Rand Paul: "Republicans Will Not Win Again" Without Total "Transformation"

Do you agree with Sen. Rand Paul? As noted at Reason 24/7, the libertarian Kentucky Republican told Glenn Beck that

“I think Republicans will not win again in my lifetime … unless they become a new GOP, a new Republican Party,” Paul said evenly. “And it has to be a transformation. Not just a little tweaking at the edges.”...

The primary goal, Paul said, is to present the “ideas of liberty” to everyone.

“There are many people who are open among all these disaffected groups, who really aren’t steadfast supporters of Obama or an ideology,” Paul asserted. “I think they’re open to listening, but we have to have a better message and a better presentation of it.”

More clips and context here.

No national politician has done a better job over the past few years of presenting ideas about limiting the size, scope, and spending of the federal government than Paul (whom Reason magazine dubbed "the most interesting man in the Senate"). From his repeated attempts to cut the federal budget by $500 billion in five years to his epic filibuster on drone policy to calling for a new approach to foreign policy to pushing industrial hemp, Paul is a standing challenge not just to the GOP establishment but to the larger Washington establishment. He's made more than a few missteps so far and he's far from perfect, but he's looking sharper and sharper from a limited-government perspective.

In 2013, Reason TV covered reactions to Paul's speech about race at Washington, D.C.'s Howard University:

 

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 Late P Brooks||

    IMPURE! IMPURE!

    BURN HIM!

  • mr simple||

    I like his answer to why he endorsed McConnell: when he was asked, McConnell had no opponent.

  • bassjoe||

    I hope you're being sarcastic: it was a dodgy answer. When Paul endorsed McConnell, there were (loud) noises of a primary challenge and Paul could have chosen to wait to see who emerged.

    Fact of the matter, should Paul run for president, he's going to need McConnell and his network of rich/influential people of the Republican establishment to beat what is sure to be a crowded primary field and the Democratic nominee.

    We're going to see Paul making more of these decisions and compromises as 2016 gets closer.

  • mr simple||

    I just meant I thought his answer was funny. Of course he was equivocating because he needs McConnell in his pocket and needs to be seen as anti-establishment. Don't take everything so seriously, guy.

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    I'm not your guy, friend.

  • trig||

    I'm not your friend, buddy...

  • gaoxiaen||

    Maybe we need a libertarian Roosevelt or Truman. Compromise and get something instead of wailing and gnashing our teeth. Maybe we could just get a slipper stamping on our faces.

  • Jonathan G||

    I want him to run! Just announce already!

  • Mike M.||

    The republicans may not ever again with or without total transformation of the party, if the majority of the country demands welfare more than they demand real liberty.

    And there's more and more evidence that we're distressingly close to that point, despite what some of the Pollyannas would like to believe.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Here's an idea: leave or kill yourself if it's that dire. I can lend you a weapon if need be.

  • EJ Raines||

    Missed your enema again this morning, eh?

  • Mike M.||

    Fuck off Randian.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    So, Glock or shotgun?

  • Dead or In Jail||

    If you use a shotgun, you get to sit next to Kurt Cobain in heaven.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Or you end up like Arseface, rock star and hero to the downtrodden!

  • SugarFree||

    AHHHHHHHFAAAAAAAAA!

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Man, to be as talented as Gene Sergeant.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Next to van Gogh, too, though I think Cobain would be more pleasant company.

  • Mike M.||

    Did your appletini not taste good this weekend, or did it not come with a little pink umbrella in it?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    It tasted good...like your mom.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Like fish?

  • juris imprudent||

    Not just welfare, but the power to fuck with other people's lives - over one thing or another.

    Those of us who truly just want to let people live their own lives, we aren't that many. Reality is a bitch.

  • Thomas O.||

    There seems to be too many "there oughta be a law" types on both sides. We gotta reach the youngsters and educate them about how much better things would be if "live and let live" was the dominant mantra.

  • MJGreen||

    OK, but the problem Paul mentions remains: the Republicans need to start offering "real liberty."

  • thom77||

    Wake up, comrade.

    'Liberty' no longer means 'self determination'.

    It now means 'being taken care of from cradle to grave by the welfare state so you can live a childlike, carefree existence without having to worry about keeping a job or any social responsibility beyond voting for more welfare, even if it means relinquishing most of your individual rights to the federal government'.

    We're not offering liberty to these people, we're offering hard work and sacrifice and the possibility of personal failure.

  • Jerryskids||

    What concerns me is the idea that 'the Republicans may never win again' when they held the House last time - and even then there were those who said Obama winning re-election provided a mandate that the GOP winning the House did not - suggests to me that we are talking specifically about winning the Presidency because that's all that matters. Are we so far into an Imperial Presidency that even champions of Constitutional government admit that all power lies with the Executive?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Yeah, no shit. If the control 2/3rds of each House and the Supreme Court, who the hell cares about the Presidency?

  • ||

    Perhaps you have not heard of this thing called the bureaucracy that is administered by the Executive branch.

  • RoughRugger||

    Wait, really? The reason winning the House wasn't a mandate has little to do with the power of the executive. The GOP may have won a majority of seats in the House, but the only reason they were able to do so was because GOP-controlled state legislatures had gerrymandered the congressional districts so ridiculously. Democrat House candidates, in total, got more than a million more votes than GOP candidates, roughly 49%, yet the GOP won 54% of the seats.

    Besides which, Paul WAS asked & talking specifically about winning the presidency...watch the interview: http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....e-country/

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    the gerrymander thing is a total myth. How did they win a majority of the governorships? what are you going to say if they take the majority in the Senate?

    Democrat House candidates, in total, got more than a million more votes than GOP candidates, roughly 49%, yet the GOP won 54% of the seats.

    so fucking what? that just means that Democratic districts, some of them, have higher populations than Republican ones. Or, maybe they just have higher turnout. That is not evidence of gerrymandering.

    it's shameful you get your talking points from Salon. Be embarrassed for yourself.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I don't entirely believe that. Yes, there's a lot of pro-welfare voters out there. But, let's be honest, what alternative did they have? McCain? Romney? Bush? Dole? These guys fundamentally believed that statism was right, that we should just go a little slower. None of them managed to make a clear, consistent and reasonable case for freedom as an alternative model. Because, fundamentally, none of them believed in freedom as an alternative.

  • Lord Humungus||

    You know who else wanted to totally transform the party?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Dick Clark?

  • An Innocent Man||

    The guys who spiked the punch?

  • Swiss Servator, mehr Käse!||

    The inventors of the disco ball?

  • ||

    Hrundi V. Bakshi?

  • TANSTaaFL||

    THE Governor

  • ArbutusJoe||

    Max Webster?

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    Frank The Tank?

  • Archie Bunker||

    Jesse the Body!

  • gaoxiaen||

    The B-52's?

  • eyeroller||

    I like how conservatives are really latching on to the phrase "limited government".

    It's great, because it can mean almost anything. Just keep babbling about "limited government" and you can't go wrong!

  • bassjoe||

    It's limited to just women's vaginas.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I am glad a majority of women oppose the government either interference with, or subsidisation of, the acts of their vaginas.

  • GregMax||

    Nobody gives a shit about their vaginas, tool. They don't care what goes in one; they don't care if you vagazzle it or trim the hair over it or let the Boston Philharmonic play the 1812 Overture in it. The SOLE issue is that of the welfare of the fetus/child.
    "Oh, you mean the clump of cells?"
    And no man who has active balls stands up for a woman's right to "regulate her vagina."

  • RoughRugger||

    The GOP is only interested in that fetus/child until it comes OUT of said vagina...then it's an "anchor baby" or part of a welfare queen's brood or some other flavor of "drain on the system". The sophistry used to justify the "pro-life" stance that's really only pro-fetus is mind boggling.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    oh hi Joan Walsh. How's life at the asylum?

  • GregMax||

    "The GOP is only interested . . . "
    Really, your response is some talking points bullshit that rehashes how they (whoever the hell "they" are) don't have feelings of compassion for anyone but a fetus.
    I'm not even making a point about the "GOP". I'm saying that the issue isn't about controlling a woman's UTERUS (the vagina is nothing more than a sperm repository) but about the right of an unborn person to be represented by someone other than liberal idiots and a frightened woman.
    Why don't people argue against that point? Oh, I know because that isn't sexy.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I'm happy if they regulate it to the point that it doesn't cost me any cash. If they want fire and brimstone for eternity, that's their own personal choice.

  • ||

    The idea of 'limited government' you so deride is not exclusively a conservative one.

    It's a concept that stretches back to the Age of Reason and if you cared to actually read about it you'd know there are concrete examples of what constitutes limited government.

  • Almanian!||

    Wow - for an Age called "Reason"...

  • Swiss Servator, mehr Käse!||

    DRINK!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Some of us have been having an ongoing discussion, where I've been talking about the importance of swing voters while some of you have been clinging to the notion that Romney carrying independents by some margin in the last election means something positive for social conservatives.

    Someone else, not me, piped up that many of the independents who supported Romney were former Republicans who had recently been pushed out of the Republican Party by social conservatives, the polices of Bush, etc., and I buy into that...

    But what I'd really like to get across is that even if Romney did carry true independents nationally--despite all the social conservatism--it wasn't enough to win.

    The Republicans don't need a majority of swing voters in Arizona and South Carolina to win. Those states were going to break Republican anyway--and carrying a majority of the swing vote there was meaningless. The Republicans need a majority of swing voters in states like Ohio and Florida to win.

    In other words, winning a majority of the independent voters nationally, many of whom were Tea Party sympathizers, didn't mean shit. Taking the presidency means winning in states where being against gay marriage may be seen by swing voters as less appealing than picking your nose in public.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It helped that Romney was the absolute worst politician of the last half century (if not longer) and that he ran on nothing other than his resume, which wasn't applicable to high government office anyway.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I think if Romney ran on an "I know how to fix Obamacare" platform for 2016, he'd win the election. Especially if he took Paul as his VP.

  • LarryA||

    If, of course, there existed a way to "fix" the ACA.

    Ron Paul would go crazy in the VP "job."

  • Calidissident||

    I'm pretty sure he means Rand Paul

  • Killaz||

    They had little choice but to run the cleanest guy in politics. Have you noticed Team Obama has always had full access to the private records of his opposition? Chocolate Nixon, indeed.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Remember how Cain's affair with that broad was discovered?

    Sounded an aweful lot like someone was looking at the meta data of his cell phone.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You're just making that up whole cloth.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It is almost as if Kenny here has a thing for gays, and is willing to deny reality to do so.

    (He used Florida as an example of a state that Republicans could lose if they oppose gay "marriage". In 2008, over sixty percent of those who voted voted for a state amendment that not only banned state recognition of gay "marriage", but also civil unions. that same year, Barack Obama won Florida's electoral votes. It is pretty clear how swing voters feel about state recognition of gay marriage there.)

    Further belying Kenny's claims is the complete absence of any attack ads against a statewide candidate anywhere (let alone swing states) for opposing gay marriage.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, Prop 187 passed in California, too by a wide margin. ...and the GOP has been trying to live it down ever since--to the point that the only Republican who could win the governorship in California was himself an immigrant!

    As a matter of fact, Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, recently passed in California, too. Do you imagine that makes banning gay marriage a winning issue for Republicans in California? To the contrary, it simply added more kerosene to the charge that the Republicans are a bunch of bigots!

    "It is almost as if Kenny here has a thing for gays, and is willing to deny reality to do so."

    The intransigence of establishment Republicans on an issue that doesn't have any meaningful effects in the real world--except to further deny the Republicans a seat at the policy table--is an excellent example of denying reality.

    In trying to get the Republicans to jettison their silly hatred of what other people do with their junk, I'm trying to get a more Republican government in place to do things like slash taxes, slash spending, get rid of ObamaCare, etc.

    What are you trying to accomplish by using the government to discriminate against gay people? Do you imagine they'll stop having sex if they can't get married?

    And you accuse me of denying reality?!

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    All you're doing is projecting your own desires onto the electorate.

    The pundit’s fallacy is that belief that what a politician needs to do to improve his or her political standing is do what the pundit wants substantively. So progressive populists think that Barack Obama would have higher approval ratings if he acted more like Ed Schultz while establishmentarian centrists think his ratings would go up if he acted more like David Broder. The truth, of course, is that politics doesn’t work this way.
  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Republicans could swing tomorrow in full favor of gay marriage and the War on Women / War on Minorities narrative would continue without missing a beat. Please try to tell me you believe otherwise.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Example #1: Romney tries to go to the NAACP, and it turns out badly no matter what he had to say

    Example #2: Romney talks about hiring women, and all we hear about is "binders full of women"

    Example #3: Sandra Fluke full on lies on the Hill, but somehow it turns into an attack on Rush, which turns into an attack on Mitt Romney the fucking moderate.

    This will never, ever end as long as the LIVs are, well, low information. I had a girl say to me the other day, "Why can't the Republicans just have nominated John Huntsman instead of a Tea Partier like Mitt Romney?"

    Yes, these people are that fucking retarded.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Being pro-gay is not a winning issue in swing states at least. It is true that Vice President Dick Cheney certainly reduced opposition to gay marriage, such that even those who oppose gay marriage for whatever reason will vote for officials who do.

    But a quadruple amputee has enough digits to count the number of attack ads blasting a statewide candidate for opposing gay marriage, or even gays in general.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    To the contrary, it simply added more kerosene to the charge that the Republicans are a bunch of bigots!


    And yet, there were no attack ads on the subject.



    What are you trying to accomplish by using the government to discriminate against gay people?


    Trying to get swing voters to vote for them.

    We all now how swing voters in Florida (the state you used in your example) voted in 2008. Florida requires 60% for constitutional amendments to be enacted, thus guaranteeing that a majority of swing voters must support an amendment for it to pass.

  • Brandon||

    Do we all now how to spell "know?"

  • Response||

    California is liberal - that doesn't mean it's into liberty.

  • RoughRugger||

    "In 2008, over sixty percent of those who voted voted for a state amendment that not only banned state recognition of gay "marriage", but also civil unions. that same year, Barack Obama won Florida's electoral votes. It is pretty clear how swing voters feel about state recognition of gay marriage there."

    You're really using info from 6 years ago to argue this point? Public support for marriage equality has changed DRASTICALLY in that time. Florida approved their anti-gay amendment by 60% in '08, but polls now show that support in FL FOR marriage equality has grown to upwards of 54%. Nationally, opposition to equality in '08 polled at ~54%...today, it's next to impossible to find any national poll where SUPPORT for marriage equality isn't solidly the majority position.

    As for those numbers & President Obama, remember that in '08, he was NOT in favor of marriage equality...or don't you recall his quote in '10 about how he was against it but was "evolving"? It was only in May '12 that he came out in favor of marriage equality.

    No, I believe Ken's point is quite valid: it's going to be difficult for any candidate with a solidly anti-gay position on marriage equality to win many (if not all) of those all-important swing states.

  • ||

    Needs moar EQWALITY!

  • LarryA||

    If all a Democratic candidate has to do is whisper, for instance, "choice" and a Republican spouts off how abortion should be denied rape survivors because women's bodies will prevent conception if they're "really raped," attack ads become redundant.

    You really don't need to pay for attack ads on someone who campaigns on "Gay men have equal rights to marry any woman they want to." Particularly since the MSM will haul your water for you.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Taking the presidency means winning in states where being against gay marriage may be seen by swing voters as less appealing than picking your nose in public.


    There you go again, claiming that embracing gay marriage is the only weay for Republicans to win.

    If a swing voters in a state see opposition to gay marriage as "less appealing than picking your nose in public", then those states would have enacted gay marriage by overwhelming margins. This is not true in any swing state. At least five swing states have constitutional bans on state recognition of gay marriage. (These states include Ohio and Florida, which you had mentioned.) And even the one swing state that passed gay marriage passed it by a narrow margin, and there is no evidence a majority of supporters of gay marriage (let alone swing voters) there believe that opposition to gay marriage is as " less appealing than picking your nose in public".

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    On the other side of the coin, though, I don't anticipate those bans lasting another decade, so I would say that Ken may have something when it comes to this very small issue. But Ken seems to think that "SoConism" in general is defined only by that very small issue. It's not, and social conservatism among the public is pretty complicated still.

    Ken is committing the classic Pundit's Fallacy, much as I hate to invoke Sadbeard.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    But Ken seems to think that "SoConism" in general is defined only by that very small issue. It's not, and social conservatism among the public is pretty complicated still.


    this is correct.

    I can not recall an ad attacking a statewide candidate for opposing gay marriage.

    another fallacy in Kenny's arguments is that support for gay marriage equates opposition to those who oppose gay marriage. There is no evidence that this is true.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "But Ken seems to think that "SoConism" in general is defined only by that very small issue."

    Absolutely not.

    But I think it makes for an excellent example.

    If establishment Republicans aren't willing to compromise on an issue--that has no meaningful effects in the real world--then that exposes their stupid intransigence for what it is.

    Gay marriage was simply a wedge issue. Some people thought it was useful as a wedge issue for a while--to the point that Bill Clinton signed legislation, effectively, against gay marriage in an attempt to rob Republicans of the value of that wedge issue. ...but it never should have been any more than an election ploy.

    And this is typical of social conservatives. Put them in office, set them up in a place where they can slash taxes and cut spending, and what do they do? They start talking about terrorism, Terry Schaivo, late term abortions, the culture of death, DRUG WARZ, and gay marriage.

    Fuck the social conservatives. They're bigger enemies of smaller government, less taxes and less spending than the Democrats, and the Republicans will never move forward on any of those important issues so long as the social conservatives retain their influence in the Republican Party.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I like how you think the majority of America thinks like you do about terrorism, Terry Schiavo, late-term abortions, and the Drug War. I like it because it shows you're a total idiot.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I like how you think the majority of America thinks like you do about terrorism, Terry Schiavo, late-term abortions, and the Drug War."

    Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

    Except I was talking about swing voters in swing states instead of the majority of America.

    ...and I didn't make the statement you're referring to in reference to voters at all; I was talking about what socially conservative, Republican politicians do when they get a majority in Congress.

    But other than that? That's exactly what I said.

    LOL

    "I like it because it shows you're a total idiot."

    You seem to care about this so much--don't you have anything of substance to say about it?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    You have no data to back up your claims. None.

    Except I was talking about swing voters in swing states instead of the majority of America.

    Did it ever occur to you that by going after swing voters in one place, you wind up alienating what used to be a reliable block somewhere else?

    Did you flunk Political Science?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Fuck the social conservatives. They're bigger enemies of smaller government, less taxes and less spending than the Democrats, and the Republicans will never move forward on any of those important issues so long as the social conservatives retain their influence in the Republican Party."

    You know what social conservatives remind me of?

    The unions in Detroit.

    They'd rather see the city turned into ashes than compromise.

    Except the social conservatives are even worse!

    The unions in Detroit are at least trying to keep their own pockets lined!

    The social conservatives are trying to keep gay people from getting married for no meaningful reason.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Ken, go look at some polling on late-term abortion, the Drug War, and terrorism, and then get back to me. You're operating in an information-free atmosphere right now.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    That is the kind of atmosphere he has.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You seem to be operating in a results free atmosphere.

    You understand that short term wins can be long term losses, right?

    I don't know what polls you're referring to, but if polls are showing that people are against drug abuse, don't like murdering babies outside the womb, and aren't especially enamored of terrorists and terrorism--that this means the Republicans being seen as war mongers, drug warriors, and religious fanatics makes them popular with swing voters in swing states?

    It doesn't work that way.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Ken, you have no data and all you're doing is projecting your own fantasies onto the electoral map. It's childish.

    Ask any liberal what the Democratic Party needs to do to capture swing votes and they'll say "Be More Liberal"

    Ask any conservative what the Republican Party needs to do to capture swing votes they'll say, "Be More Conservative".

    And here you are, doing the same thing. You're basically saying, "Be More Like Ken Shultz". Grow the hell up, Mary Sue.

  • Robert||

    While the truth in most cases is that all parties need to be more moderate. And in any given election, any party without an incumbent needs to nominate a candidate with a gimmick.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Isn't it possible, though, that the winner will be the one who can best make the case for liberalism/conservatism/Ken Shultz? In that case, it's probably going to be someone who actually believes that.

  • SusanM||

    The problem is not necessarily that they're focusing on SSM (to pick the issue I'm most familiar with) but that they're doing so with so many other issues pressing.

    Whether you agree or disagree with the issue, it's a "first world" problem. People outside the beltway are worried about what's going to happen to them legally and financially in the future. There's a lot of big personal issues on the table. And there's the Republican party spending time and money making apocalyptic predictions about the moral fabric of America so that Bruce and Lance can't claim spousal benefits.

    I suppose that when it comes to terrorism there's a similar dynamic in place. There haven't been many terrorist incidents since 9/11 but there are thousands of people with whom the TSA has played gonad maracas with or who've been screwed by the government with "turrusm" used as a get-out-of-jail-free card excuse. Ditto the WoD, come to that. The point is, when the cure becomes worse than the disease it's time to step back and the Repubs just won't.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    to repeat myself, you're just projecting your own desires onto the electorate.

    And there's the Republican party spending time and money making apocalyptic predictions about the moral fabric of America so that Bruce and Lance can't claim spousal benefits.

    Mitt Romney and John McCain ran on the economy and both got pasted. Neither is a Social Conservative. As a matter of fact, pick a Republican candidate who wasn't a social conservative and he always gets pasted. Bush the moderate? Clobbered by Clinton. Dole? Ditto.

  • SusanM||

    And Mitt and John were the only Republicans running those years?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Republicans control 30 governorships and have veto-proof state legislature majorities in 14 states. They control the House of Representatives, and that's not going to change 2014. They'll almost certainly gain seats in the Senate. They (arguably) control the Supreme Court. Tell me again how Republicans' current state of affairs is just oh-so-awful.

    And Mitt and John were the only Republicans running those years?

    We were talking about Presidential candidates, but we can do this dance all day on other races. I know Rick Santorum is like OOGA BOOGA to you guys around here, but he was a one-off.

  • SusanM||

    So we were. Both Mitt and John have some serious SoCon cred behind them. Not so much Mitt, although he does have strong ties to the LDS church (strong as in having held an active leadership role in the Massachusetts branch for a few years) and McCain's pick for VP was a definite play to the SoCon base.

  • grrizzly||

    In what way was Palin a play to the SoCons? I'm not sure that stirring up the irrational hatred of her by the so-called SoLibs qualifies.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    your best is "strong ties to the LDS church"? lol, Susan.

    Barack Obama had strong ties to a black church. Somehow he didn't get pasted as a SoCon. Why is that?

  • SusanM||

    Because Obama wasn't "Bishop of the Ward" for about 8 years.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    There is precisely zero evidence that Romney's religion had anything to do with his loss. None.

  • SusanM||

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics.....d=13930797

    In a recent(2011) Pew Research poll, one out of every four voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he or she were Mormon.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    That's still not evidence, Susan. Also, your roundabout point was that Romney is a SoCon because he's a Mormon, and being a Mormon and ergo a SoCon cost him votes. You're way, way thin on evidence all around, and you can't even demonstrate that Mormon = SoCon.

  • SusanM||

    You're way, way thin on evidence all around, and you can't even demonstrate that Mormon = SoCon.

    ...the millions spent by the LDS to oppose SSM across the US notwithstanding, right?

  • Robert||

    They got pasted because they ran against a candidate with a gimmick. There's nobody the Republicans put up who could've done much better, and few they could've nominated who could've done much worse. It was all about Obama, for or against, and nobody paid att'n to who his opponent was.

  • Dead or In Jail||

    How can you say that Gay marriage has no effect in the real world?

    Both gays and anti-gays (and roughly 100% of heterosexual liberals) believe the opposite.

    Marriage--at the very least whether we have less or more of it--matters.

  • SusanM||

    It has a real effect if you've been evicted or arrested over a selectively enforced 200 year-old law against "cohabitating couples". But not so much otherwise.

    There are 13 states where SSM is allowed. Sure, there are anti-discrimination laws to be used and abused, but leaving that aside, what has anyone lost?

  • TPL||

    Amen.

  • Rasilio||

    The real point is that gay marriage is not an issue which is a winning issue for either side because it mostly appeals to each party's base and not independents.

    The reason it is a losing issue for Republicans is because it keeps the narrative off of the issues on which they win.

    Republicans don't need to support gay marriage, they just need to stop talking about it on a national level. If asked the correct response should sound something like...

    "I understand this issue is one of deep importance to many individuals on both sides, however in the end it is a personal issue and we have far more serious issues to deal with on a societal level first. For the time being we should let this issue be debated in the states while the Federal government focuses on solving problems like our structural deficit and making the world a safer place for people of all nationalities"

  • Vincent Milburn||

    It's interesting, but from what I've been reading, social issues are becoming divorced. The pro-life movement is slowly winning whereas the traditional marriage movement is rapidly losing.

  • Rasilio||

    I see no evidence of this. I think more and more Americans are coming to a consensus of aborting being legal up to about 20 - 23 weeks and severely restricted or banned after that.

    That would be far more of a victory for the pro choice side than the Pro life side.

  • Dead or In Jail||

    And it has to be a transformation. Not just a little tweaking at the edges.

    And yet, what's his Big Idea? It's "opportunity zones." Tax-breaks for the inner-city in order to win over (some of) the Black vote.

    Jack Kemp had this idea in the mid-'80s. Do you know what the difference was? He called them "Enterprise zones." The resulting Black-GOP electoral alliance can be judged on its own merits.

    Guess what, the idea was implemented in NJ (and surely in other places, too). In Elizabeth, Newark, Camden, etc., shoppers who come in from out of state can benefit from 3.5% sales tax instead of, say, 8.25% in New York.

    The New Jersey Republican Party is, um, not exactly dominating the urban core of New Jersey.

    Rand Paul is a blow-up doll, hollow.

    Demand nothing less than THOMAS MASSIE FOR PRESIDENT. Accept no alternatives.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If Rand Paul doesn't represent a substantive change from the establishment Republicans, then the establishment Republicans should have no problem lining up behind him.

  • TANSTaaFL||

    "If Rand Paul doesn't represent a substantive change from the establishment Republicans, then the establishment Republicans should have no problem lining up behind him."

    Well said!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Jack Kemp had this idea in the mid-'80s. Do you know what the difference was? He called them "Enterprise zones." The resulting Black-GOP electoral alliance can be judged on its own merits."

    Did you imagine Jack Kemp was going to undo all the damage the GOP had done to itself in the eyes of black voters all by himself?

    The results of the GOP completely abandoning the black vote can be judged on its own merits, too.

    Meanwhile, libertarian ideas are at the forefront of things that matter to black voters. Hasn't the NAACP only recently seen the light on the Drug War?

    Why did it take them so long to come to the same conclusion as William F. Buckley?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Did you imagine Jack Kemp was going to undo all the damage the GOP had done to itself in the eyes of black voters all by himself?

    What damage?

    Nixon is the one that created affirmative action, expanded the welfare state, started racial set asides in government contracting and oversaw the whole forced bussing fiasco.

    Whose presidency was better for black people - Reagan's or Carters? Bush or Obama?

    Face it, black people have been propagandized into voting tribal loyalty over their own self interest. I really don't see how republicans can counter that. Remember Romney going to the NAACP and being excoriated for not pandering to them?

  • Dead or In Jail||

    Face it, black people have been propagandized into voting tribal loyalty

    To be fair, everyone votes in their "tribal interest." It doesn't matter whether you're a software developer or an oilfield roughneck, the question for everyone in mass democracy is Who's going to act in the best interests of People Like Me?

    From a strategic perspective, the GOP should give up on trying to win the Black vote. They lost it in 1964 w/Goldwater after he voted against the (flawed) civil rights bill and then LBJ enacted a whole bunch of stuff (e.g., 1965 voting rights act) and then we went on an incarceration binged and finally--the last nail in the coffin--the Dems won the race and annointed our first caramel-chocolate President. Too bad he's a chameleon and a fraud and a clown. (Other than that, I have nothing against the guy--except his disgraceful attempts at throwing out the first pitch. What a pussy. Also, drones. And healthcare debacle.)

    The GOP needs to fight for the votes of Asian-Americans and Latinos. Those are groups you can at least fight for.

    The Black Electorate, overall, views the GOP less favorably than cancer.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "From a strategic perspective, the GOP should give up on trying to win the Black vote."

    The GOP shouldn't give up on the black vote any more than McDonalds should stop using black people in its advertising.

    Even if no black person would ever vote for free trade, low taxes, and less spending (which is false), there are tons of people in this world--who are not black--who find "diversity" appealing.

    And if they think the Republicans don't value "diversity", whatever that means, then they don't want anything to do with the Republican Party.

    Just as soon as white urban kids, Asian kids, Latino kids, Pacific-Islander kids, just as soon as they all stop dancing to and emulating black artists? From a purely strategic marketing perspective--that's when the GOP might think about abandoning the black vote.

  • ||

    Ken is hip with the jive of the kids in this generation, you see.

  • Dead or In Jail||

    Your indictment of Nixon is technically true but lacks context.

    Nixon, bizarrely, didn't really care about domestic policy. He was Peak Cold War President.

    Somewhere, out on the Internet, you can find a very insightful quote from RMN where he talks about doing things just "to keep the whole damn country from blowing the hell up." (paraphrased, but blowing up was there)

    So Nixon instituted Affirmative Action but then kinda backed off. He appointed the Shafer Commission but then disavowed its calls to legalize marijuana; he declared the Drug War but persecuted it more softly than, say, Clinton. He also presided over higher marginal taxes than Clinton and took US completely off the gold standard (finishing the work that was started in '33).

    If you want to understand Nixon, look at his perspective on foreign affairs and not his incoherent domestic policy.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Meanwhile, libertarian ideas are at the forefront of things that matter to black voters. Hasn't the NAACP only recently seen the light on the Drug War?

    Ken, I have some bad news for you: a lot of times the War on Drugs is amped up in certain neighborhoods because the residents of the neighborhood want it to be. You act like the police just run amok inflicting this level of control on the neighborhood without anyone having asked them to. That's just not true.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Did I mention the NAACP has come out against the Drug War?

    Oh, as a matter of fact, I did!

    In the black neighborhoods I lived in, the police were seen as an occupation force.

    I don't claim to speak for black voters everywhere, but I doubt there are many black people out there who think that the Drug War isn't bad news for black communities.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    oooh, the NAACP, how compelling. Look out guys, the NAACP said something, so All Black People Everywhere Must Believe It.

    Are you serious?

    I don't claim to speak for black voters everywhere

    Bullshit. That's exactly what you're doing and you're failing miserably.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Um, no, I'm citing the NAACP.

    http://www.naacp.org/news/entr.....r-on-drugs

    You want a way back into the black vote that the Democrats have neglected?

    There's your issue.

    If black civil rights organizations are leading the charge against the Drug War, and that's an issue that the Republican were out in front of--as far back as the days of William F. Buckley?

    Then that's an issue the Republicans should definitely pursue. Making common cause with the NAACP on an issue that the Democrats have neglected makes so much sense, it's ridiculous.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Why do you assume that all black people support the NAACP's stance on the War on Drugs?

    Because you hilariously equate the NAACP with black people, that's why. It's hilarious because it's so whitebread of you.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Seriously, Ken, who the hell appointed NAACP the pope of black people? Where do you get your perspective on black people, The Cosby Show?

  • Ken Shultz||

    My contention remains that the Drug War is something that matters to black voters, and that the Republican Party would do well for themselves, with black voters and others, by adopting a stance against the Drug War.

    If they did so in the name of civil rights, then I think that would be a stroke of marketing genius.

    You only seem to be harping on the idea that I think I can speak for black people everywhere becasue I said that wasn't what I was doing--I was citing the NAACP.

    Maybe you're getting a little punch drunk?

    Yeah, I think the NAACP has a pretty good idea about what black people care about, and I think a lot of black people have a fairly high opinion of the NAACP.

    That doesn't mean I think I'm talking for black people--it just means I'm normal.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    My contention remains that the Drug War is something that matters to black voters

    And the only thing you have to prove that is the NAACP, so your argument is just circular nonsense. A lot of black people, just like a lot of people of every other color, support the War on Drugs, Ken. When are you going to wake up to that reality?

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    I don't think that being pro-WoD gets the GOP any black votes. Being anti-WoD may.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    In the black neighborhoods I lived in, the police were seen as an occupation force.

    Except, why do you think black people are somehow immune to irrational and contradictory desires? They could easily view the police as an occupation force and still want them to "stop the drug dealers".

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It is rational if one believes the police are the lesser evil.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    I always liked the idea of enterprise zones, which you misrepresent in your post.
    It's not about lower sales taxes for shoppers, it's about giving people incentives to open businesses in shitty neighborhoods.
    Taken to its extreme, in shit holes like Newark and Camden it's better to just give a vacant lot for free to someone and have them build a business than to just let the lot sit there.
    Unfortunately, lefties control the type of neighborhoods this would help, so this is considered a giveaway to the rich and pisses off the unions.

  • ||

    Or you could just get rid of the toxic political environment that created the blight and drove away the business in the first place statewide, instead of trying to mitigate it by handing out party favors to your developer friends to take on the white man's burden.

  • AlmightyJB||

    This is why the left really hates libertarians and try so desperately to discredit them. A transformed big tent freedom loving party is a serious threat. The gop as it stands nkw is no threat. It's easier said than done though. Will be resistence within parts of the base to both the big tent and the freedom-loving aspects of the necessary change. Like the scorpion who stings the frog halfway across the river, they would rather watch the party continue it's death spiral than change.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "This is why the left really hates libertarians and try so desperately to discredit them."

    Yes.

    The left hates us because we make them look like phonies on warrantles wiretapping, the Drug War, the Fourth Amendment, police brutality, the First Amendment, etc., etc.

    Until recently, we were embarrassing the left on gay marriage! For the first three and a half years of Obama's presidency, his position on gay marriage was no different from that of the Southern Baptist Convention.

    Incidentally, the reason the Republicans hate us is because we make them look like phonies on taxes, spending, and a laundry list of their phony posturing, too.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    For the first three and a half years of Obama's presidency, his position on gay marriage was no different from that of the Southern Baptist Convention.


    Now it is no different than that of Dick Cheney.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Republicans hate us is because we make them look like phonies on taxes, spending, and a laundry list of their phony posturing, too."

    Don't forget our resistance to Pax Americana.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Seems to me that they don't need our help to look like phonies on any civil-rights issue.

    -jcr

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Republicans won't win a national election as long as the media continues to carry water for the Democrats by painting all opposition to welfare and expanded government as racism and sexism.

    They could nominate Gary Johnson and the media and punditocracy would figure out an angle to make him racist while propping up Hillary or Lulz Warren.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Unfortunately, I think this is an accurate analysis. Nor am I aware of a method that can effectively counter the Ministry of Information.

  • Robert||

    In cases like this (not just in politics), there's always, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." The trick is getting them to let you in.

  • seguin||

    McCain tried that.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't know about that. It's not like they've been nominating great candidates lately to overcome the media bias.

  • Bob Straub||

    I have been saying for years that Republicans today are wannabe Democrats. Our country is becoming quite used to being in favor of government management of things, and its benefits. Besides us Libertarians, how many non-Democrats and non-Progressives are in favor of rolling back the big entitlements? In that context, being a wannabe Democrat might seem reasonable. But then why vote for a wannabe when you can have the genuine article?
    So maybe the Republicans can't ever win again. Or maybe, in the not too far distant future, if and when people are fed up with big government, the Reps can rise from their ashes in new socially liberal, economically conservative feathers and win. Maybe.
    Much as I think Libertarians have the very best ideas, I don't think the U.S. is ready for us yet. We've got to do a better job of getting our message out.

  • ||

    Oh we get the message out. Especially with today's social media. The problem, it turns out, is that people are not generally moral. They think only of the goodies that they can attempt to obtain at the expense of others.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Much as I think Libertarians have the very best ideas, I don't think the U.S. is ready for us yet. We've got to do a better job of getting our message out.

    Essentially the Libertarians wind up functioning as the brain and conscience of the Republican party. They ought to be for both sides, but the Democrats are just too far gone. When the Republicans need ideas, they look at what the Libertarians are talking about. And when their internally-generated ideas (which tend to be shitty) go awry, enough Republicans start listening to Libertarian criticism to right them. The truth is, I think the Repubs would be a majority party if they became the Libertarian-light party. But, they don't call us the stupid party for nothing.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Republicans will not win again without total alt-text.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Oh yeah, and every time I watch that Howard video I get really pissed off at the (probably racist) intolerance of that one chick.

  • Dead or In Jail||

    /threadwinner
    /WorldWideWebWinner (for today)

    Everyone get off The Internet-SuperHighway and make love to your wives and children!

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    uh, children?

  • Marc F Cheney||

    OT: I'm in the middle of Storm of Swords, and today I came across the phrase

    "...take the ironmen in the rear while they are beating off..."

    That is all.

  • Almanian!||

    I believe that *actually is* what she said.

    awsum

  • Almanian!||

    The whole system is "tinkering around the edges". Article V Consitutional Convention is required. I used to be scared to death of this - "It'll get hijacked and we'll make it worse!" But that's the only route that can see now that we'll turn the ship.

    Elect Rand Paul, he *may* slow down the expansion of govt - but he'll be gone, the next person will be "the next person", and on we go.

    This train isn't stopping without changing the 200 year old dead-white-man "living" document, in my estimation.

    And I don't see people making that happen, cause SCARY, so....

    DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED we are...

  • Cyto||

    I think we have proven fairly conclusively that it really doesn't matter what you put down on paper in a constitution. Or in law for that matter. When shopping malls become a public good for the purpose of confiscating your land, and "shall not be infringed" means "we can ban certain types if we want to" and "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" allows congress to ban all sorts of political speech..

    ... well, you just aren't going to be able to write down anything that matters if people are just going to ignore it and do as they please regardless.

    Our current President has shown that it is perfectly acceptable to ignore a law that you pushed for and personally signed into law. What possible good do you think writing up another constitution would do when "we the people" elect these sorts of folks.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The problem is the structure of government which was created by the constitution and is still honored (mostly).

    The trick is to create a structure that is liberty friendly that can be sold politically.

  • OldMexican||

    "I think Republicans will not win again in my lifetime … unless they become a new GOP, a new Republican Party," Paul said evenly. "And it has to be a transformation. Not just a little tweaking at the edges."...


    Yes, return to normalcy, to being the party of Harding, of Coolidge, of Robert Taft. Stop acting like the early 20th Century Progressives, stop being prohibitionists, anti-immigrationists and mercantilists.

    That is still a tough sell, Rand. You're not precisely the perfect person to carry that battleflag, considering your ideological inconsistency. Ron Paul may not have been the perfect candidate for the presidency but he is close to being the perfect libertarian, always unwavering in his principles.

  • Cytotoxic||

    e is close to being the perfect libertarian, always unwavering in his principles.

    Nope. Not with principles like 'lets let Iran murder Americans', 'fetuses are people and uteruses belong to us', and, most nutbarishly of all, 'NAFTA = NAU'.

    Ron Paul stopped being a credit and started being being a liability to the freedom movement a couple years ago at least. What you call Rand Paul's 'ideological inconsistency' is really his superior instincts and judgement.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Cytotoxic,

    Nope. Not with principles like 'lets let Iran murder Americans', 'fetuses are people and uteruses belong to us', and, most nutbarishly of all, 'NAFTA = NAU'.


    Most of those accusations stem from differences in policy between you and Paul. However, none of those policies (if one accepts your caricature of them) represent a violation of the NAP. Not wanting to vote for NAFTA would seem to you as being agaist free trade. I would see it as voting with your principles since NAFTA is NOT free trade but managed trade. As for abortion, he has stated that he believes such matters should be left to the States and individual people. I believe abortion is a gross and horrible violation of the NAP, a negation of our human condition for mostly trivial reasons (excluding the possibility of real danger to the life of a pregnant woman), so I don't see how Paul's view on abortion is inconsistent with libertarian and voluntaryst thought.

  • Cytotoxic||

    NAFTA may be managed trade but it is still freer trade and freer than the alternative. I shudder to think where we'd be without it. Paul's opposition to NAFTA is in effect opposition to free trade. And his position that NAFTA will lead to a North American Union is pure kookery.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Rand Paul can have a tattoo on his forehead that says "Libertarian". However, he is a career politician addicted to power. (So is Glenn Beck for that matter). If Paul ever becomes President he will do anything but limit the size and scope of government. Whoever is elected President becomes "Mr. Government" no matter what he/she says or claims to the contrary, and you can be sure that they will find something to spend money for.

    True Libertarians do not run for the highest office in the land on a less government ticket. There are lots of politicians out there (past, present, and future) who run around yapping about less government to please a certain type of public mentality. All politicians are "Little Kings," and Paul (and his Dad) are no exceptions. Look at all the perks and power Rand Paul has as a U.S. Senator. If he wants to talk about less government, perhaps he should resign and get out of government and politics all together.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Fantastic idea. Let's leave those levers of power to the truly evil.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Neoliberal Kochtopus,

    Fantastic idea. Let's leave those levers of power to the truly evil.


    That would be inevitable. You can't stop people from voting for increasingly evil and stupid people to hold office.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Fatalistic misanthropy is like, so cool man

    *takes drag on cigarette, leans against wall*

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Neoliberal Kochtopus,

    There's nothing misanthropic about stating the obvious, NK. The fact is that giving people the power to select leaders through a popularity contest will most of the time lead to a situation where the candidates with the best chance of winning are those that lie and cheat the best.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    so...deep man. Like, all the politicians do is like, lie to us man! we should just, you know...*hits the bong again*

  • ||

    Yes, truly sophisticated thought comes from slavish devotion to party politics and Pollyannaish proclamations of libertopia around statist corner.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    You present NO counter arguments to my comments. Your premise is that Libertarians running for public office are less "evil" than other politicians. That is, if it can be said that you have any premise at all. My premise is that career politicians who run for the U.S.Presidency with a less government platform and label themselves as libertarians are basically liars. The Pauls are no different from other politicians in that the accumulation of power is their goal, not less government.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    We know your premise; that's why we're mocking you.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Have a nice day F---wit.

  • GILMORE||

    On The Road To Mandalay|2.17.14 @ 12:28PM|#

    You present NO counter arguments to my comments

    ======================================

    On The Road To Mandalay|12.16.13 @ 9:59AM|#

    ...You can be sure that all of the big shot ass holes who would not work together on this (The DemoCRAZIES and the RePOOPlicans), have great health plans, not to mention their astronomic salaries, and perks they get running hither and yon, expecting everyone to kiss their collective butts.

    "On The Road To Mandalay|12.16.13 @ 10:47AM|#

    Don't like my post? Dial 1 800 EAT SHIT

    On The Road To Mandalay|12.16.13 @ 10:46AM|#

    Fuck you again!!!

    On The Road To Mandalay|12.16.13 @ 12:53AM|#

    Boo Hoo poor Ayn Rand. Fuck Ayn Rand. What an asshole bitch she was!!!!!

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Does all this mean that you like my previous comments?

  • Cytotoxic||

    You present NO counter arguments to my comments.

    They only merit mockery.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Where are your comments f---wit?

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Rand Paul, career politician? You sure about that?

  • juris imprudent||

    Yerpy-derpity-dooo!

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    And your point is?

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    is...more substantive than yours.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    If it is more "substantive" than mine, than you need to tell people why that is so.

  • GILMORE||

    "On The Road To Mandalay|12.30.13 @ 5:11PM|#

    Don't like my comments...? Guess you will just to suck them up your rectum."

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Have a nice day A--Chunk

  • juris imprudent||

    In the spirit of AM Links, Man-Bear-Pig emerges from his cave and sees a shadow (not necessarily his own) and hurriedly retreats to the dark, safe recesses.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    And your point is what?

  • SugarFree||

    It's something about you being a whiny twat.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Sugar Free

    You must be yet another functional illiterate who can formulate anything in words so you dismiss anyone who can with stuff like "whiny twat" and what not. Go back to the Trailer Park and shut up!!

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    TRAKTOR PULLZ

  • SugarFree||

    The funny part is that he thinks he's winning, NK.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Does this mean that you have some opinions that will win the day? Have a great day Anal Breath. I will be waiting to read some more of your bowel movements in print.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Less government is a total myth. So called libertarian type politicians can yap about this all they want. Most people agree that the Federal Government should be responsible to defense and foreign policy and the states take care of everything else. Fools!!! That's what BIG government is" Defense and Foreign Policy. That's what makes the Federal Government BIG in the first place. The pentagon eats up a huge percentage of the budget spending tax dollars on new weaponry, and the bloated State Department makes sure that the United States has plenty enemies (real and imagined) everywhere, so defense cab blow them up. And any man or woman who becomes President of the United States automatically CONTROLS big government in their capacity as head of the Armed Forces and appointer of Secretaries of State, not to mention all they other power Presidents have. So for any politician to label himself/herself as Libertarian and than run for President is nothing but deception. It would be like King Louis XIV OF France telling his subjects that his reason for being King was less rule over them.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    cool story bro

    proof you have no idea what you're talking about:

    Percentage spent of the 2013-2014 Federal budget:
    HHS including Medicare and Medicaid: 24.7%

    Social Security Administration: 23.2%

    DOD including Overseas Contingency Operations: 17.7%

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    You really are a moron aren't you!!!??

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    I have numbers. You have nothing. Twat.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Seriously, dude, HHS + SSA = 47% of the budget. DOD and the Department of State are maybe 19% at best.

    So, you tell me who the moron is.

  • ||

    DOD and the Department of State are maybe 19% at best.

    I assume his response would be that 19% is "a huge percentage of the budget".

    Or he could refer you to a 1-800 number. One of the two.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Shall I refer him to a 1 800 Number?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    You missed the point. If you did away with Social Security and Medicare, the DOD would probably suck up the difference. In any event, the Social Security Administration has no real power anything near close to the DOD. You are still missing the point. Were you born stupid or did you go to a special school to become that way. OR, are you an abortion who lived?

  • Cytotoxic||

    the DOD would probably suck up the difference.

    "Arguing with conjecture"

    You are still missing the point.

    I don't even think you understand you're own point. You're a fucking twat. You make epi's pro-anarchy arguments seem even-keeled.

  • GILMORE||

    "On The Road To Mandalay|12.30.13 @ 5:09PM|#

    Hi there A--Hole. Don't like my comments? Dial 1 800 EAT CRAP. Thank you"

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    GILMORE

    You got it down really good. Bravo for you.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    I challenge anyone who can refute my premise that people who call themselves Libertarians and then run for the Presidency are anything but damn liars.

  • SugarFree||

    No one takes his challenge! He's simply too powerful for us! Run away!

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    gah! his assertiveness is like kryptonite to me!

  • SugarFree||

    He'll ask us the tough questions and then film our answers and put them on... YouTube!

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    That means you will have to get ready to answer my questions. That will take you about six months. So get ready now moron.

  • SugarFree||

    Hilarious! More! More!

  • montana mike||

    OTRTM, the derp that keeps on derping (nttawwt)

  • GILMORE||

    "

    On The Road To Mandalay|12.16.13 @ 11:02AM|#

    .. Fuck all of you dimwits!!!!!!! Shove your comments to me up your collective ass holes."

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    GILMORE

    Shove your finger up your Hershey Highway where your brain is. That will stimulate your brain. You might actually come up with some opinions of your own. Otherwise, your comments so far are worth about as much as a pile of dried up dog poop on a side road in New Mexico in high summer.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Look at how mad he's getting! So funny.

  • SugarFree||

    Right? This is really turning this day around.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    This is what happens when there are no AM Links! Jesus, Nick, for the love of God get an unpaid intern or diamond-mine orphan to throw up some hyperlinks.

  • ||

    your comments so far are worth about as much as a pile of dried up dog poop

    The irony here being that all he's done so far is quote you...

  • Robert||

    No, I don't agree. Look at all the elected officials the GOP has. Does he think they're just going away unless the party totally xforms?

    I mean, it could be the case. The Whigs, for a US example, went away fairly quickly. But the odds of this being a time like that (or any time's being a time like one of those) are long against. The major parties in this country have been pretty adaptable for a long time, undertaking little tweaks here & there to maintain a balance of power rather than total xform'ns.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Robert,

    What is YOUR solution to all this?

  • Robert||

    What makes you think there is a "solution"? The world is never how anyone would like.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Up above there was a spat between Ken and Randian. Ken made good points and he is ultimately right. Randian was as usual an angry chode.

    Embracing teh gay is not sufficient for the GOP to win, but it is necessary. Those plebiscites? Meaningless. Worse than meaningless because the people who voted yea to banning gay marriage are dying off and those who voted nay are becoming the electorate. Embracing gay marriage = the GOP stops digging. Debate settled; Ken wins.

  • SusanM||

    I don't think they should be "embracing" teh ghey as much as they should just come to terms with the fact that it's just not the "nuclear option" issue it used to be. Nor does it help keep a consistent small government message.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    Ken presented no evidence. You declaring him "ultimately right" is because you like what he has to say. Good objectivity there, buddy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Ken has the evidence on his side. The polls are clear: gay marriage is winning the debate. Those on the wrong side of history will get paved over.

  • Neoliberal Kochtopus||

    There is no evidence it's costing the GOP a significant amount of votes. Also, Ken's point was about social conservatism in general, which both you and he persist in conflating to be about gay marriage only. Look at the polls on abortion if you want to start talking polls.

  • XM||

    Even Cytotoxic will (or should) admit that 90% of liberals who favor SSM will never vote GOP even if they evolve on the issue.

    The more non partisan independent crowd isn't likely to make their decision based on just few social issues. And indies went for Romney in 2012.

    The GOP isn't going to win many converts no matter what they do. The amount of undecided voters up for grabs is extremely small. Their most realistic path to victory in any election is for their base (older white males are the most reliable voters) to turn out while opposition sits at home. This will work in the short term, especially since Obama and his ACA is turning out to be quite a stinker.

    But by the time the GOP returns to power, the country might be real bad shape, and then it doesn't matter what happens to the GOP.

  • Chris Shelley||

    IMO, the two keys to Republican victories in 2014 and 2016 are:

    1. First, educate the public about Free-Market Capitalism and why it is better than socialism/wealth distribution. I believe that most people want it; The GOP has to show that it is better than socialism/wealth distribution, that people will have more of an opportunity for a good life.

    But... IMO, the ONLY way that free-market capitalism can work and be favored by American citizens IS IF IT IS FOR THE COMMON GOOD. If it is run in order to benefit ALL Americans, people will want it. But there can be NO BULLSHITTING on this topic. The wealthy can stay wealthy and the middle and lower classes can improve their financial situation. People, IMO, WANT to be free. They don't want the government running their lives. Our natural desire is to be free to create as much wealth as we can, but that must be accumulated while giving 110% effort and taking 110% responsibility for all people and the environment that we live in.

    Bleeding Heart Free-Market Capitalism, baby. That's where it's at. We should aspire to be the best, and if we are successful, the country will be at peace, people will be taken care of by private industries and charity. Leave no one behind. All should have the opportunity to succeed in life. We must make that happen, just not through the government.

  • Chris Shelley||

    2. Get serious about the environment. People will not want free-market capitalism until the Republicans show that they are actually better than the Democrats on this subject. Businesses must not just pay lip-service to the health of our environment, they have to be pro-active, better, above and beyond, than the Democrats, and CRYSTAL CLEAR to the voting populous about how Republicans will not just protect the environment, but will invest in it. They have to show that they are more serious and more dedicated than the Democrats.

    So, I agree with Paul that the Republican Party needs a transformation. IMO it's all there to be had. The wealthy can stay wealthy, the middle and lower classes can get real opportunities to make better lives for themselves and their families, and the Republicans can SAVE and INVEST in the environment, which ALL people want.

  • Elliot||

    You have no idea what "all people want". You certainly don't speak for me.

  • Harvard||

    So, an even higher carbon tax then?

  • ~Knarf Yenrab~||

    Something tells me that environmentalism is not a hot-button issue for the electorate.

  • montana mike||

    derpety derp derp

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    No one has actually answered the primary question of the original article posted by Mr. Gillespie. Will the GOP ever win again? This is based on the statement Senator Rand made to Mr. Beck. Anyone got any real opinions on this? Personally I believe they will win the next Presidential election. Not because they deserve to win it, but because the fickle American voting public will probably elect another Republican as President of the United States of America. Why? Because, come 2016, the Democrats will have "controlled" the White House for eight years, and a lot of people are fed up with Obama for a number of reasons besides Obamacare. Probably a lot of people who voted for Obama even twice are fed up with him and the Democrats, and will vote GOP because they don't have much choice anyway. Certainly no one is going to win on a libertarian ticket so GOP will be the only real choice. This is my opinion. What is your opinion? And for those who don't like any of the opinions I post, I will just let you know in advance that you already know what you can do.

  • Robert||

    I answered "yes", especially because "ever" is a long time.

  • GILMORE||

    You make very interesting points which are insightful and reflect a nuanced understanding of the multidimensional nature of these complex issues. I for one commend your articulate and eloquent summation of the facts. If by any chance you published a newsletter, I for one would like to be the first to subscribe.

  • Wintermute||

    Agree, but it's going to take some mighty brave drug legalization positions to make me pull the lever for anyone advocating criminalizing abortion, a position the Republicans need like a hole in the head.

  • LiveFreeOrDOH!||

    I agree with Rand. A transformation is indeed necessary. I would love to live and see a day where instead of a two party system primary, we have one big election then a runoff. This will help folks like Rand stick to his beliefs and show how libertarian ideas are best for everyone. As an ideologue, I will admit that it is a bit disparaging for me. The fact of the matter is that people like me are losing the ideological battle, which we can handily win, due to the two party system. That said, I #standwithrand even if he had to pander to the McConnells of the world to win a GOP primary. I will take some who is with me 60 pct of the time than 0 percent if the time. I think with Rand we will get way more than 60 percent even though it may not appear so in primary season.

  • TPL||

    One of the biggest problems of the GOP is their extreme views on social issues, which alienates huge swathes of the electorate. One would have thought after their stunning 2012 defeat, they would have actually taken some serious time to reevaluate their positions. However, that has not happened, and if anything, they've hardened.

    For example, polls have shown that the GOP position on gay marriage alone is a show-stopper for the Millenials. They won't even consider voting for people with views like the GOP on that issue. And it is very hard to believe that large numbers of women and independents are also disgusted and repelled by the crude, obsessive, and primeval views of the GOP on social issues.

    While I like Rand, and generally agree with him on many issues (including his assessment of the GOP never winning another election without some drastic changes), his social views are as extreme and fanatical as anyone else in the GOP - which undermines his freedom rhetoric.

  • XM||

    Then I could easily say I find the gay (or women, immigrants, minorities, etc) support for liberal agenda to be "extreme" as well. Is your right to marry more sacrosanct then any of my other rights and freedom?

    The social issue voting bloc is set in stone, and people derive their position from a larger ideology, not the other around. You're most likely pro-life because you're religious, conservative and (paradoxically) even sympathetic to limited government. If you're center right pro-lifer, you will never vote Dem for what he represents overall.

    Plenty of minorities will find Rand Paul's position on government spending, reduction of welfare, and rejection of race based policies to be repulsive, as much as gays will find the GOP as the next KKK because they're not down with gay marriage? So how much should GOP evolve to appeal to these groups, while holding steady to a larger libertarian view that many of them detest?

  • ER Jones, Author||

    The Republican Party is going to need someone a lot smarter than Paul to carry out a transition.

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