I comment. I'm pretty certain I'm not alone on that. It's a pretty ridiculous suggestion on its face.

    Notice how you are attacking people who are not even on this thread?

    The article was about the rankings of potential 2016 presidential candidates and I related that field back to the 2012 candidate field. I was making an on-topic historical reference. Pretty simple, but possibly confusing for the less sophisticated.

    All I'm saying is if you thought this was a clever line you should kill yourself.

    Wow. How can I ever match your wit? This reminds me of people who constantly pick at grammar and spelling in message boards, hoping to exhibit their superiority.

    I personally don't care of you don't like that sentiment or think it's off topic, but it would be nice if you would at least put a little thought into your reply rather than just banging out whatever mindless knee-jerk response comes to mind. Wishful thinking, I know.

  • SIV||

  • G-dub||

    You guys, the government shut-down is nothing to be taken lightly:

    http://m.motherjones.com/polit.....y-everyone

    "Fountains: 45 will run out of water."

  • Irish||

    Military personnel: Barring last-minute congressional action, members of the armed forces would have their paychecks put on hold while they continue to work.

    This exemption was passed four hours ago.

    UPDATE THE POST, MOTHER JONES!

  • Irish||

    Gun owners: During the 1990s shutdown, applications for gun permits were delayed due to furloughs at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    This is beyond parody. Mother Jones is now telling me that I should be worried because people won't have guns?

  • PapayaSF||

    They are trying to say: "You crazy anti-government nuts, don't you see how much the government does even for the likes of you?"

  • G-dub||

    "People who use boats: The Coast Guard will cut back on routine patrols and navigation assistance."

    I don't know what's more hilarious about this, that Mother Jones has suddenly become an ardent defender of yuppie boat owners, or that they seem to think no one knows northwest from their asshole without the Coast Guard telling them.

  • Irish||

    I feel like this shitstorm of a thread should have "ABANDON ALL HOPE YE WHO ENTER HERE" emblazoned across the top so that people know what they're getting into.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Shades of Pauline Kael, Irish? Because why address an argument, when I can imply through leading questions that you're out of touch kook or (worse!) a conservative?

    I hesitate to put anyone on the troll list (as shown by how much time I've wasted on this thread), but I think Bo qualifies even if he is libertarian.

  • SIV||

    "Bo" is 100% sockpuppet-troll.Tulpa should show up and argue with him to throw us off the scent!

  • ||

    Hey, I called him 'the troll we deserve' weeks ago and was chastized for it.

    As trolls go he is pretty good, not like that lying idiot shreek or the fascist POS Tony.

  • Brett L||

    I like Shrike. He's just human enough to carry the act.

  • Pathogen||

    There's many a slip between cup and lip, I'm told. My crystal ball is far too murky to get worked up over the posturing amongst politicians jockeying for position so far out from 2016. A decisive progressive ass-whipping in 2014 midterms would settle some hash within the GOP, and begin to reveal who their actual contenders might be. The DNC will be forced to respond and choose their heir apparent, based on the nature and degree of said ass-whipping (as if we have to guess) and the GOP/RNC will attempt to respond in kind, by promoting their chosen candidate that they will claim the base had chosen, with a perceived chance of winning. I suspect that neither Paul nor Cruz are high on their (the GOP/RNC) list. One or two unforced errors on the primary campaign trail could destroy the viabilities of a Cruz, Paul, and even the milquetoast Christie... we shall see. Right now, the one-two of Paul and Cruz has the Progs off balance (much more than they will ever admit), and that's popcorn worthy entertainment right there...

  • Benjamin||

    I work for the government. There, I just came out. Feels good. Please don't kill me. I mean, I'm just a capitalist taking advantage of a good opportunity. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

    Also I won't be affected by the shutdown because my department has funds appropriated for 2 years at a time. Nanny nanny boo boo. Stick your head in doo doo.

  • PapayaSF||

    My prediction/daydream for 2016: Scott Walker/Rand Paul.

    Walker for real governing experience, and for facing down the left and the unions in a pretty lefty state, which of course not only survived his policies, but is doing pretty well.

    Paul for the obvious reasons, but he's just a new senator, and we all know that knew senators are often terrible at governing.

  • SIV||

    The GOP should NEVER nominate a candidate who can't deliver his home state. That disqualifies the worst of 'em.

  • PapayaSF||

    Why are you so sure Walker couldn't deliver his home state?

  • Killazontherun||

    VP is warm piss. Obama put Biden there to remove a cranky center left old guard Democrat from the Senate and allow something more modern and neoStalinistic for his liking to take his place.

  • Calidissident||

    "Paul for the obvious reasons, but he's just a new senator, and we all know that knew senators are often terrible at governing."

    To whatever extent that's true, how much of it is actually due to that reason? There have only been three sitting senators to get elected POTUS. Harding is much-maligned by historians, but I actually think he did a pretty good job. Kennedy wasn't great by any means, but there have definitely been worse. Obviously Obama is terrible. But so were Bush and Carter, and they were governors.

    Ceteris paribus, I'd probably prefer a governor, but the gap between Paul and Walker in how libertarian they are is simply far too great IMO for that to outweigh it. Not to mention, I don't think Walker will run, and if he does, I think Paul has a much better shot at winning.

  • Killazontherun||

    Harding is much-maligned by historians, but I actually think he did a pretty good job.

    My second favorite prezzy after Cleveland.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I agree with all of this. For all the praise that has (deservedly) been heaped on Coolidge, Harding was just as good -- if not better.

  • Brett L||

    Walker is really only good on that issue (which makes him better than most, but he's Christie-esque on most everything else as best I can tell). Although, I met him last year at an event and he has some game in the flesh-pressing department. At least as much as GWB, who I met about '95, which would be an analagous time line.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement