3 Reasons Eric Cantor Lost - And Why Republicans Will Continue to Lose

For more on this topic and links to all the facts and figures below, go here and here.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s primary loss isn’t just historic, it illustrates why the Republican Party is in big trouble if it doesn’t get serious about its legislative agenda.

Here are three reasons Eric Cantor lost—and why Republicans will continue to lose unless they change their wicked wicked ways.

1. The Party of Big Government

Despite rhetoric in favor of small and limited government, George W. Bush and the Republicans increased spending by more than 50 percent in inflation-adjusted terms and spending on regulations by even more than that. Cantor, who took office in 2001, voted for No Child Left Behind, Medicare expansion, the creation of the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, Troubled Assets Relief Program, and the auto bailouts. None of that reflects fiscal responsibility.

2. The Party of Intolerance

With a few exceptions, the Republican party is opposed to marriage equality and pot legalization, both of which are supported by large and growing majorities. Despite attempts to paint him as soft on immigration, Cantor wanted a militarized border with Mexico and had a 100 percent rating from a leading anti-immigration group. Sixty-four percent of Republicans—and even higher percentages of independents—support immigration reform.

3. The Party of the Status Quo

As Majority Leader, Cantor pushed a GOP budget plan that would grow annual spending from $3.7 trillion to $5 trillion over the next decade. He supported increasing military spending and a hawkish foreign policy. He pushed crony-capitalist institutions like the Export-Import Bank, which subsidizes purchases of U.S. goods and services.

Cantor stood for a status quo that Americans find increasingly intolerable. He lost because he personified all that is bad and hypocritical about the Republican Party. And until the GOP demonstrates it is serious about limiting the size, scope, and spending of government, they will keep losing elections.

About 2 minutes.

Written by Nick Gillespie. Produced by Joshua Swain.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

For more on Cantor's loss and links to all the facts and figures mentioned above, go here and here.

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.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What you fail to mention is that the poll was sponsored and conducted by NumbersUSA, a xenophobic group that is a front for PROJECT MONARCH, a Nazi-era eugenics group that use genetic engineering and mental conditioning to produce child sex slaves for the pedophilic homosexual orgy rituals of the Illuminati shape-shifting aliens of Bohemian Grove. The genetic engineering techniques only work on Caucasians, thus of course they would want to restrict immigration from India, China, and other nations. And a dumb stupid sheep like you falls for it every time.

    How many Skull and Bones cocks have you sucked at Bohemian Grove? Answer the question!

  • Agammamon||

    Yeah, but the leader' girlfriend is hot (too bad about her voice though).

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That's a fake lizard person.

    This is the real thing

  • AlmightyJB||

    PROJECT MONARCH sounds almost evil enough for me to consider joining. Almost.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Until Brock Samson crushes your face in his death grasp

  • AlmightyJB||

    "pedophilic homosexual orgy rituals of the Illuminati shape-shifting aliens"

    Are you sure they're not just Adélie penguins?

  • C. Anacreon||

    My former next-door neighbor (he passed away a couple of years ago, he was in his 80's) used to go to Bohemian Grove every year, and even invited me to join him (although I think he was just being nice.) It's just a couple hours' drive from here. He said that there were indeed a lot of the political power guys there, but they were off to one part of the camp. He hung out with the classical musicians in another area, and went there with his French horn.

    It did sound like a fun event, sort of a summer camp for older guys (which of course sounds good to me as an older guy, while I'm sure some of you younger posters are mentally making the 'gag-me' sign right now.)

  • PapayaSF||

    Cool, you should have gone.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Sounds like exactly the place to go for some dusty, dry, old people sex.

    Don't break your hip, grandpa!

  • MoreFreedom||

    If you're going to try and tarnish the reputation of NumbersUSA, by associating them "PROJECT MONARCH" you ought to provide your source that ties them together.

    But then your post is so paranoid, that it says a lot more about you, that makes your post look like it's a vision in your mind only.

  • Sevo||

    You claim the number are a lie and link a story which has nothing to do with numbers of GOPers or independents, and the findings in the link are from this outfit:

    :NumbersUSA has fought against legalization bills in Congress, and has targeted lawmakers who supported those bills,"...

    Why do I suspect the questions in the poll were somehow tilted?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Sevo||

    Robert TE|6.12.14 @ 10:16PM|#
    "Can you explain how the questions are tilted?"

    Yeah, easy:
    "When did you stop beating your wife?"
    100% of our respondents never stopped beating their wives!

    Now, you want to show the questions that resulted in that data?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Sevo, do you honestly believe he is capable of grasping the concept of external and internal validity? Much less explain the threats to construct validity that might be present in that particular poll?

  • Irish||

    American is the guy who got confused when I told him that being poor in the past could mean you're still poor today even if your current policies are good.

    He got very confused when I pointed out that England isn't as rich as it should be largely because of bad policies in the 60's and 70's that resulted in England having a lower per capita GDP than Italy at the time. Therefore, even though they've had decent growth since, they're still poorer than some of the wealthier nations in Europe.

    This argument based upon trend lines and current wealth vs. past wealth accumulation was far too advanced for American.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Didn't Murkin claim he was a math teacher, out of all things?

  • Irish||

    He's claimed to be a lot of things.

    He was trying to claim that socialism is wonderful because France is insignificantly wealthier per capita than England, so I pointed out that England was one of the most socialist countries in the Western world up until the early 1980s.

    He then laughed and mocked me for saying that this may have impacted their overall wealth, because apparently your policies from 1945-1980 would have no impact on wealth accumulation.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    We've spent enough time discussing his idiocy. Here's something fun, instead.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Not high

  • Sevo||

    Heroic Mulatto|6.12.14 @ 11:22PM|#
    "Sevo, do you honestly believe he is capable of..."

    No.

  • Libertymike||

    Don't be too hard on the boy.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    I read that a "Don't be a hard on to the boy."

  • MoreFreedom||

    Exit polls showed all voters were heavily in favor of "immigration reform" with Republicans preferring a larger penalty and wait time to get citizenship. The election wasn't about immigration, and appears to be more of voters voting against a lying Cantor who claims he's fiscally conservative but isn't.

  • Irish||

    Currently, the U.S. allows in about 1 million legal immigrants a year, but 16 percent said that should be cut to 500,000, another 17 percent wanted to see it drop to 100,000, and a full 26 percent said they want to see a halt to all legal immigration. By contrast, just 16 percent said to keep it at 1 million and only 11 percent wanted to see an increase to 2 million.

    These numbers are completely at odds with virtually all other polling on the subject.

    First of all, the vast majority of people rank immigration as an incredibly unimportant issue. From Rasmussen, immigration comes in 13th in importance out of 15 issues polled.

    Cantor also did better in the deep red parts of his district than he did in the purple areas around Richmond. If the primary reason he lost was immigration, wouldn't you have thought that he would have done worse in the areas that are against immigration? In fact, the opposite is true.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Yes, but Gillespie would claim that solar flares or an earthquake in Tobago are more proof of a libertarian revolution.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Are you Tulpa? Or Craiginmass? Or American Socialist? Or Tony?

    Because Fuck You, even if you're not.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Libertarian revolution only can happen when the welfare system collapses not because it cannot be funded but because people took personal responsibility for themselves and those around them and successfully privatizes the things government currently regulates.

  • ||

    Richmond is (of course) the capital city of Virginia, and Terry McAuliffe (D) is the governor.

    Just before the election, Huffington Post was urging its readers to vote against Cantor, since there was no Democrat primary to influence.

    The Washington Post thought this important enough to talk to consultants and print a story that proved beyond any doubt that crossover voting wasn't the cause.

  • MoreFreedom||

    You can see a poll taken of the residents of the Cantor/Brat district at www.americansunitedforchange.o.....s61114.pdf

    You'll see that while Democrats and independents had less favorable ratings of Cantor than Republicans did, Republicans didn't like him either.

    You'll also see little evidence that immigration was a factor.

  • Pulseguy||

    Immigration might come in low on a poll, but polls on what is important to a person are notoriously weird. In Canada for decades the environment would always be #1 or #2, but the reality was no one really cared. They drove their cars, flew to Mexico on vacation, and so on. What people actually care about is what is actually high on their list, and it is what they actually work on day in, day out. #1 the economy, always. #2 crime, always, as people are always security conscious. And, so on.

    Does immigration actually affect anyone? Yeah, if you live in a border state. Across the nation, probably not so much. Arizona and California...yeah, big time. They're actually affected.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    It's gotten to the point where it'd be embarassing if it wasn't so funny. First, far right parties sweep Europe, and we get an article telling us how much the British love their immigrants. Now a restrictonist unseats Cantor, largely by using immigration as a bludgeon, and we get half a dozen articles telling us that that wasn't about immigration, either. You have to wonder what would have to happen before they get the point.

    YO! IT'S THE IMMIGRATION, STUPID!

  • Cytotoxic||

    So why did Cantor do better in redder parts of his riding than the purpler parts? Why is Brat downplaying the role of immigration in victory? I know you're desperate for some love given that you can't even hold the Texas state GOP but you're not getting any. Big Freedom is gonna get its amnesty. When libertarians and 'social liberals' want the same thing, it tends to happen. Get used to it.

  • Taco||

    "When libertarians and 'social liberals' want the same thing, it tends to happen."

    Which explains why the war on drugs was cancelled 30 years ago.

    waitwut?

  • VicRattlehead||

    I nosed my coffee to this thank you ass

  • gaoxiaen||

    You must be posting from 50 years in the future.

  • MoreFreedom||

    The liberal media will always try to associate xenophobes with the "far right" and ignore the policies that matter the most to the "far right" like redistribution and the burden of government.

    Shall we associate Democrats with those that advocate returning the parts of the US that used to belong to Mexico, back to Mexico? That would be doing the same thing.

    Look at the recent polling done of voters of Brat's district at www.americansunitedforchange.o.....s61114.pdf where you'll see Republicans strongly in favor of "immigration reform" just like Democrats and independents.

    If it's about immigration, is because of Cantor's voting record and support of anti-immigration legislation? He voted to build a fence, he voted against tipping of Mexicans about the Minuteman Project, and has a 100% rating from FAIR indicating a voting record restricting immigration. http://www.ontheissues.org/va/.....ration.htm

  • DarrenM||

    Doesn't it really depend on what is meant by "immigration reform"? That phrase if pretty meaningless.

  • SIV||

    E-verify, 100,000+ more Border Patrol agents to man internal checkpoints,crony contracts for unworkable "virtual fences", national ID chips, voter registration drives, affirmative action and welfare rights for those on the mandatory fast track "path to citizenship". Tighter restrictions on skilled/educated/wealth-owning immigrants...

    Seems pretty clear.

  • Dweebston||

    Then the average American is a leather-fetishist with a keen interest in being dominated by jackbooted sadomasochists. And they deserve to get it good and hard.

    Somehow I don't believe either your or my thing is true.

  • Pulseguy||

    I'm pretty sure you missed SIV's point. He is saying that is where the gov will take these polls. Because that is what govs do.

    Your point though is well taken. I think your point deserves consideration. If every middle class home owner could get his freak on with a dominatrix then perhaps he wouldn't have this weird S and M thing going with the government.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And yet, Goldberg doesn't bring up the outside influence the Annunaki have upon the Republicans. Through use of memetic programing techniques first mastered during Khemetic Egyptian, the Annunaki have psionically controlled humans since 8,000 BC. And all you fucking sheep just lap it up.

  • Sevo||

    HM,
    I think you recommended it.
    Got and read "War is a Racket"; gonna stick with my comments earlier. Thumbs down.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *shrugs* His solutions are loony, I'll admit that. But, he identifies the symptoms expertly.

  • Sevo||

    Not sure.
    We get lists of profits, and certainly valid claims of who pays. And the US, during the era of Manifest Destiny, wasn't shy WRT using the Marines as a loan collector, so within that era, I'll take it.
    Beyond that, he's got post-hoc, ergo..
    And a ton of populist cant; especially the claim of a fascist putsch 'stopped' by none other than our hero.
    Smells of Huey Long with a different accent.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Smells of Huey Long with a different accent

    Well, yes. Same time period, same schtick. As for the Business Plot, there was enough evidence of it for Congress via the McCormack-Dickstein Committee to corroborate most of Gen. Butler's account. Indeed, Congress was ready to investigate the DuPonts, etc. for treason when FDR stepped in and...nothing else happened. That alone is enough to make me think Butler was on to something.

  • Sevo||

    "As for the Business Plot,"...

    I'm very wary of claims that X happened Y years ago and corroborating evidence has yet to come to light from other sources.
    There's this: http://www.businesspundit.com/.....overnment/
    But when you check the cites, they are totally blind.
    I simply cannot believe a plot like that could remain hidden, under the 'most likely' rule that drives why I don't think Nessie exists.
    A story like that would have been an opiate to much of the press at the time, let alone Huey.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Fuck. I wrote a long response but the squirrels ate it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In short, the plot didn't remain hidden. The results of the McCormack-Dickstein Committee are public record and the press did eat it up. However, by the time they got around to doing something about it, no one gave a fuck. It was 1935, New Deal was in full swing and that Hitler fellow was quite interesting.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    However, by the time they got around to doing something about it, no one gave a fuck.

    This will be the epitaph of the USA.

  • Sevo||

    Heroic Mulatto|6.12.14 @ 11:37PM|#
    "In short, the plot didn't remain hidden. The results of the McCormack-Dickstein Committee are public record and the press did eat it up"...

    OK, but:
    "In Schlesinger's summation of the affair, "No doubt, MacGuire did have some wild scheme in mind, though the gap between contemplation and execution was considerable, and it can hardly be supposed that the Republic was in much danger."[2]"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M....._Committee
    Hell, I plot to overthrow the gov't several times a day.
    (Hi, there NSA person!)

  • Taco||

    ALWAYS highlight all CTL+C before you press submit on this forum.

  • The Boy in the Corduroy Pants||

    Fuck. I wrote a long response but the squirrels ate it.

    Last few weeks it's become such a way of life for me I changed my handle just to see if it was a karma thing.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

  • TheSpiteHouse||

    Ha ha, awesome

  • Paul.||

    How'd he win the first time?

  • Sevo||

    He handed out geld.

  • Paul.||

    Well ok then.

    I just learned two things today:

    Cantor's district was gerrymandered, and Cantor is a Jew.

  • Paul.||

    Jesus Christ, Princess Leia is Jewish!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Princess Vespa: I am Princess Vespa, daughter of Roland, King of the Druids.

    Lone Star: Oh great. That’s all we needed, a Druish princess.

    Barf: Funny, she doesn’t look Druish.

  • Paul.||

    Oh and I fucked that up. for some reason my brain zigged when it should have zagged and I thought her father was Eddie Cantor. It was Eddie Fisher, 'Fisher' being a 100% Gentile name.

    So her Christianity is safe.

    *nods knowingly*

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Paul.||

    Yes, that Eddie Fisher, who, to become famous, concealed his Christianity so that his daughter could become Princess!

  • Irish||

    This is an interesting argument. Apparently no one knew Eric Cantor was a Jew until this week. When Republicans from the 7th district found out they'd elected a Jew 7 times, they were like "Holy shit! We'd better get that guy out of there!"

  • Paul.||

    and lots of people are too stupid to know that Cantor is a Jewish name.

    Call me too stupid... or maybe, call me disinterested in the ethnic-Jew origins of every name I see in the public sphere.

    It's an interesting theory to explain the no-one-saw-this-coming aspect of how Cantor lost in the 11th hour.

    But I just don't buy it.

    But hey, seems that NPR could do a quick man-on-the-street and zero in on the district voters who quickly give up their real reasons for voting Cantor out. Given that NPR has nearly magical ability to do that.

  • Paul.||

    and lots of people are too stupid to know that Cantor is a Jewish name.

    Just to add, in my personal experience, most anti-semites... the people who would actually not vote for someone because of their Jewishness, have fucking highly tuned radar for Jewishness and Jewish names.

    If anti-semitism was the central reason for Cantor getting booted, the people doing the booting probably detected his Jewishness a long time ago.

  • Irish||

    Also, in my experience, the most anti-Semitic people in America are progressives. Where is the 'boycott Israel' movement coming from?

    I think it's hilarious that people like Goldberg criticize conservatives for supporting Israel, but then call them anti-Semites. Why would anti-Semites be so supportive of Israel? How is it possible that hard red Republicans could be so gung ho about Israel but not be willing to elect a Jew?

  • Paul.||

    Because Goldberg considers any expression of Christian identity antisemitic.

    Yes, he does. Which is why I'm skeptical. It's a highly nuanced argument that requires a lot of buy-in from the reader.

    Goldberg's thesis is that in politics, if you elect someone because of their Christianity, it's exclusionary. Well... yeah, so New York Jews were exclusionary when they elected Ed Koch.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well... yeah, so New York Jews were exclusionary when they elected Ed Koch.

    No, they were inclusionary because they elected a gay man despite Leviticus's prohibitions of homosexuality.

  • Paul.||

    No, they were inclusionary because they elected a gay man despite Leviticus's prohibitions of homosexuality.

    No, they were exclusionary because straight people got locked out.

    AND NOW YOU'RE TELLING ME ED KOCH WAS GAY?

    FIRST PRINCESS LEIA, NOW THIS. MY WORLD IS BEING TURNT UPSIDE DIZZOWN!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I also hate to break it to you, but Col. Sanders wasn't a real colonel.

  • Sevo||

    "I also hate to break it to you, but Col. Sanders wasn't a real colonel."

    And he couldn't fry chicken for beans. And the beard? Well...

  • SusanM||

    He rather pithily said he was straight:
    "Listen, there’s no question that some New Yorkers think I’m gay, and voted for me nevertheless. The vast majority don’t care, and others don’t think I am. And I don’t give a shit either way! What do I care? I’m 73 years old. I find it fascinating that people are interested in my sex life at age 73. It’s rather complimentary! But as I say in my book, my answer to questions on this subject is simply Fuck off. There have to be some private matters left."

    http://www.towleroad.com/2007/.....-mayo.html

  • C. Anacreon||

    And, I think the only reason Anthony Weiner was not elected mayor of New York was anti-Semitism as well.

  • Irish||

    Just like you consider any expression of White identity to be "racist."

    American, I don't think all the times you claimed black people are inherently inferior were just expressions of 'white identity.'

    Shorter American: "Man, I sure do hate those filthy darkies! If you criticize me, you're just mocking my white identity!"

  • Sevo||

    ..."still valued White identity,"...

    Heil!

  • Jerryskids||

    Why would anti-Semites be so supportive of Israel? How is it possible that hard red Republicans could be so gung ho about Israel but not be willing to elect a Jew?

    All Republicans are anti-Semitic because they hate Jews, they all support Israel because of something or other to do with Biblical prophecies about Jesus coming back when Israel does something or other.

    Except for the ones who like Jews because Jews are rich and Republicans worship money or don't support Israel because they're anti-Semites.

    It's like all Republicans are against more immigration because they hate minorities, except the ones who support more immigration because they love exploiting minorities.

    It doesn't matter what Republicans do, it's always all done for evil purposes.

  • Irish||

    I did read the article, and Goldberg's facts are wrong. Cantor lost more heavily in the highly Republican and evangelical parts of his district than he did in the less religious parts.

    The other great part of Goldberg's article is his hilarious claim that an Irving Kristol article presaged what happened to Cantor. Here's the quote:

    “Secular humanism,” Kristol wrote, is creating a “moral disarray” that’s proving disastrous for American society. In response, he predicted, “the overwhelming majority of Americans” are going to return to religion, which will mean “some version … of Christianity.” And
    as American society becomes more Christian, less secular, the “wall of separation between church and state” will become more porous. In all probability, we shall see a turning back of the clock, with the place of religion in the American “public square” more like that which prevailed in the 19th century, as against the 20th.

    The problem is, Irving Kristol's argument has already been proven wrong. America has gotten more secular since 1991, not less. As such, the primary crux of Goldberg's article is a 23 year old argument by Irving Kristol which has already been proven wrong.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Of course, by "people of middle America" you mean "completely idiosyncratic demographic that I'm going to make up because I have a burning desire to imagine a silent majority behind my crackpot ideas".

  • Paul.||

    Kind of. The data is muddled on this.

    Like any 'group', as they fade in power and influence, you're left with a more pure, rabid core.

    If you look at the cross-section of American voters, the power and influence of groups like the Moral Majority and the like that were credited with sweeping Reagan into office are practically long-lost memories.

    Comparatively, these groups were practically mainstream. Now these types are curiosities that even progressives describe as 'fringe' groups.

    Progressives, of course, forget the meaning of 'fringe' and (wrongly) attribute massive power and influence to these 'fringe' groups, which would suggest they're not that fringe, of course.

  • Paul.||

    even under Reagan, who only took their money and votes and didn't do anything for their cause.

    Which at the time were considerable. Nowadays, not so much.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I invented the idea of middle America.

    No, I said you invented your own idea of what middle America is, which isn't close to its reality. Your horrible reading comprehension is ispe dixit evidence that English isn't your first language; therefore, you are really just a Mexican attempting to hide from la migra by pretending to be a shrill, stentorian, and xenophobic "White" guy.

  • Irish||

    Look at these trends since 2007.

    From 2007-2012, the percentage of atheists rose 0.8%, the percentage of agnostics rose 1.2%, and the percentage of 'nothing in particular' rose 2.3%. That's an additional 4.2% of the American population that is essentially irreligious over the course of a five year period.

    Are you really telling me there's been no large change since 1991?

    That's also not considering the fact that Christianity itself is far more liberal than it used to be. You have Christians supporting gay marriage in 2014, which would have been inconceivable in the 1980s. Even Christianity has gotten more secular.

  • wadair||

    Christianity is not monolithic.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    I have a hard time buying that. Anti-semitism is a pretty exotic taste these days. I don't think there's enough dislike of Jews for him to have lost by the margin he did unless he did something else to piss off people who were previously happy to vote for him.

    I always viewed Cantor as a pretty good egg, on the whole. He wasn't Rand Paul, but as Republicans on average go, he's still better than most. It's always fun to see an establishment guy get toppled, but if I had my druthers, there's plenty I'd have picked before Cantor.

  • Paul.||

    I always viewed Cantor as a pretty good egg, on the whole.

    Well... for a Jew...

  • The Boy in the Corduroy Pants||

    Anti-semitism is a pretty exotic taste these days.

    When was the last time you bought a Jewish car, hmmm?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Apparently no one knew Eric Cantor was a Jew until this week.

    That's due to his innate reptiloid shape-shifting abilities, you see.

  • Irish||

    I have to say, given that Forward is the same website that claimed the only reason people were making fun of Pajama Boy was out of Jew hatred, I am a bit skeptical when they claim anti-Semitism.

  • Paul.||

    Oh, so fuck, now Pajama Boy is a Jew?

    Jesus, are the Jews just taking over everything or what?

  • Irish||

    The end of that article is genius:

    Normal human beings are gentiles. They spit or smoke tobacco, they speak plainly, and they are manly men who don’t wear pajamas, don’t raise their eyebrows, don’t support affordable healthcare, and definitely don’t flay their arms around like Woody Allen. Or Shylock. Real men. Not Jews.

    Yes, every gentile walks around with a cigar in his mouth and a spittoon at the ready while purposefully working to drive up insurance prices.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I think I'd take offense to this comment if I were Jewish. In effect, he's contending that Jewish men are somehow unmanly.

  • ||

    Isn't he in Christmas themed pajamas with Christmas lights in the background?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Isn't he in Christmas themed pajamas with Christmas lights in the background?

    Ah-ha! So he's a self-hating Jew pajama boy!

  • Paul.||

    Isn't he in Christmas themed pajamas with Christmas lights in the background?

    Corning for the fucking win...

    Is that a dreidel in your pants, or are you just happy to see me!

    WOOF WOOF!

  • Swiss Servator, CH yeah!||

    "WOOF WOOF!"

    Too soon! Oh Lord Flashard, gone but never forgotten!

  • MoreFreedom||

    Is someone like Soros paying trolls to post nonsense, and posts indicating mental issues of the posters in an attempt to sully the reputations of libertarians? Seems like it given Irish's posts, Heroic Mullato's posts and others.

  • Paul.||

    And if it’s about Christianity, then it’s also about not-Jewish.

    Question-begging.

    If you're Christian, you're an anti-semite!

    QED

  • Irish||

    The idea that Evangelicals, the most rabidly pro-Israel people in America, would be unwilling to vote for a Jew is laughable.

  • Paul.||

    The whole article is a mish-mash of that smile-and-nod point-connecting that doesn't provide any real evidence.

    Bullet points:

    o Christians aren't Jews... I know, right?
    o Brat talks about a kind of capitalism driven by Christian values... I know, right?
    o Brat talked about how the lack of that led to Hitler [who killed Jews]. - I know, right?
    o People are denying that 'Jewishness' had anything to do with the race.. Well, when people deny... I know, right?

    Go do a fucking exit poll or something. Until then, get back to me.

  • ||

    Well the second most rabidly pro-Israel people in America anyway.

  • XM||

    Republicans and conservatives treat Israel like it's America's greatest ally.

    It makes no sense for them oust Cantor because he's Jewish. That actually implies they didn't know he was Jewish at first, which seems impossible.

  • Raven Nation||

    Well, at least Goldberg has now explained how Joe Lieberman lost his primary a few years back.

  • ||

    Since Cantor was the only Jewish Republican in Congress, it makes all the sense in the world for Democrats to teach other Republican Jews a lesson about not straying away from the Plantation.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It is factually incorrect to blame the Republicans for the bailouts of Chrysler and GM.

    Obama was able to twist GMAC financing's problems into a technical qualification for TARP funds for GM--but the Republicans did what they could to block that.

    The Obama Administration orchestrated that bailout on behalf of the UAW--Gettelfinger broke off negotiations with GM and started negotiating directly with the Obama Administration for a government takeover.

    There wasn't anything about that mess that the Republicans approved of.

    The rest of your spiel about how the establishment Republicans became a disgrace on spending during the Bush Administration under the leadership of John Boehner and others is absolutely true. Every time I think of the Republicans having control of the House, the Senate, and the White House--and squandering that opportunity on scaremongering and the prescription drug benefit--it makes me feel nauseated all over again.

    Barry Goldwater's corpse would have made a better president that George W. Bush--and it's an amazing achievement that Barack Obama was able to exceed Bush in the magnificence of his incompetence.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You're full of shit again, Ken. Dumbya provided GM enough funds to survive on until he could shovel his entire fucked-up mess on the new Negro.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They provided a loan.

    There was a loan.

    If you think that's the same as using taxpayer money to nationalize GM--and give 90% of the shares to the U.S. government and the UAW, you're out of your mind.

    The Bush Administration extended a line of credit.

    The Republicans did not approve of nationalizing GM.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/art.....3238271343

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes, they were all loans or more accurately DIP (Debtor In Possession) financing.

    The Bushpigs "nationalized" over $1 trillion of our private firms. Hugo Chavez was proud of Dubya.

  • Sevo||

    I see jargon, I see claims and probably lies, since you rarely post without them.
    I see no evidence.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Hell, even Governor Mitt Romney opposed the bailout at the time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3ZqP2JQqLM

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The Bushpigs "nationalized" over $1 trillion of our private firms."

    What are you talking about?

    Obama nationalized GM and Chrysler in 2009.

    George W. Bush wasn't the President of the United States in 2009. Barack Obama was.

    You have internet access. Go look it up yourself.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bush signed TARP - $700 billion.

    Bush regulators took over the Commercial Paper market - $2 trillion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPFF

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, TARP sucked.

    No question about that.

    I said TARP sucked; I've always said TARP sucked; the whole thing was a disgrace. I opposed it all as it was happening, and I still oppose it now.

    But the existence of TARP doesn't make Bush specifically responsible for Obama nationalizing GM. That was Obama's doing.

    He's a big boy. He's responsible for what he did. It's part of being the President of the United States. The President being responsible for what he does--it's in the job description.

  • craiginmass||

    So, Ken, lay out for us the number of dollars lost - in terms of the GM deal.

    Then compare that to to the total current and future bills re: Iraq.

    Are they even comparable?

    "The final cost of the GM bailout cost the U. S. taxpayer $12 billion ($10.5 billion for General Motors and $1.5 billion for former GM financing GMAC, now known as Ally)"

    Cost of the Iraq and other such debacles - not including your loss of rights and freedom and the torture fun and games, etc.
    =approx. 3-4 Trillion in the short term, probably 5+ Trillion longer term.

    Which of these things is not like the other?

    Why worry about "facts" when you can just present opinions as to not liking something and act as if it's the same as a couple trillion?

  • Irish||


    Cost of the Iraq and other such debacles - not including your loss of rights and freedom and the torture fun and games, etc.
    =approx. 3-4 Trillion in the short term, probably 5+ Trillion longer term.

    Only 5 trillion dollars? Social security cost $773 billion in 2012 alone.

    3-4 trillion dollars over 11 years doesn't seem that bad considering that Social Security alone was 7-8 trillion over the same time frame.

    Then there's the public education system, which is an abysmal failure in addition to being a pro-government propaganda institution, and costs $15,171 per student. There are 75 million students in America, so the cost of education in America per year is 1 trillion 170 billion dollars. Also, the worst school districts, such as Camden and Chicago, actually spend far more per student than superior school districts do.

    Hell, the Iraq War seems like a bargain!

    Why worry about "facts" when you can just present opinions as to not liking something and act as if it's the same as a couple trillion?

  • Pulseguy||

    When Obama does something Buttplug doesn't like, it was because he was forced into it by Republicans. When Obama does something that can at all even remotely be connected to Bush, then Buttplug says it was Bush's fault.

    Obama has done no wrong.

  • MJBinAL||

    Sorry Dude,

    The Republicans were actually pretty slick here, or thought they were. Bush provided the loans and pushed it forward to Obama to bail out. Obama betrayed them by burning the secured creditors and bailing out the UAW.

    The demonstrates that the GOP is trusting and stupid, not that they were not setting the stage to bail out GM. They just planning to protect different interests when they did so.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Dumbya provided GM enough funds to survive on until he could shovel his entire fucked-up mess on the new Negro.

    Why are you so thoroughly convinced that Obama can't do anything for himself?

    Never mind your inability to deal with the facts, do you really believe in your heart that Obama was incapable of orchestrating a bailout?

    Does Obama do everything Bush tells him to do?

    What are you really saying?

    P.S. Your racism is appalling.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Ken, it was a matter of timing. GM could not last until Obama was sworn in Jan 20, 2009.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Um...no.

    It was not a matter of timing.

    It works this way in private finance, too!

    Just because I extend you a loan doesn't mean I'm going to take you over--and fulfill all of your other obligations in the future. That would require another transaction--another decision.

    I thought you were proud of the way Obama nationalized GM?

    You know you can't play both sides of that issue, right? You can't condemn George W. Bush for the auto bailout--instead of Obama--and then praise Obama for having the courage to do a master bailout too.

    Well, I mean, you can, but you can't do that and not elicit laughter from other people.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You're right. I can't condemn Dubya for his GM bridge loan to save GM until 2009. I applaud him for it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Can anybody explain what this is supposed to mean?

  • Sevo||

    "Can anybody explain what this is supposed to mean?"

    Yes, it means shreek is eating his words and hoping to wave enough arm that no one notices.
    I'm amazed that anyone here is civil to the slimy turd.

  • MJBinAL||

    Yes, you are a shill for the GOP.

  • Paul.||

    Why are you so thoroughly convinced that Obama can't do anything for himself?

    Never mind your inability to deal with the facts, do you really believe in your heart that Obama was incapable of orchestrating a bailout?

    Does Obama do everything Bush tells him to do?

    The fact that progressives continue to forgive Obama for every single policy failure because of simply how deep Bush's damage was tells you just how weak they believe their own president is.

    It appears that progressives are banking on the stronger candidate for 2016: Clinton/Biden.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Look at the way they play both sides!

    When people are complaining about the bailout, they blame BOOOOOOOOOOSH.

    When people are talking about what a great idea it was, it was all Obama's doing all along--and the damn Republicans fought him on it every step of the way.

    Listening to Shrike talk about Obama is like listening to Tom Cruise talk about L Ron Hubbard.

  • Robert||

    Biden's not eligible for any more terms as VP.

  • Raven Nation||

    Is that a statutory rule? AFAIK the 22nd Amendment only applies to the president.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|6.12.14 @ 10:06PM|#
    ..."Dumbya provided GM enough funds to survive on until he could shovel his entire fucked-up mess on the new Negro"

    Damn, that Bush is a GENIUS!
    Not only does he control Obo, but he's infected the mind of a asshole named shreek!

  • Ken Shultz||

    And it all seems to be really clear in Shrike's mind...

    Shrike doesn't understand why we can't see it, too!

  • Irish||

    3 Reasons Why Eric Cantor Lost - And Republicans Will Continue to Lose

    Uh...Nick. Who do you think beat Eric Cantor? I don't know how you can use the example of Eric Cantor losing to a more conservative Republican as evidence that Republicans will continue to lose.

  • Paul.||

    I think what Nick is saying is that establishment republicans continue to lose...

    And as the GOP keeps foisting establishment politicians forward *cough*Romney*cough* they keep wondering why they (as a party) keep losing.

    The issue I took with Nick's video is whistling past Cantor's immigration graveyard.

    Brat is (apparently) very against immigration reform, but there's some chatter about how much of a central issue Brat made it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Brat is (apparently) very against immigration reform, but there's some chatter about how much of a central issue Brat made it.

    And the only people surprised about that are the people who haven't visited western Pennsylvania.

  • LarryA||

    The Democrats are tied to ACA and gun control. Therefore the Republicans will campaign on traditional marriage and right to life.

  • John||

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Iranians are sending troops in.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles.....1402592470

    It's a regional civil war.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Who does one root for?

  • BakedPenguin||

    The non-combatants.

  • C. Anacreon||

    root for both sides to lose, so that those remaining will have no choice but to turn to secular democracy in the future. Then, this fever will infest other middle Eastern countries, and the region will soon be stabilized!

    /neocon

  • Trollificus||

    IF there were a God of Accurate Shooting, one might offer up a prayer for him to shower his blessings down on both sides...

    Just sayin'...

  • Trollificus||

    Oh shit. Replying to old comments again. *sheesh*

  • Christophe||

    Good, assuming we have no troops left.

    You want to ferment a revolution to topple Iranian theocracy, then letting them get mired in an interminable war next door is a good move.

  • Winston||

    So the US has no troops in Iraq?

  • Winston||

    Ah so it looks like Ontario really loves its free shit. I guess the libertarian moment will have to wait in Ontario...

  • Winston||

    Maybe I could run for the Libertarian Party in 2018 against Wynne. Not sure how hard it would be for me to get the nom...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • AlmightyJB||

    I thought it might be Liberty's new vibrator.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    So if you use an isopropyl-based glass or lens cleaner in your car just before driving past one of those you're screwed...

  • Bobarian||

    What about the ethanol in gas?

  • Winston||

    3 Reasons Why Eric Cantor Lost - And Republicans Will Continue to Lose

    Libertarians know how to lose so I guess the title is appropriate.

  • Winston||

    Seriously Gillespie and co. keep talking about the libertarian moment and the libertarian era but wouldn't that require libertarians to make headway in the Blue States too? The Dems ruining California, Chicago and Detroit haven't harmed them at all.

  • Winston||

    And until the GOP demonstrates it is serious about limiting the size, scope, and spending of government, they will keep losing elections

    That's a pretty big assumption.

  • Irish||

    It also assumes most Americans are secretly libertarians who would welcome an actually small government GOP.

    Most Americans will gladly vote for an ever bigger government until boots are coming down on their necks and they're being marched to the gulag. I hardly think a legitimately libertarian GOP would win many votes.

  • Winston||

    So one hand Gillespie argues that the GOP has to support gay marriage and pot because of polls yet they should cut the government despite the polls. Isn't that pretty much the definition of concern trolling?

  • ||

    So the Mariners can only get people on base when the Yankees make two errors in one play. Yay. And then they lose even that opportunity.

  • Winston||

    So what government programs would the public actually support cutting or abolishing? And would the public support an actual plan to cut those things and to support politicians who would implement those actual plans?

  • Irish||

    Most people are very stupid and don't know what they want.

    Americans want to cut spending, but don't actually know where the spending goes, and are therefore incapable of making decisions about what's important and what isn't. The average American thinks we spend something like 15% of our GDP on foreign aid, when in reality it's like 1%. Most Americans don't realize that we spend more money on education than any other nation on Earth per student, and therefore believe that if we just spent a little more money the problems would be solved.

    In short, they don't know what they want to cut because they aren't informed enough to know what programs actually exist, what they do, or what is spent on them.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "until the GOP demonstrates it is serious about limiting the size, scope, and spending of government, they will keep losing elections."

    So why doesn't this apply also to the DNC?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    So why doesn't this apply also to the DNC?

    Free Shit, FEELZ, useful idiots, media cover, the enduring myth of socialism.. did I leave anything out?

  • Winston||

    Because that would contradict his narrative of the Impeding Libertarian Era?

  • Sevo||

    Robert TE|6.12.14 @ 11:58PM|#
    "Gotta give you credit for, unlike Gillepse, seeing reality."...

    Buying allies is a pretty old ploy, but then you're not real bright, so it's not surprising.
    How is your racist self, twit?

  • Sevo||

    "How is life as a libertarian? Meet any girls yet?"

    Uh, you haven't a clue. And some over the years were not even racially PURE!

  • Libertymike||

    You're not a doctor and you're not a lawyer and you don't have Woody Allen's talent.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    "On two occasions I went on a date with a Jewess although neither was willing to give herself to me."

    Yeah, we've been over this before. Your heterosexuality was questioned.

  • Dweebston||

    NTTAWWT?

    Except, of course, closeted homosexual bigots are the worst sort of both.

  • SQRLSY One||

    • My GAWD, a big HAAA to all ye dabblers and dilettantitties and PUSSIES at this business of being multi-cultural and tolerant and all!!! Ah Mahself, the GLORIOUSLY multi-culturally tolerant SQRLSY One, have scored, not only with Lizard people , but also with Hyper-MAMMARY-Aliens! http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0310/S00003.htm … And often, even, with BOTH types, at once!

  • craiginmass||

    Well, for one thing:

    "Two-thirds of Republicans (68%) say they have a favorable view of the Iraq war, while nearly 9 in 10 Democrats (88%) have an unfavorable view"
    (during height of the war).

    Recently:
    "Two-thirds of Republicans (68%) say they have a favorable view of the Iraq war, while nearly 9 in 10 Democrats (88%) have an unfavorable view"

    So, there is a vast difference there as to who is into limiting the power of Gubment. Anyone can see that.

  • RishJoMo||

    Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.

    www.WentAnon.tk

  • Harvard||

    Three reasons Nick Gillespie is full of shit and a true LIBERALtarian:

    1.The Party of Big Government
    Liberal Dems and Progressives” are more big government than anyone on the planet and yet continue to win, though Nick never makes this assertion.

    The Party of Intolerance
    2. Nobody on the planet is more intolerant than Liberal Dems and “Progressives” and yet continue to win though Nick never makes this assertion.

    3. The Party of the Status Quo
    Nobody on the planet espouses continued spending, debt increase, and cronyism more than Liberal Dems and “Progressives” and continue to win yet Nick rarely makes this assertion.

    Nick Gillespie is reason #65,749 why Libertarian will continue to be a fringe party.

  • creech||

    Libertarian Party candidates make these assertions all the time, yet they continue to be a fringe party. So what is the answer, Harvard?

  • Harvard||

    Rand Paul seems to be pointing you to it.

    He isn't using the Libertarian Party as his vehicle, rather is working to make the Republican Party more libertarian.

    He's also careful to keep silent about any "open border" bullshit that he might believe.

    It doesn't take reinventing the political wheel.

  • craiginmass||

    He's careful to be silent about ANYTHING when any depth is involved.

    Hence his reluctance to discuss reproductive choice, full drug legalization, actual policies which work, etc.

    Making the Republicans more "libertarian" in most matters means....making them like the left (drugs, anti-war, human rights).

    Today's GOP is still very much hawkish and pro-Big Defense. One person or ten people or 100 people can't change that. You could appoint Rand President tomorrow and he wouldn't be able to cut a dime off the big picture nor hold back the forces of our Military Industrial Complex (which, I should note, is also largely Republican although those in uniform don't declare)....

    Sure, the Dems talk the talk too. But, at heart, the dems and progressives are MUCH less hawkish. They have to go along politically in some cases because, frankly, that's the only way to survive (the American people are still warlike).

    What you suggest would take a complete reinvention of the political wheel. You may not realize the depth of the Military Industrial Complex. What do you think - that the millions making their living and whose families have been involved for generations are going to become flower children? Ain't gonna happen.

  • Harvard||

    You're not very well read are you?

  • craiginmass||

    Can't stomach the Fiction Writer, if that's your drift.

  • MJBinAL||

    This is highly deceptive, poorly done, and disappointing to see such sloppy thinking on Reason.

    1. Yes, this one is correct. See comments on 3 below.

    2. Wow, this is deception worthy of the major parties.

    "Immigration Reform" is favored by the majority.
    BUT, what that means to them covers a wide range
    of positions. On one extreme, some of those who
    favor "Immigration Reform" want the borders closed
    and immigration of all sorts stopped. The other
    extreme wants the borders open and no controls at
    all, and there are positions at every point in
    between. Claiming that the majority wants to
    essentially open the borders based on this polling
    point is just a hair short of an Obama class lie.
    Very disappointing.

    3. Nope, the GOP is the party of "Democrat Lite".

    Status Quo, as in keep it the same, hasn't even
    been one of the choices. The two major parties
    have basically been somewhere between Socialist
    and Fascist, the only difference being how fast
    to get there and what part to do first.

  • RAHeinlein||

    Unfortunately, long-time incumbency exacerbates crony capitalism and government begets government.

    However, I take exception to the characterization of Republicans as the "party of intolerance" simply because they do not share your personal views (isn't that itself intolerant of an alternate viewpoint). While I am a libertarian purist when it comes to social issues - I certainly respect others with a different viewpoint and praise the Republican party for at-least professing a desire for smaller, more limited government.

  • MSD62581||

    Is Reason really going to go through this every time a prominent Republican loses an election? That is, trying to make it look like the lack of embrace of all things libertarian is the culprit for that loss. The first point of the video was actually accurate. Yes, Cantor was a big government Republican who lacked any claim to fiscal responsibility and had his hand in cronyism/corporatism. This was a focal point of Brat's campaign and he was able to garner support as a result. But then, the video delves into social issues despite there really being no evidence that they played any role in this election upset at all. While it's true that the American public in general is more supportive of gay marriage and pot legalization, there really is no evidence that this election had anything to do with either of those issues. Brat's website (http://davebratforcongress.com/issues/)doesn't mention many social issues outside of abortion (which he is pro-life). And would Brat have really benefited from making pot legalization or gay marriage support an issue in a conservative suburban district in Virginia?

  • craiginmass||

    Yes.
    Reason and other Koch publications want a republican victory, so they are going to attempt to continually rally the troops even though they have little idea what they are doing.

    They hope that if they keep talking, you will keep tuning in. And, based on past history, they are 100% correct!

  • MSD62581||

    This isn't the first time Reason has attempted a bogus claim like this. After Romney's defeat, Reason ran "3 Reasons Mitt Romney and the Republicans Lost Big in Election 2012." Among these reasons was "stay out of the bedroom, for good." They then cited Akin and Mourdock's election costing comments about rape and abortion. However, when we look closer at what was actually said and what the actual results were, we can see how misleading this claim was. The reason Akin's comments offended so many people was that they reflected an extreme ignorance of a woman's reproductive capability and by uttering the phrase "legitimate rape," he made it seem like a women who gets pregnant via rape was not really raped. None of this reflects any desire for the expansion of government to deal with the abortion issue or "get into" anyone's bedroom. If we look at what happened in the election that year, we see that Mitt Romney won the two states (IN and MO) where the offensive comments were made despite him losing most other swing states. In polling, we can see that a majority of American voters and even a majority of Democrats said that they didn't think Akin's comments reflected the views of the Republican Party. So there's no evidence based on these comments that Republicans desire any kind of government expansion to deal with abortion or that the comments effected any race outside of the candidates who made the comments since Romney won the two states in which the comments were made.

  • craiginmass||

    Of course, Romney was from the most liberal state in the nation and had been Gov when we put together the Obama...oops, RomneyCare as well as when gay marriage was legalized.

    He also went along with women's rights in our state - heck, he had a notebook full of women!

    So he's not exactly indicative of the national Republican Party - which is exactly why he lost! He as not nearly conservative enough for y'all.

    A guy like Santorum is probably more reflective of the large socialcon wind of the party - which overlaps with the christian conservatives.

    Without this part of the GOP, the party does not even exist! So it's not like it's a fringe part of the party....it's the core.

  • MSD62581||

    So once again, it appears that Reason is seeing what they want to see. If they wanted to cite the actual libertarian reasons Brat was able to upset Cantor, they should have just stuck with Cantor's record of fiscal irresponsibility and crony capitalism. But apparently, this wasn't good enough for them. They had to use Cantor's unseating as a jumping off point to criticize the GOP for a lack of all things libertarian. Hopefully they will cease making these intellectually lazy arguments in the future any time a big name Republican loses an election to someone on the left (Romney vs. Obama) or on the right (Cantor vs. Brat).

  • woodNfish||

    As long as nick gillespie is writing for this rag, it will remain a piece of leftist garbage. It looks like I need to add another loser publication to my spam file.

  • craiginmass||

    Don't fret.
    The Koch's have financed many other writers and publications of different "depths" - you will find one that perfectly agrees with your world view.

    After all, that's the idea of reading other opinions, right?

  • DoktorThomas™||

    Government fails to follow the commands of the founding documents. Perhaps you call a nexus between freedom and religion. Marriage is and always has been a religious ceremony. That the States would intrude on that for any reason is a blatant violation of the first amendment. To make any law respecting religion is a violation. A bar is a bar; government is barred from making laws regarding religion or the practice thereof.
    Ergo, the government can make or invent a marriage right. Any law that coops Christian religion is void on its face despite what men in a robes may say. We must respect all the commands of the founding documents, rather than pick and choose. And, law is replete with decisions that respect as valid a decision where other reasonable means to a end are available to petitioners that allow the historical practice and law to remain unchanged. Ditto for a religious practice which the government cannot regulate by its feeble laws.

    Therefore your assumption that the admitted clods in the GOP are intolerant fails beyond redemption, at least in the second venue argued here. (They are failures for fair greater reasons than this accusation.) The founding documents do not say that government shall enact no laws regarding atheism and atheists. It can, it does and it should. Atheism is the lack of religion and god and is very fair game. ©2014 All rights reserved.

  • craiginmass||

    Let's get back to why modern Libertarians and Koch's are really financing the GOP:

    "The billionaire Koch brothers and their political network are planning to spend almost $300 million during the 2014 election cycle, some of which will go toward a renewed effort to combat unprecedented carbon regulations unveiled by the Obama administration last month.

    According to The Daily Beast, industrialists Charles and David Koch will announce a new energy initiative this weekend at a California resort featuring Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and libertarian political scientist Charles Murray. While its scope isn't clear yet, the group will be spearheaded by the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, a 200-member organization that has funneled millions of dollars to various nonprofits in the Koch network."

  • Irish||

    You really are our dumbest troll. There are literally a dozen unions that spend more money on politics annually than do the Kochs.

    Unions, by any measure, have far more control of Democrats than the Kochs have of Republicans.

    I also like this part:

    The billionaire Koch brothers and their political network are planning to spend almost $300 million during the 2014 election cycle

    The reason they have to add 'and their political network' is because a lot of these organizations they claim are part of the Kochs political network actually get most of their money from non-Koch sources. Reason has an annual fund raiser, for example, which wouldn't be necessary if the Kochs just financed everything the way progressives imagine.

    By claiming these organizations are part of the Kochs' 'political network' they can falsely make it seem like the Kochs themselves are giving the 300 million dollars, when it actually comes from thousands of different people and organizations.

    You're easily manipulated, aren't you Craig?

  • Hyperion||

    So, we're recycling stories again? Meh.

  • craiginmass||

    No, this is new stuff. Do you consider the control of our government by private resource extraction corporations and a couple wealthy individuals to be a good thing?

    Or is it a negative?

    Or, you think it doesn't matter?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I guess the answer has to be to give the government more power so that it can control these corporations..

  • lap83||

    You're right, our government should totally be owned by a tiny mom and pop general store from the 1800s and a couple of hobos.

    That's sort of implied, but people would laugh at you if you came out and said it. Because there's about as much chance of the government being controlled by poor, simple folk as it being controlled by rainbow-farting unicorns.

  • Hyperion||

    No, this is not new. This story was posted on the 12th. Where you been, masshole?

  • Mike M.||

    Hello there once again Mary Cecilia Stack.

    Of 8113 Sun Meadows Court, Fort Worth, Texas 76123, phone number 817-263-4116.

  • ||

    Want the SSN?

  • rogerfgay||

    The Patron Saint of the RINO movement, Ronald Reagan, was responsible for pushing "welfare" through the constitutional ceiling to change the country into a welfare state - in which we are all subjects - destroying traditional marriage and other human rights in the process. You know the RINOs are going to keep losing by listening to them express their dreams of being successful Conservative-Talking Big-Government shysters, just like Saint Ronald. It's really pretty obvious. Enough people felt the pain and realized they'd been fooled ... leaving not enough people willing to continue support for the parade of tin-hat con men in the party.

  • ||

    destroying traditional marriage and other human rights in the process

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Irish||

    Yeah, if there's one thing I remember about the Reagan presidency, it was his support of gay marriage.

  • Agammamon||

    And drugs. And sex with animals. And sex with gay animals while high on drugs.

    That Reagan was a real prevert.

  • ||

  • Hawk Spitui||

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Yes, because one guy with a sign is statistically significant.

  • Irish||

    Hey - he's got three signs.

  • Hyperion||

    The problem with the view of some conservatives on immigration, is that like their bros on the left, the proglodytes, they often lack the ability to look at things in an objective manner. It's all or nothing, you know, everything's only black and white.

    So you have the conservative media taking stories like the one about gang members coming here from El Salvador and saying outrageous shit like 'the government is going to take care of us'. So people see this and they apply it to all immigration. Like the left think that any type of border control is racist. The teams thrive on this shit.

  • Homple||

    I'm beginning to change my mind about open borders. I used to believe in the possibility that some immigrants might come here for access to welfare. Other commenters assured me that that this could not be the case. Immigrants only cross the border to offer their labor to willing employers because we all own ourselves. I doubted this until ten thousand or so of the incoming unaccompanied minors showed up at the wrought iron gates of my velocipede factory with their neatly typed resumes asking for job application forms.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    The question is really: Do you trust the Congress to negotiate, write, and pass immigration reform that's an improvement on our current system without including a boondoggle of unnecessary give-ways and crony exemptions? And, do you trust the executive branch and federal law enforcement to faithfully implement this legislation? Are they even capable of this?

    Our current system is undoubtedly super fucked up, but would anything passed by Congress, signed by the president, and implemented by the feds be an improvement? Perhaps I'm more cynical than most, but my answers are no way.

  • Hyperion||

    the question is really: Do you trust the Congress to negotiate, write, and pass immigration reform that's an improvement on our current system

    NO

  • Homple||

    I agree completely with Lady Bertrum. As fornicated up as the existing system is, the current government would only screw things further.

    Because here's what "reform" would mean. Lobbyists, Obama minions and anonymous legislative staff would write at least a thousand pages of new carte blanche permissions to the bureaucracy, special favors to interest groups and goodies for bribing hold out legislators. There would be no public debate on the bill and the text of it would appear on legislators's desks 15 minutes before voting on it. Although legislators would not know any of the details of the draft, each of them would be informed by their party's leadership of the rewards for voting aye and the punishment for voting nay.

    Then they would pass it after which they would let us see what's in it.

    It would suck an Obama would do whatever he wanted to anyway so why bother.

  • Hyperion||

    I agree completely with Lady Bertrum. As fornicated up as the existing system is, the current government would only screw things further.

    I'll say this much. We're waiting for my wife's green card renewal, and I have prayed to the invisible sky god that the all benevolent government does NOT 'reform' immigration until we have said card. That gives us another 10 years for her to either apply for naturalization and put an end to this draconian non-sense, or move somewhere else.

  • Homple||

    This is the real pissoff about amnesty: it makes suckers out of those who've tried to follow the law.

    We'd be in damn big business straightening out the Kafkaesque clusterfuck we've allowed the immigration bureaucracy to construct before legislating any more bright ideas.

  • Agammamon||

    Hey - he's got three signs.

    Statistical outlier!

  • Hyperion||

    30,000 tea partiers on the national mall:

    Astroturf

    12 protesters with climate change signs:

    The people have spoken!

  • GILMORE||

    I think the actual real-world comparison is

    "millions of voters electing gop candidates with fiscal conservative agenda"

    - KOCHTOPUS HIJACK DEMOCRAZY!

    "1000 idiots compain about rape culture in Change.org petition"

    - MSNB headline story!

  • John||

    Does Nick think there are any issues at all facing the country besides Mexicans, pot and gay sex? While those three things might enable a feller like Nick to have a great weekend in Vegas (NTTAWWT), theyight not be the totality of issues or even the most important issues people are voting on.

  • lap83||

    He sort of embodies the Thomas Sowell quote, "I believe in libertarian principles but not in libertarian fetishes."

  • lap83||

    Actually, I would understand the preoccupation among libertarians with certain issues if they were a slippery slope to more freedom. But for every anti-drug war/open border libertarian I can point to five progtards who want the freedom to smoke pot on their way to the free healthcare office.

  • Irish||

    Does Nick think there are any issues at all facing the country besides Mexicans, pot and gay sex?

    Nick believes that if he were running the Republican party (and why haven't they made the offer yet?) there would be a wave of victories from the newly libertarian GOP.

    He completely ignores that 20% of the Republican base still consists of SoCons, that many libertarian reforms are unpopular with a wide subsection of Republicans and independents, and that politics is far messier than just having the best ideas.

    The fact that libertarian ideas aren't popular doesn't make us wrong anymore than an abolitionist in 1750 was wrong because most people were cool with slavery, but it does mean that the Republicans can't just adopt libertarian ideas and magically start winning elections.

    This is Nick's most annoying tendency. He thinks that Republican leaders are just too dumb to implement all the libertarian ideas, when actually they're smart enough to realize that they'd lose their base if they tried to.

  • Homple||

    To be fair, he's probably concerned about food trucks.

  • umh||

    I live here and the author doesn't have a clue why Cantor lost.

  • Hyperion||

    You mean in VA, right? Do tell us why he lost.

  • GILMORE||

    I'm going to guess he never once bothered with any kind of actual 'representing his constituents'? and instead just launched headfirst into a self-promoting campaign to become an even more inside-the-beltway schmuck, completely divorced from VA voters interests.

    Long shot there, i know

  • Hyperion||

    launched headfirst into a self-promoting campaign to become an even more inside-the-beltway schmuck

    And was looking at being very successful at it.

    I don't think that's a long shot of a guess. It would be my first guess, also.

  • GILMORE||

    "It would be my first guess, also."

    yes, my sarc - it is subtle.

  • GILMORE||

    Someone writing for Salon pretends to "defend libertarianism" by bringing up a bunch of concepts/topics I've never even heard of or considered as particularly relevant...

    Like, "information blocks, experiential blocks, economic blocks", all of which seem to add up to the idea that "individuals can't have perfect government, because of X, Y, and Z", ergo = libertarianism?

    It seems some kind of stupid workaround for a prog to use to rationalize 'individual rights and responsibility' to other progs = not because it has any particular benefits by itself, but because 'well, see, government doesn't really work the way we progs want to imagine it does'... 'libertarian as backup plan' in the event Progtopia turns out to be unattainable, or something.

    ... i don't know whether this guy is more or less retarded than the other person claiming they are 'rejecting' their libertarianism;

    Note = Salon is *totally fucking obsessed* with libertarians.... yet NEVER ONCE have i ever seen a single story there ever link to, cite, quote, or actually provide readers with any example of a real-life libertarian article/POV/argument, etc.

    Both articles are so bone stupid i can't get more than 1/3 through them. have at them yourselves...

  • Agammamon||

    Your first link doesn't go anywhere.

  • GILMORE||

  • Agammamon||

    I don't know he rings up some good points as to why large government is not a god idea - by highlighting the things the US government does in our name (that progs are against when a Dem is not in the WH) and showing how little control over those things the voter has.

    He is, in a roundabout way, rehashing the 'someday your political enemies will have control of the machinery you're building' argument, adding in examples of how those political enemies *already* have a strong grip on the controls.

  • GILMORE||

    meh. like i said, i got about 1/2 through it, and found it too mealy mouthed in general

    If he came right out and said, "Government screws everything up! JUST LOOK!"
    i'd have been more enthused. instead, he seemed to lay it on thin suggesting 'yeah, well its not perfect, like it *should be*...'

    I normally dont get suckered into anything Salon/Slate. It just so happens I went there *on purpose*, and lo and behold, moar Libertarian pieces.

    I think my more germane point = they write these pieces *all the time*, but never once actually ever link/cite/or refer anyone to 'actual libertarian' writings. Its always these stand-in Proggy-20-something stooges who 'escaped from Libertarian Cult Worship!' or something.

  • Agammamon||

    That's because libertarian works are published in Black Speech.

    Just reading the words puts your immortal soul in peril of eternal damnation.

    Only those with the mental fortitude to withstand the daemon's lies and maintain faith in the state are allowed to peruse the writing of these foul creatures.

    Remember: A small mind is easily filled with faith.

  • Agammamon||

    The other guy, however, is kind of an idiot.

    He points out that libertarianism doesn't prescribe appropriate actions for *every* human interaction. And then simply rejects it for one that does, seemingly without caring if his new philosophy has any internally coherent structure or self-imposed limits of control.

    He doesn't seem to understand that libertarianism is silent on religion for two reason - 1. Which religion? They can't all be right. 2. Freedom. Pick your poison (buddhist, christian, or mooslem and lie in the bed you've made.

    He picks the 'child being starved by parents' (an extreme case highlighting the idea that you have no duty to serve others) and says that since libertarianism (as a core principle) would permit that then its abhorrent.

    But you don't see these people criticizing communism because (followed faithfully) requires the enslavement of its population to 'the greater good'.

    Both are textbook cases and at least libertarians are willing to modify their ideology to conform to their people (compared to communists who try to modify their populations to conform to their ideology - no matter how many have to be killed in the process).

  • Agammamon||

    He keeps harping on how libertarianism is an 'incomplete social philosophy'. OK - show me one that isn't.

    The choice issue - he seems to believe that if circumstances force you to make a hard choice, well then you really haven't chosen. Fucking 'fairness'. It snot 'fair' that the CEO can make different choices than the factory worker. SO we shouldn't have sweatshops, because its *more fair* to take even a poor choice from that guy.

  • cavalier973||

    Eric Cantor lost, but a Republican won this primary, as I recall.

  • cavalier973||

    Republicans need to get on board with referring to pet owners as "parents", so that they're not seen as othering people who genuinely and sincerely love their pets, er, children.

    They also need to be willing to call people by their self-identified gender without regard to physical reality concerning chromosomes and reproductive organs.

    They need to call tax cuts "expenditures" and tax increases "revenues". They need to call reductions in the proposed increases of government spending "cuts".

    Language doesn't matter. Words can mean whatever we want. If you think differently, you are a hideous bigot (depeding, of course, on your personal definitions of what the words "hideous" and "bigot" are).

  • Agammamon||

    They also need to be willing to call people by their self-identified gender without regard to physical reality concerning chromosomes and reproductive organs.


    I'm not even certain why this is an issue. Especially among libertarians.

    We're all about personal choice and, anyway, we should be trying to get ahead of the transhumanist future where gender and sexuality will be truly mutable.
  • cavalier973||

    I'm not even certain why this is an issue. Especially among libertarians.

    Yeah, you're probably right. I mean, it's not like this issue can be used by the government to compel people to act against their religious beliefs, or anything. Even if it does, those religious people are icky, and deserve to be assessed fines and such for being intolerant bigots.

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

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