Radio

Rush Limbaugh vs. Glenn Beck!

|

The Grand Poo-bah of conservative broadcasting gives the performance-artist upstart a what-for in response to Beck's trashing of Republicans at CPAC. Excerpt:

Frum Frum Frum Frum!

The point at this stage is to support the conservatives in and outside public office.  I certainly would not have ignored the other team on the field, the Democrats.  They're the only reason we're in this mess.  The Democrat Party is the only reason we are threatened with the things we're threatened with.  The Democrat Party. Solely. They own it. […]

But to each his own.  There are motivations for people who do what they do — and I, as a highly trained broadcast specialist, I think I know what's going on and why various people are doing what they're doing and taking positions that they're taking.

America's Mr. Angry Pants

But the best way to insure that Obama succeeds is to think that we need a third party. All the momentum that we've got going right now is just going to hit a brick wall if a third party starts, particularly on the basis that there's "no difference between the two parties." …

"One year after the inauguration of Barack Obama there is a conservative ascendancy within the Republican Party, and it needs to be encouraged, not beaten down.  It needs to be inspired.  We need to thank them and join them."

Link via The Corner.

Greg Beato on Beck's "experimental melodrama" here; Reason on Limbaugh here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Clemency Under Fire

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.

  1. “”I certainly would not have ignored the other team on the field, the Democrats. They’re the only reason we’re in this mess. The Democrat Party is the only reason we are threatened with the things we’re threatened with.””

    This is why I can’t take Rush seriously. It’s always their fault.

    Even when Rush was being investigated for his drug abuse, the investigation was a witch hunt according to him.

    1. Tricky vic, where there’s smoke, there’s fire: Democrats are blue and OxyContin is blue too. Rush was right about the democratic addiction plot.;-)

    2. Limbaugh is absolutely right in this case, of course. The Tea Party movement is to the Republicans what things like the Green Party and Ralph Nader are to the Democrats.

      As a Democrat, I highly support the formation of a “Tea Party”, running candidates against both the Republican and Democratic candidates. See NY23 for an example of this in action.

      In theory, the Libertarian Party could be different, since they take positions that are both to the “left” of most Democrats (ending the war in Afghanistan, legalizing drugs, prosititution, and internet gambling) and to the “right” of most Republicans (scaling back the government way beyond even what most Republicans want). But in practice the Libertarian Party, and self-identified “libertarians” in general, are more concerned about low taxes than anything else, and are therefore mostly a far-right party.

      The Tea Party tends to have a right-wing attitute towards immigration and foreign policy, which specifically makes them a far-right party (since they have no left-wing positions whatsoever).

      1. I love how the supposed Dem above thinks the “Tea Party” is an actual third party. Has this happened? I’m not sure where this has happened … and I don’t think it’s going to happen in the near future. Wishful reasoning.

        Second, let’s look at NY23: an independent candidate who did not know local issues nor live in the district was within reach of victory. He was supported by a new, disorganized, populist movement against two 100-year-old parties that outspent him by an order of magnitude. “He still lost,” is the takeaway? I don’t think so … I think the lesson is that this movement can back reasonable candidates (Scott Brown) and see victory more of then not.

        1. Keep in mind that a Democrat had NEVER won in NY23 prior to that election. Never in a hundred plus years.

          Of course the “Tea Party” isn’t an actual third party. But there are plenty of existing minor right wing third parties for them to latch upon, as happened in NY23.

          1. The emergence of a viable third party may indeed spell victory for one of the big two turds, but not for the long term. The Democrats and Republicans need each other. It’s a symbiotic relationship if ever there was one.

            1. The design of the American electoral system virtually guarantees two dominate parties. There’s no fix to that, other than to completely scrap the existing system, and remake it into a European-style parelimentary system, where one votes for the party, not the individual candidate.

              1. In the case of NY23, the Republican candidate was actually a Dem running as a Republican. Actually electing a D instead of an R was probably better in the long run for conservatives.

              2. You get multiple paties in parliamentary system where the voters vote for individual candidates too.

                To deal with this Australia uses preferential balloting or an instant runoff. Even with that they still have to use a Liberal-National coalition to get a conservative government. The bigest plurality almost always goes to Labor.

                In Canada and the UK the seat is given to the candidate with the plurality.

                Thus you get Tony Blair and Labour getting a majority of seats with only thirty-seven percent of the popular vote in the last British election.

          2. If taxes were all we cared about, Dondero would not have (mostly) left this board. He would have received a lot of agreement.

            Take off the Team Blue glasses, they’re distorting your view.

            1. I think Reason commentors are slightly different than most self-identified libertarians.

              That is, a lot of people, possibly the majority, of people who refer to themselves as “libertarians” are really “I-hate-taxes-ians”. Actual libertarians are more common here than in the real world.

              1. I agree, Geotpf. Crypto-Republican pseduo-libertarians thrive during Democratic administrations.

                They’ll wither back when the pendulum swings.

              2. Well, I hate taxes. Especially when Obama or Bush are putting my money up their noses.

                What does that make me?

                1. Do you care about:

                  1. The fact that victimless crimes are illegal.
                  2. High budget deficits and government spending.
                  3. Invading random countries for no reason.
                  4. The government violating individual liberties (Patriot Act, unreasonable searches, etc.).

                  If you care about all of these things, you are a libertarian. (Lots of people say they care about #2, but love pork if it benefits them personally or their city or industry-so they lie.)

                  Personally, I’m a liberal, so I freely admit I don’t care much about #2. I think government spending has a place. But I do care, a lot, about #1, 3, and 4.

              3. The easiest and biggest victory for liberty that is politically feasible would be a large reduction in taxes.

                You can get that before you legalize pot before you legalize gay marriage before you privatize social security before you get school vouchers, and before you cut defense spending and before you allow health care insurance companies to sell policies across state lines, before you get troops out of Korea let alone Afghanistan and before you balance the budget.

                My opinion is that the “I-hate-taxes-ians” are closer to being “actual” libertarians then the radical deficit hawks found among your average reason commentator.

                1. While a large reduction in taxes would be nice, it cannot be done without first doing the things you listed in the 2nd paragraph. While money on those things is being spent, they must be paid for, otherwise the US will become completely insolvent sooner than it is on track for already. I’d rather be(if I HAD to pick a doomsday)a citizen of a facist state where I can make a meager unhappy living than in a supposedly free state where I have to bring a truckload of money to stand in line for 12 hours to buy a loaf of bread while I watch my family starve to death. Cut the spending first, and we can have the better half of both situations.

        2. I like the NY23 outcome. Libertarian-Republicans and other-Republicans have been playing chicken for a long time, and the Libertarian-Republicans have been losing. Now we are demonstrating that we are crazier mother fuckers than they are, and that yes, we are willing to cut off our nose to spite our faces. So are Representitives better start …. uhhh …. Representin’, cause we are just as willing to go to hell in a handbasket with the other team as we are with them.

        3. I also like the logic that if you don’t have any left-wing positions, that makes you far-right.
          I think Ronald Bailey has an article about that attitude if you scroll up a bit.

      2. The Tea Party tends to have a right-wing attitute towards immigration and foreign policy, which specifically makes them a far-right party (since they have no left-wing positions whatsoever).

        Sure they do! Let’s continue our military adventures in the middle east! It’s the one thing everyone can agree on!

      3. are more concerned about low taxes than anything else, and are therefore mostly a far-right party
        Ignorance your name is Democrat.
        When a belief that the government should stop being fiscally irresponsible is lumped in with fascism and religious extremism, traditional definitions of “far right”, further discussion is useless.

    3. The results showed that it was a witch hunt too.

      1. I guess it depends on which results you’re looking at. Rush entered treatment for his addiction. Addicts almost always doctor shop to get more than the reasonable amount their doctor prescribed.

    4. Even when Rush was being investigated for his drug abuse, the investigation was a witch hunt according to him.

      All drug abuse investigations are witch hunts.

  2. Rush is right.

    1. Living in the limelight is the universal dream!

      1. And if you choose not to decide, you still HAVE made a choice.

    2. Rush is right.
      Absolutely.

  3. “One year after the inauguration of Barack Obama there is a conservative ascendancy libertarian conspiracy within the Republican Party, and it needs to be encouraged, not beaten down. It needs to be inspired destroyed. We need to thank them and join hunt them down and kill them.”

    Fixed for honesty.

  4. The Democrats are why we’re in this mess? Rush has a short memory. Must be the Oxycontin.

    1. See my response to Ed below. Love to hear your thoughts on it.

  5. Cage Match!!!
    10 quatloos on Rush.

  6. Well, clearly the Democrats are the reason we’re in this mess. If they hadn’t pushed through the Medicare prescription drug bill, set up massive bureaucracies in education and homeland security, embroiled the country in two costly overseas wars, and passed TARP things would be much better now.

    Wait, what?

  7. “The Democrat Party is the only reason we are threatened with the things we’re threatened with. The Democrat Party. Solely“.

    This is why conservatism as a serious political ideology is bankrupt.

    1. That’s not conservatism speaking. It’s not conservatism that’s bankrupt, it’s individuals that carry the flag.

      Glen Beck is trying to clean his own back yard, or at least give the appearance of, Limbaugh just wants to clean his neighbors. He’s nothing but a partisan attack dog. He’s offended that Beck didn’t focus on the other team.

    2. First, “conservatism” isn’t, and never will be, intellectually bankrupt. The thinking of an Edmund Burke, for example, will never be out of date.

      Second, I want to defend Rush’s very strong claim about the Democrats. Here is why I agree with him.

      The Democrats have set themselves up as the party that caters to the welfare-state whims of the American people — and hoo boy do the American people like to indulge their welfare state whims from time to time. The Republicans are the party the people turn to for national defense and fiscal sanity, typically as a reaction to the last welfare state binge. But when the Republicans are in power, they know that everything they do (or don’t do) is being compared by the electorate to what the Democrats would do (or not do). Therefore, in order not to be turned out of office, the Republicans very often (especially in the past 10 years) resort to “welfare state lite” in order to placate those needs of the electorate. The Democrats hold their welfare state ideology and fantasy world promises over the Republicans’ heads like a hammer, always promising a little more “for free” than the Reps do. If the Republicans don’t occasionally give the American people more “free” goodies, they get turned out of office. Then the Democrat binge occurs, and the cycle repeats. The problem is, the ante is upped every cycle. No matter how much Bush spent, Obama will spend more, probably an order of magnitude more.

      I’d say that, if it weren’t for a party like the Democrats whose very essence is the vision of a fantasy world where the welfare state works, other parties wouldn’t have to try to compete on that absurd playing field, and would be free to govern in a conservative or libertarian way.

      1. If what you say is true, how come all the binges occur during republican administrations?

        1. Because,with the exception of Bush43,they all had Democratic Congresses writing the budgets.

      2. Vote GOP! They are demonstratively weak-willed about the principles they pay lip-service to!

        1. Vote GOP! They are demonstratively weak-willed about the principles they pay lip-service to!

          As opposed to Libertarians? They oppose all wealth transfers…but everyone else first?

          1. I am not and never will be a supporter for the Libertarian Party. I’m always commenting from a small “l” POV.

            This is about principles vs. pragmatism. Until the GOP demonstrates that it will live up to the small government positions it takes when out of power, I’d rather be principled.

            1. Agreed, SF.

              I’d rather be a minor third party, principled and honest with ourselves and forever in the wilderness, than pragmatic, elected, and dishonest.

            2. This is about principles vs. pragmatism. Until the GOP demonstrates that it will live up to the small government positions it takes when out of power, I’d rather be principled.

              Can I assume from this comment that you refuse all forms of government wealth redistribution?

              The reason I ask is because I often hear about libertarians being principled when it comes to voting, but when it comes to refusing wealth transfers, not so much.

              1. In SugarFreelandia, there would be no involuntary taxation. In the real world, I am at an income level that makes me a net taxpayer, almost twice over.

                The only wealth transfer I engage in is negative.

                1. The only wealth transfer I engage in is negative.

                  Glad to hear it. Too many on these pages say “I am principled. I was stolen from. I can steal back and remain principled, cause they did it first”.

                  1. I’m not sure I disagree with their sentiment though. It’s not stealing to take back what the mugger took. It’s not initiating force to hit back at the person who punched you first.

                    If they took more than they were stolen from would be condemnable, but most of us have paid far, far more to the government than the worth of the “services” it provides. Even if we add to the calculation the “services” we don’t think the government should be providing anyway.

                    But I don’t think that balancing the scales–if it is true balance that is being sought–is unethical.

                    1. It’s not initiating force to hit back at the person who punched you first.

                      Ahh, the classic school yard “principle”? He hit me first?

                      If they took more than they were stolen from would be condemnable, but most of us have paid far, far more to the government than the worth of the “services” it provides.

                      No one gets value for their tax dollars, true. Don’t the lion’s share of taxes get paid by the upper 5%? So unless I am part of that group, how can I claim “principle” when collecting unemployment insurance, for example? I just have to claim, ala Chode, “I paid X so I must have paid MORE than my share” even though it has no basis in reality?

        2. Also, in general, Republican women are much better looking than Democratic women.

          What this country needs is more hot women in positions of power.

          I’m serious, dude.

        3. Vote GOP! They are demonstratively weak-willed about the principles they pay lip-service to!

          You should read Draco’s bullshit about his perfect deficit plan…not to small and not to big but just right.

          He is a republican and the republicans have not even won congress yet he is already back tracking on smaller government.

          What a piece of shit.

          Perhaps he is simply a sock puppet trying to get people like me to want a full on bloody purge of the Republican party.

          If so it is working.

      3. Draco,”If the Republicans don’t occasionally give the American people more “free” goodies, they get turned out of office.” How do you account for when the Republicans do give goodies and they still get turned out of office?

        1. Glad you asked, since this just reinforces my point: they were turned out of office because Obama promised more free goodies than McCain.

          1. Draco, that doesn’t fly. Bush was in office giving away goodies and he still got turned out.

      4. Prior to the recession, the two presidents who were in charge with the lowest deficit were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Those with the highest were Ronald Reagan (by far) and G.W. Bush. Where does this claim that the GOP are fiscally responsible come from (except their own talking points)?

        1. If you understood that deficits shouldn’t be “small” they should be “the right size” you wouldn’t be asking this question. Clinton actually had a surplus at one point which, of course led to a recession. If you don’t understand why, you need to do some reading. Deficit spending is an absolute necessity of a nation with a fiat currency system, as otherwise the money supply cannot increase to the size necessary to support economic growth.

          1. Wait, you’re a Republican?

            1. If a Republican is one who only pays lip service to actual fiscal constraint and small government then yes he is as Republican as one can be.

          2. HA ! Seriously coffee came out of my nose a little when I read this.

            Is this the Goldilock’s theory of federal deficits?

            Obama’s deficits are TOO LARGE
            Clinton’s deficits were TOO SMALL
            a (any?) Republican’s deficits are “the right size”

            1. Sadly, your inability to understand what I wrote is not uncommon. Most libertarians (and far more “most” Americans) don’t understand this topic at all. If we ran surpluses from now until the end of the world, the end of the world would come very quickly for the USA. It is absolutely essential that the US run deficits. The only question is how big is too big. Not one in a million Americans understand this. That makes about 350 of us that do, I guess.

              If it makes it easier, realize that ever dollar of deficit is one dollar added to the private sector. Conversely, ever dollar of surplus is one dollar removed from the private sector. This is so basic that I often laugh to see people groping toward understanding of it. If there is a huge surplus, that means the government sucked huge amounts of net money out of private savings. That’s a recipe for economic disaster.

              1. Uh, every dollar of deficiet might add to the economy… by .90 cents or so. Maybe less.

                But assume that it does add exactly $1 to the economy right now.

                The inflation and future spending that is curtailed by that existing debt reduces the growth by $1.10 in the future. At best, its a wash.

                At most, deficits trade growth today for stagnation tomorrow, on the hopes that tomorrows robust and more efficient economy can cope with the drag.

                You are only looking at one side of the ledger. That’s like saying a person is rich if they are going to rack up $40,000 in credit card debt. Yes, they are rolling in “stuff” today, but what about tomorrow, when the bill comes due?

                1. No, it adds exactly $1, to the penny.

                  I appreciate your willingness to engage the argument though.

                  This may help you out:

                  http://moslereconomics.com/man…..-chairman/

                  As a bonus, you’ll learn what would happen if you paid your taxes in cash (it would be burned).

                2. At most, deficits trade growth today for stagnation tomorrow, on the hopes that tomorrows robust and more efficient economy can cope with the drag.

                  But the growth today does happen and that growth finances the interest cost. Maybe its a sloppy way of doing business; instead of leaving a dollar in commerce where it might earn $1.00(x), it is taken by the government, then returned to the market where it will earn $0.90(y). If y>z by more than the $0.10 of each dollar that government siphons off for “overhead”, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

              2. No, it doesn’t. Maybe the government spent less, hmm?

              3. I don’t think I misunderstood you Draco. My goal was to point out the mendacity of selectively declaring Democratic deficits as either too large or too small while arguing that Republican deficits are “the right size.”

                Rather than telling us there is a fundamental difference between the red + blue teams, your saying it’s a difference of degree: the reds wont run up the deficit as high as Obama (unless they are Bush), but they wont let it get as low as recession-causing Clinton (lol). In other words: the Republicans are always prudent and correct and all problems are always the fault of those dirty Democrats. This is not a indicator of ‘sanity’ or ‘maturity’ or a responsible party. It’s just more ad hoc rationalizing and scapegoating.

                1. It’s funny how I never said anything of the kind, but people assumed that I said Republican deficits were “right sized.” I was simply correcting the notion that we should eliminate deficits. Go back and read what I wrote.

              4. The issue is not deficit or surplus the issue is aggregate government spending.

                If the governmental apparatus spent an appropriate amount of money, it wouldn’t matter a wit how it was financed.

              5. If it makes it easier, realize that ever dollar of deficit is one dollar added to the private sector. Conversely, ever dollar of surplus is one dollar removed from the private sector.

                yeah guys don cha know that dollars are wealth. It is impossible for the private sector to create wealth without the government making dollars!!!

          3. Oh Christ! That old Clinton surplus bit? Nobody who digs that body up is ever allowed to tell anyone to “do some more reading.”

            Fucking cheerleaders…

          4. Seriously, so your theory (if we accept that it is true) is that Clinton’s “surplus” (which never really existed) created a recession 8 years later?

            I’m all for recognizing that economics take time and its not a do today, see tomorrow, situation, but jeez oh man. 6-7 years into a presidency I think you can safely assume its mostly on the president in the office.

            1. Since this thread was originally about Rush, remember he was the one who promoted the meme that the housing crisis was Carter’s fault.

          5. Clinton actually had a surplus at one point which, of course led to a recession.

            You sir are an idiot.

        2. Prior to the recession, the two presidents who were in charge with the lowest deficit were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

          So come this November you will be voting on the record of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (Bill Clinton and a republican controlled congress) rather then the record of, you know, the actual president; Obama?

      5. he Republicans are the party the people turn to for national defense and fiscal sanity, typically as a reaction to the last welfare state binge.

        How is pouring more money than the next 30 countries combined into defense not welfare for military contractors? I don’t care if you’re pissing away my money to a farmer in Nebraska or a Boeing exec in Chicago, you’re still pissing my money away.

        1. We spent a lot of money building infastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq. But when we give it to aid foreign people in foreign lands, it’s not welfare. 😉

        2. It’s even worse than that. The United States spends about the same amount on it’s military as the other 190-ish countries on the planet do-combined.

          Anybody is for that as well as being for “fiscal sanity” isn’t really for fiscal sanity.

      6. The only case you have successfully made here is that the Republicans are not worse than Democrats. I will still not vote for either of them in a general election.

      7. if it weren’t for a party like the Democrats whose very essence is the vision of a fantasy world where the welfare state works, other parties wouldn’t have to try to compete on that absurd playing field,

        Well no, what you’re really doing is blaming the electorate. If you outlawed Democrats you’d just end up eventually with liberal and conservative wings of the GOP. In a free democracy you will always have politicians promising something for nothing – it’s an easy way to get elected. The Democrats exist because a significant percentage of the population wants them to exist and benefits materially from their existence. Both the Republicans and the Democrats cater to these constituencies (the lazy, the scared, the unskilled) to varying degrees.

        1. That’s a very good point vanya, and something I considered adding to my screed, but it was long enough already. I certainly hinted at it. Obviously, the party exists because there is a constituency for welfare state fantasy.

      8. “”The Republicans are the party the people turn to for national defense and fiscal sanity,””

        When have the Republicans ever practiced fiscal sanity?

      9. Draco,

        There are few comments online that get me more pissed off than liberals making the argument “When Republicans are wrong, it’s the Republican’s fault. When Democrats are wrong, it’s the Republican’s fault”. Please don’t be like those people and make the same argument in reverse.

    3. Stupid comments like this are the reason why Beck is the one who may have actually started the mental revolution we have been hoping for, and Rush, while right sometimes, would rather be a party man than a visionary.

  8. Shut the fuck up, Rush Limbaugh.

    Oh weird, Firefox’s spellchecker can’t understand “Barack” or “Obama,” but “Limbaugh” gets through?

    1. obviously that means Firefox is racist.

      1. Or hasn’t been updated for a few years.

        1. He’s muslim = on the no-spellcheck list

  9. There is no difference between the parties once in power. Their campaign rhetoric is the only difference. In that sense, there is also no difference between Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olberman.

    1. I didn’t realize they’ve got Glenn Greenwald saying the exact same thing three articles below this. Sorry.

    2. Well…if Rush can publicly go on the air and say the NAACP should never be listened to because they’re all black (as Olbermann did with whites and the tea parties), and receive not an ounce of backlash in the MSM, then they’re the same.
      But we both know it would be the lead story in the NY Times the next day.

  10. I think one of them’s afraid and the other is glad of it.

  11. I wish it were all the Democrats’ fault. That would make cleaning up this mess so much easier.

    1. Cleanup! Aisle ?!

  12. “All the momentum that we’ve got going right now is just going to hit a brick wall if a third party starts, particularly on the basis that there’s “no difference between the two parties.” …

    Oh yeah, I believe you this time Republicans, because its not like you have promised fiscal conservatism in the past and toally reneged. Unfortunately with “all that momentum” will come neo-conservative social policy… Legalize marijuana? No way, the devils weed! Gay marriage? No way, we need “family values”. Reform our prison industrial complex? No, unless by reforming you mean build more prisons.

    Your a Republican apologist Rush, go fuck yourself you fat pill abusing bastard.

    1. Ditto – oops, that’s Rush’s line.

      The only thing I can say for Limbaugh is he is entertaining (like a clown) whereas Beck is just stupid and grating.

      1. Well said, gas. I can’t believe people take that clown seriously.

    2. Learn some grammar gas. It’s “you’re” not “your”.

      1. There should be a comma after grammar, franz.

      2. Your second period should be behind the quotation, franz.

        1. You mean inside of it, heller.

          1. Actually, I think the placement of that period is acceptable.

            1. Also, there should be a comma behind “you’re.”

              1. You’re right about that.

          2. No I meant behind the quotation mark.

    3. What bothered me about the Bennett letter was that he seemed to take the attitude of “we hear your message, go away”, as if we don’t remember 1994 and the broken promises. Imagine if they had followed through on the balanced budget amendment back then, what a MASSIVE difference it would have made today.

  13. This is Beck’s greatest virtual. Sure, he’s a little nuts, and I don’t agree with him completely, but he really is significantly more libertarian than most of the AM radio yakkers. And in fact, he seems to be becoming more libertarian as time passes and he learns more.

    1. More crazy = more libertarian? If you say so.

  14. Of all the things I find objectionable about Rush, his drug use is not one of them. Is he a hypocrite on the subject? Yep. Does he deserve to criticized as a hypocrite on the Drug War? Yep.

    It’s Rush’s body. He can damn well put what he pleases into it.

    1. It’s Rush’s body. He can damn well put what he pleases into it.

      For a second I thought you were going to make a food joke. Good man for not going for the cheap laughs.

    2. While I am for total decriminalization of all drugs, I don’t necessarily think it’s hypocritical for people to view getting hooked on prescribed meds as different than getting hooked on recreational drugs. There is a difference. I don’t think it’s a legally relevant difference, but it’s not off the wall insane to draw a distinction.

      1. What is the difference between recreational drugs and prescribed drugs? Mostly that recreational drugs are very, very hard to prescribe.

        I don’t care what you put in your body. “Prescription” pain-killers is a null category under a non-illegal drug schema.

        1. The people with a legitimate medical condition who take medication given by a doctor and accidentally finds themselves hooked and the people who says “fuck it” to life and start meth are not the same. One group is getting exactly what they bargained for, and one is trapped on a path they did not intend to travel. Both groups are deserving of sympathy and are not deserving of being labeled criminals (at least not merely for the drug use), but it’s not the same thing.

  15. Personally, I think they are both full of hot air!

    Jess
    http://www.complete-anonymity.cz.tc

      1. Hey, at least the names match this time.

        1. LOL, Word. I want to hang out with Jess JOmes.

          1. You don’t want to hang out with him: he drinks himself gay. Scary, huh? LOL

            Jess
            http://www.complete-anonymity.cz.tc

            1. ROFLMAO, I knew a dude like that once. We didn’t hang out.

  16. what
    is
    rachel
    maddow
    going
    to
    do?

    1. Move her lying lips, propagandize and say even more horribly ignorant things?

    2. I don’t know. What is sure though is that her slow transformation into Elanor Smeal will continue without interruption.

  17. ‘One year after the inauguration of Barack Obama there is a conservative ascendancy within the Republican Party, and it needs to be encouraged, not beaten down. It needs to be inspired.’

    The best way to encourage the genuine conservatives in the Republican Party is to show the Party leadership and the fence-sitters that the Party will pay a price for abandoning its own conservatives. The message the GOP has gotten from conservatives so far has been, ‘if you keep beating us up we just might leave . . . ooh, a box of meaningless rhetoric! Aww, who am I kidding, I could never leave you, ya lovable lug! Let’s never fight again! I’m so sorry I provoked you into beating me!’

    Draco,

    Ah, yes, the Republicans are forced to vote for big spending and overseas wars because the Democrats force them.

    So, to sum up, anything the Democrats do is the fault of the Democrats, and anything the Republicans do is the fault of the Democrats.

    The Republicans just voted to establish socialism. It’s all the Democrats’ fault, so it’s all the more important to vote Democrat!

    1. Future Republican apologists:

      ‘The fact that the Republicans unanimously voted to close down private agriculture and establish collective farms just goes to show that conservatives need to keep voting Republican. That will show those Democrats!’

      1. There is a certain amount of logic for voting for the announced evil (Dems) than the hidden one (Reps).

        At least with Dems, you generally get what you expect. Dems want health care, you get that. Reps say they want small government, then propose Medicare Drug coverage and anything but small government.

        That allows people to smear Bush II as a “small government deregulating market guy,” when he was anything but that.

        More and more, I’m coming around to voting Dem, becuase if this the course the country is going to take, let’s get there quickly.

        The faster things get really tough, the debt gets crazy and taxes need to go up up up, the sooner the parties will fracture and real change will be needed.

    2. The best way to encourage the genuine conservatives in the Republican Party is to show the Party leadership and the fence-sitters that the Party will pay a price for abandoning its own conservatives.

      This is a good idea in theory. But how do conservatives put it into practice? By voting for democrats?

      1. by voting for conservatives, even if they aren’t Republicans.

        There are more than two parties, by the way.

        1. In some places, yeah. Most places have extremely strict ballot access rules so that there are, in effect, not more than two parties. So your idea is rarely practicable.

  18. Rush’s line used to work on me, until I turned 21 and wised up to the fact that this particular lie is a lie that Republicans tell every single election. Ever since I self-declared libertarian at 19, my conservative/Republican friends have been saying “OK, TAO, usually I am with you, but the stakes are TOO HIGH this time! You gotta go with us!” Republicans have cried wolf too many times with me, and electing Bush twice and nominating McCain convinces me that they think I am retarded.

    1. “OK, TAO, usually I am with you, but the stakes are TOO HIGH this time! You gotta go with us!”
      Whats funny is some of my liberal friends use the same logic.

    2. Damn it Tao, you didn’t finish cleaning my gutters today. Now get your gook as over to the barbershop, we’re going to teach you how to be a man.

  19. A third party is a good way to guarantee permanent Democratic governance. You have a hard core 40% of the country that is just liberal and will vote Dem no matter what. You can take the public employees and Dem activists alone and get up around 35%. No Democratic President, no matter how bad or unpopular, will get less than 40%.

    Of the other 60%, you have a mix of libertine libertarians, social conservatives, and all gradients in between. If the libertarian wing of that 60% want to start a third party, they would have a good shot of getting a third to a half of that group. This would mean the the Democrats would win almost every election. And don’t think for a moment the Democrats would be bothered by the fact that they only got 40% of the vote. It would be a liberals dream. The Democrats would be freed from any need to ever compromise with moderates or do anything but overreach. They would go hard left all the time and win every election. And they would govern like they won 60% of the vote.

    1. This assumes that every Democrat is an economic progressive, and that’s just not true.

      There are many people who are socially liberal and who feel that the only possible home for them is the Democrat Party, because they won’t share a party with James Dobson.

      Automatically assigning every Democrat [and MORE than every Democrat, since the Democrats don’t themselves make up 40% of the electorate] to “liberalism” is a vast oversimplification.

      1. “There are many people who are socially liberal and who feel that the only possible home for them is the Democrat Party, because they won’t share a party with James Dobson.”

        I think you are kidding yourself. There are a few people like that. And that is why the Dems generally do better than 40%. But there is a hardcore group of about 40% of the country that are economic progressives. And they are not going to vote for anyone who advocates limited government and lower government spending. Moreover, many of their jobs and livelihoods depend on government spending.

        I don’t know what Democratic Party you are talking about. When they had power over the last year their first idea was to pass an $800 billion stimulus that mostly went to pay of state and local employees. And all of the “he is really nice guy moderate” Democrats (Bye, Webb, Lincoln, Nelson) voted for it. If there were all these economic conservatives running around the Democratic Party, the last year would have looked a lot different.

        1. Do you really think that if McCain were president there would not have been a very similar bill which lots of Republicans would have voted for?

          I think that there are a lot more Democrats of the type Fluffy describes than you think. I used to be one of them. The social conservatism of the Republicans really is a huge turn off to a lot of people and the people who aren’t really all that interested in politics tend to choose parties on this sort of issue, not on economics.

          1. And the conservatives are all saying that they could be Libertarians if it wasn’t for the libertine aspects of the Libertarian party. Both sides are right. The question is, are people mature enough to compromise and work with each other to get at least something right. Or do people just want to run around piss in each others’ chereos while the liberals and the Dems run the country.

            1. are people mature enough to compromise and work with each other to get at least something right.

              I am, all the GOP has to do is put the more libertarian republicans in party leadership positions. And kick ALL the neo-cons* out. It isnt the libertarians who arent willing to compromise.

              *they are fiscal liberals, they MUST go

              1. You are willing to compromise but you are want everyone you disagree with kicked out. Compromise means living with some things you don’t like. What are you willing to live with that you don’t agree?

                1. Im willing to live with the social conservatives, as long as they are federalist about it.

                  Neo-cons must go.

                  1. And really, John, is kicking Trotskyites out of the GOP something you would oppose?

    2. Bush governed like he won 60% of the vote (remember, Gore had more votes, and Gore+Nader had a lot more votes), so it’s not like the Republicans don’t do the same in the same circumstance.

    3. We’re not interested in buying what you’re selling John, especially since your team isn’t any better. Seriously, nothing offends me more than your use of fucking base, and I do mean base, scare tactics to shill for your team.

      Forget it. Go away.

      1. Then don’t buy. Go vote for your 1% guy and be happy. But stop bitching about the Democrats. You have a choice, you can work with people you don’t like and stop the Dems or you can not and let the Dems do they want.

        If you prefer option two, then you need to shut the fuck up about the Democrats because they clearly are who you want in power.

        1. Then don’t buy. Go vote for your 1% guy and be happy.

          OK.

          But stop bitching about the Democrats.

          No.

          You have a choice, you can work with people you don’t like and stop the Dems or you can not and let the Dems do they want.

          “Help Me Republican Party, You’re My Only Hope!” AKA the False Dichotomy. I will vote for those whose politics most closely match my own and, because those are the loudest and most principled voices, they will make more of a difference long-term than me selling out to support a pack of assholes who act like Rick Santorum.

          You should be ashamed of yourself.

          1. It is not a false dichotomy, it is called living in reality. Sometimes life sucks. I am sure the conservative Republicans don’t like you people either. But the choice either work with people you don’t like or let some people you really don’t like run the country. Libertarians are not a majority. They are not even close. So, if they want to effect things, they better figure out a way to work with one side and make the best of a bad situation.

            It come down to what you think is important; scoring points and bitching or accomplishing something. Since you like the former, you should be very happy right now.

            1. You want to talk about living in reality? The reality is every time the GOP gains the majority, they immediately forget all their wonderful limited government rhetoric. It’s easy to oppose government power when you don’t have it.

              1. Then vote Democrat and stop worrying. If the Republicans are that bad, maybe we are better off with the Democrats. Or maybe you should try to compromise and actually build a coalition that accomplishes something.

                1. This talk of coalition building is nonsense. Obviously the GOP had some kind of coalition when it gained control in 2000, and it maintained that coalition at a size big enough to stay in power for six years. There was a huge explosion in spending (prescription drug benefit, two wars) and rights abuses (homeland security).

                  We are no better or worse off with either party in control. Both spend like crazy, both increase government size and power, both act as the world’s police. There was huge bi-partisanship for the bailout and stimulus, despite widespread public opposition. So please explain what the difference is, and referring to the noises made by those out of power doesn’t count.

                2. The solution I (as a dirty liberal) would suggest is to pick and choose which positions are most important to you personally, and vote for the major-party candidate most like how you think. If low taxes is the most important thing to you, this will almost certainly be a Republican. But on other issues, a Democrat might be more fitting. Primaries are a good source of better candidates, as well.

            2. But the choice either work with people you don’t like or let some people you really don’t like run the country.

              I’ll take “let some people you really don’t like run the country” for $200, Alex.

              I don’t feel all dirty that way and I get to sleep soundly at night. And as a bonus, there’s no fucking difference in outcome between which set of people I don’t like who are/were running things!

              1. Good for you. Call yourself an Obama supporter. He may not be perfect. But in your view at least he prevented the Republicans from getting into power. That is at least an honest answer as opposed to the bullshit AO is putting out.

                1. Nice, John. If I vote for Obama, it’s my fault. If I don’t vote for Obama, it’s still my fault. Logical fallacy much?

                  I’ll continue to vote my conscience, valuing principles over a party that only uses me as a love doll anyway, when their regular flavor gets the herpes sores. Unlike the doll, I’ll respect myself in the morning.

                  1. If you vote for Obama, don’t you bear some responsibility for his being in office? Further, if you honestly believe that the Republicans are that bad, it seems to me that it is perfectly rational to be an Obama supporter. He may not be perfect, but in your view, he is the least bad of the two options. If I honestly thought the Republicans are as bad as you think they are, I would have gladly voted for Obama.

                    1. Again with the false dichotomy.

                      Both parties suck, which is why I will never support either of them.

                    2. How, exactly does “not being a republican” automatically make one a perfectly rational alternative to a republican? I’m getting the impression that you go into a deeper thought process when you pick from the drive-through menu, John.

                    3. “How, exactly does “not being a republican” automatically make one a perfectly rational alternative to a republican?”

                      what are you talking about? If you are not something, the you aren’t. If you think the Republicans are worse than the Democrats, then you probably ought to vote Democrat. You not getting what you want that way, but at least you are contributing to the lesser evil. What if you vote third party and the Republicans win? IN that case you have wasted your vote and allowed the worse choice to win. Better to vote Democrat and at least help to get the least bad choice.

                      You either are not paying any attention or not thinking because what I am saying is very clear.

                    4. I think you are the one not paying attention. There is no lesser evil when comparing Rs and Ds just different evils. Why support evil anyway?

                      Damn utilitarians.

                    5. If there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, then I guess nothing has changed about the government in the last year except the names.

                    6. Fucking finally!

                    7. Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

                    8. Yeah nothing has changed. Just an $800 billion dollar stimulus and a $1.7 trillion dollar deficit. That $1.7 trillion is just like Bush’s $500 billion dollar one. I mean seriously, just because it is three times as high and Obama is going to run up more debt in a year than Bush did in eight, doesn’t make it any different at all. Things are just the same. Those numbers are just lies anyway.

                    9. GOPers voted for the bailout. Subtract the stimulus and you still have a debt near $1 trillion. Also, there’s nothing in their history to suggest the Republicans wouldn’t’ve had their own version of a stimulus bill.

                    10. the GOP did not vote for the Bailout. That is complete bullshit. The majority of the GOP voted against it. It was the Dems and the “moderate” Republicans like McCain that got the bailout through. But the majority of the party voted against it. The Dems controlled the Congress not the Republicans.

                      133 Republicans in the House voted against it, as opposed to 95 for it. YEah, that is 95 too many. But the fact remains a majority of the GOP voted against the bailouts.

                      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

                      It is amazing how quickly history gets re-written into myth. That was just a year ago and people can’t get it right.

        2. “you can work with people you don’t like and stop the Dems”
          Oh, yes after watching the booing after Ron Paul CPAC straw poll win was announced, I am very confident repubs and conservatives are just so eager to work with libertarians.
          Not. There isn’t any point in trying to work with them when the second you mention scaling back our foreign policy you get shouted down as a “communist” “moonbat” or “liberal”

    4. John – first, 40% is way high.

      Second, both parties have say, 25 or 30% that will vote for them regardless. Some people would vote for Hugo Chavez, if he ran under the appropriate (Dem or Rep) banner and against him if he ran under the other.

      Its usually the 40% undecideds and independents who swing the election. If those three-qauarter of those coalesced into a party (30% of the vote), they’d match the Reps and Dems. If they stole just 5% from each party, they’d win.

  20. OK, so Beck just climbed a little further out of the hole of guilt he dug into during the Bush years –

    And Rush just dug himself a little deeper.

    I hope this settles the occasional debate we have here about whether or not Rush is a lying douchebag with a schtick, and not a genuine advocate of smaller government.

    The point at this stage is to support the conservatives in and outside public office.

    No, Rush. The point is to support the ideas. The fact that to Rush it’s about supporting personalities is why he is proven to be a lying douchebag. He is here admitting that if he has to lie to us to try to save a marginal officeholder who has outraged the principles of limited government, he’ll do it.

    1. You can support ideas, but you also have to be willing to compromise with people. If you are not willing to work with social conservatives, you might as well grant the Democratic Party permanent one party rule in this country.

      1. Seriously, John, just cram it. We do not believe you. Did you ever consider the possibility that dissension on the right/libertarian side of the house might inspire the hardcore lefties who are wholly dissatisfied with the one right now to break away too?

        1. Why would a hardcore lefty, embrace Libertarianism? Yeah, you could agree on the end of the drug war, but you think they are going to give up their crusades on smoking and transfat? You think that they are going to all of the sudden stop thinking the government should run the economy?

          I am sorry to break it to you AO, but liberals just aren’t that into you. I know you think they are cool and you want to fit in, but they really don’t give a rats ass about most of the things you consider important.

          1. I’m with you on the drug war and the nanny state. I don’t know a lot of liberals, in fact, who are crusaders for bans on smoking and transfats. I suspect you exaggerate these things in your mind.

            We also (should) align on American imperialism and prisoner treatment, as well as church/state issues, gay and other equal rights issues.

            The only place we really should differ is fiscal policy. Though I think you’re wrong, I don’t see any inconsistency with believing in social liberties as well as smaller government. The only real difference as a liberal is that I believe that individual liberty can be enhanced by government programs.

            What bothers me is when people “pragmatically” choose the theocrats, imperialists, racists, and the fiscally insane side just because Democrats might raise somebody’s taxes (but probably not yours).

            1. Shhhhh. The grownups are talking now.

            2. Yeah Tony, we have smoking bans and transfat bans all over the country because of the Mormons I guess. And last I looked the Daily Kos was supporting the War in Afghanistan. Liberals love imperialistic war as long as it is waged by a Democrat.

              1. John, you really need to face the fact that liberals are not a uniform bloc of people with all the same opinions on every subject any more than conservatives are. There are lots of genuinely anti-war liberals. There are lots of genuinely anti-nanny-state liberals. They may be fools to fall for the shit they are fed by the party, but no more so than the tools who thought Bush or McCain would be in any way good for the small government cause. Face it, both parties are completely worthless to anyone with libertarian principles.

              2. you think they are going to give up their crusades on smoking and transfat?

                That’s just a weird idee fixe you have, John. How are those “liberal” issues? I know a lot more lefties than conservatives who smoke, in fact it’s not even close. Giuliani and Bloomberg are both big supporters of the nanny state in NYC, and neither qualify as “left wing.” Where liberals and libertarians will really never agree is on affirmative action, zoning issues, taxing the productive to support public education and welfare, and, probably issue number one above all others, gun control.

                1. I think Nanny Bloomburg sure as hell qualifies as a left winger. And the fact that there are nanystate rightwingers doesn’t mean they don’t primarily live on the Left. You keep claiming that liberals really don’t like the nanny state. Yet, the areas of the country that have the worst nanny state rules regarding guns, food, smoking, mandatory recycling and the like are all overwhelmingly liberal. Are conservative moles secretly running those places?

                2. Giuliani and Bloomberg are both big supporters of the nanny state in NYC, and neither qualify as “left wing.”

                  WTF! Both are left-wing. Then again, so is Newt.

                3. Giuliani and Bloomberg are both big supporters of the nanny state in NYC, and neither qualify as “left wing.”

                  They don’t?

                  The use the states monopoly on violence in an attempt to socially engineer away vices…

                  How does that not qualify as left wing?

                  1. he use the states monopoly on violence in an attempt to socially engineer away vices…

                    How does that not qualify as left wing?

                    Not to beg the question or anything…

              3. Huckabee and Bloomberg are not mormons.

                Daily Kos does not equal the liberals. Many liberals are pissed at Obama for ramping up the war in Afghanistan.

            3. The will to impede on personal decisions is much greater on the left. The Republicans have this undeserved stigma of wanting to intrude into your bedroom. Contrastingly, the Democrats are openly in favor of intruding into every other room in your house and ensuring your actions are not self-deprecating. The democrats have proven themselves the more repressive party on personal liberties. Republicans have never suggested laws criminalizing adultery or pre-marital sex, but Democrats nationwide consistently engage in crusades on smoking, trans-fat, light bulbs, private religious schools, spanking, plasma TVs, SUVs, large homes, teen sex education and obesity.

              1. If you want to stop those crusades then you need to repeal the 19th amendment. It’s not “liberals” who push those policies as much as “women” push those policies, including Republican women, it just so happens that more women vote Democrat.

                1. Women protect their families and children as much as their own lives. It would make sense for Republicans to oppose policies such as any teenage sex education on the grounds that the topic invovles moral, religious, and health implications best left to parents and doctors to address. But clearly that would diminish the role of government, and we simply can’t have that!

          2. Hate to agree with Tony, but there are a lot of liberals who oppose the nanny state. These tend to be the ones I have some hope for if I can just get them to realize that the nanny state is a natural offspring of the welfare state.

            1. I have yet to meet this rare bird. To a person, and I know a LOT of liberals, they all want the gummint to step in and ban whatever it is they don’t like this week.

              1. I’m a Democrat/liberal, but I most certainly do NOT want that. Folks like me do exist, although possibly not in large numbers.

              2. This is just not true. Most liberals are opposed to prohibitionists.

          3. Learn to read. I didn’t say anything about liberals become libertarians. If you’re going to try to be a smartass, don’t demonstrate that you have the IQ and reading ability of a brick with mayonnaise on it.

            What I said, John, is that your sissified wailing about libertarians somehow making sure Dems are one-party rulers is unjustified, because a breakaway party on the right might inspire more breaking away on the Left, you retarded rhesus monkey.

            1. Yes AO, just swear. That is great form of argument. Invective is so effective. Okay, lets split the Right. And then hope that the Left with split to, out of kindness I guess. Yeah that is a great plan.

          4. As if the Repubs do?

      2. John, John, John – that’s not supposed to be Rush’s department.

        Rush is supposed to be about Shooting Straight From The Lip and telling the truth about his ideas.

        Leave completely to one side the question of political effectiveness, because that’s not what we’re talking about now. We’re talking about the proposition: Is Rush Limbaugh full of shit?

        I maintain that Rush is full of shit and that he’ll say whatever he has to say to carry water for the GOP.

        If you’re trying to tell me that Rush has to be full of shit, because that’s what’s required to help the GOP fight the eeeeeevil Democrats…That’s all well and good, but it means you’re admitting that Rush is full of shit.

        So we actually agree. We both agree that Rush is full of shit. You just think he has a good reason to have shit-stained lies coming out of his mouth every day, and I don’t.

        1. I agree with Beck. I don’t think Beck was too hard. I think there is a time and a place for things. And the CPAC convention strikes me as a good time to be honest in your criticisms of your own side. Other than his whinning about being a former drunk, I don’t have a problem with what Beck said. And it should be noted that Beck did not advocate a third party.

          That said, Limbaugh is right in saying that a third party is suicide. That fact may suck. But it is still a fact. A third party is a ticket to an Obama re-election and a repeat of the last year in 2013. Both sides need to get over their differences and make sure that doesn’t happen.

          1. Limbaugh also denies his party caused any of his party’s woes.

            1. And he is wrong about that.

              1. Limbaugh is a turd-burglar. I hope the major parties do fear a strong third party. To me that would show that a third party is a good idea.

              2. Are you sure it isn’t a fact?

  21. The GOP has one thing going for it: This time around, the gridlock goal indicates that voting straight GOP for Congress makes sense. That may not be the case in 2012, though I’ll be damned if I’ll vote for Obama under any circumstances (unless he’s reprogrammed into a libertarian, I guess).

    1. I doubt Obama will need your vote-he will win against Palin in a 40+ state sweep. And Palin will be the nominee if the Tea Party movement stays strong.

      1. Obama probably wouldn’t be able to beat Joe Biden by the time the next election rolls around. I seriously doubt Palin will be the nominee, anyway.

        1. Lots of liberals said the same thing about Bush pre-2004. The power of incumbency plus a dolt of an opponent equals a win, no matter what anybody thinks of the incumbent. And, even if the Republican nominee isn’t Palin, their other choices, like Romney or Huckabee or Gingrinch, aren’t much better, electorally speaking. Plus, Obama’s popularity ratings right now are about the same as Reagan’s or Clinton’s at this point in their terms-poor polling after a year in office has little to do with whether or not one can win re-election.

          1. Bush was popular for a good chunk of his first term. Obama already isn’t “popular.”

            Comparing Obama to Reagan or even Clinton is silly. Reagan, whatever his flaws, was a fairly talented politician. Clinton, though less good at the presidency, knew when to run for cover and is famous for becoming the enemy in order to hold on to office. Obama lacks the talent of either president and shows no signs whatsoever of anticipating and/or co-opting the popular shift away from the Democrats.

            They attempted too many power grabs at the worst possible time. Possibly the stupidest move(s) by a party in power in a long, long time. Pretty amazing accomplishment considering the weakness of the last president and the previous GOP-controlled Congress.

            What we may see is a major shift towards declared Independents. Get enough of them, then a third party (or a redefined major) becomes a real possibility.

            1. Anyone would have been popular during much of Bush’s first term as long as they talked tough about terrorism.

              1. True enough. Still can’t figure out how Bush even got nominated in 2000.

                1. Al Gore. No one wanted to look at his stupid, wooden puppet face for 4 years minimum.

                2. Name recognition/pedigree?

            2. Obama is a talented politician. He’s a black guy with a Muslim name who beat both the Clinton machine and the Republicans. You need significant talent to do that.

              As for his performance in office, he’s got a lot of stuff on his plate and he’s having a hard time not choking on it all. Health care is sucking a lot of the air out of the room (and giving it to Congress to deal with was an attempt to avoid the Hillarycare debacle where the White House crafted the plan). Plus, the economy still sucks (and not due to anything Obama has done or has not done).

              I think 2010 is an anti-incumbent election, not neccesarily an anti-Obama or anti-Democratic one. Expect many Republican incumbents to get kicked out too. Of course, the Democrats have more incumbents so they will inevitably lose more seats.

              As for how Bush got nominated in 2000, the Powers That Be in the Republican Party decided his name was good enough to all but hand pick him. Other than McCain, the rest of the Republican field in 2000 was amazingly weak (Keyes, Forbes, Bauer, Hatch).

              Since McCain lost in 2000, it then became his “turn” in 2008.

              1. This country has had a hard-on for the first black president for so long. He’s no genius. He’s the juuust-right porridge.

                If Obama was a white guy, he probably really would be getting the Clintons their coffee.

                1. I think that Obama is perceived as incompetent and, strangely, actually is incompetent.

              2. “He’s a black guy with a Muslim name who beat both the Clinton machine and the Republicans.”

                You may be correct about beating the Clinton machine, but the R’s couldn’t have beaten their way out of a wet paper bag in 08.

        2. Agreed.

  22. John,

    You seem to forget that Democrats are just as eager for votes as Republicans. If there is a significant pool of disaffected third-party voters, Democrats will try to woo them – if necessary, by changing their policies.

    Or do you think Democrats are too principled to do such things, and that only the Republicans are unprincipled vote-seekers?

    Remember when a third-party candidate (Perot) got all those votes on an anti-deficit platform? Then we got a Democratic President who, coincidentally enough, reduced the deficit. What a coincidence, that Bill Clinton’s principled anti-deficit policy coincided with his political interest in wooing Perot voters – of course, a principled person like Bill Clinton is too pure to take notice of such things, but still, it’s suggestive.

    1. “You seem to forget that Democrats are just as eager for votes as Republicans. If there is a significant pool of disaffected third-party voters, Democrats will try to woo them – if necessary, by changing their policies”

      Why try to woo them when you can win without them? The real liberals would love nothing better than a political environment where they could win elections by only appealing to other liberals.

      Flip it around. Imagine if instead of starting a third party to split from the Republicans, you started one that split from the Dems. So that the Dems were getting 30% and the third party was getting 30% and the social conservative Republicans could win every election by taking 40%. You don’t think the Huckabees of the world wouldn’t be ecstatic?

      1. They’d be ecstatic right until the moment, the two 30% groups came up with a compromise coalition to beat the 40% team next time around. Winning elections with a plurality rather than a majority is an unstable equilibrium.

        1. That is just it. You have to come up with a compromise coalition. And that is exactly what I am saying should happen. And exactly what Fluffy and AO are saying should never happen.

          1. John, you keep mentioning compromise so please tell us how you think we should compromise? Cause we both know that compromising to the republicans mean that they don’t abandon any of their flawed principles but instead just tell the libertarians to give up their non-interventionist foreign policy stance? In the end there would be no compromising for the republicans, only the libertarians.

            1. The compromise is simple. Libertarians stop whining about the war on terror and the Iraq war and such. And social conservatives shut up about gay marriage and porn and admit that none of that crap has any relevance at the federal level.

              Social conservatives need to understand that their war is at the state and local level. That the feds should have no say in marriage or any other social issue. They need to stop looking to the Feds to solve their social problems and fight it out at the local level.

              Libertarians need to realize they have lost the argument on terrorism and that most of the country pretty much supports unlimited detention and not giving foreign combatants access to the courts and using military tribunals and such.

              As far as the wars go, I think everyone can agree that they both need to wind down. We need to be out of Iraq by 2012 and Afghanistan not much after. We won the damned Iraq war and Afghanistan is what it is.

              I am libertarians will be pissed off to give up on giving KSM a lawyer. But the SOCONs will be pissed off to give up on the federal ban on gay marriage and DOJ trying to stop Porn. They will both live.

              1. ‘Social conservatives need to understand that their war is at the state and local level. That the feds should have no say in marriage or any other social issue. They need to stop looking to the Feds to solve their social problems and fight it out at the local level.’

                I see you haven’t been following the latest development in the federal courts in the closely-related issue of gay adoption.

                (I’m surprised H&R hasn’t covered this, since it’s a such a victory for gay liberation.)

                The people of Louisiana took your advice and, working on the state level, banned gay adoptions. They thought that such a locally-adopted law would not be interfered with by the feds. The federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said otherwise – the court said that Louisiana’s law must yield to an adoption order from New York, pursuant to the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause.

                So, tell us again how federal policy is irrelevant to the concerns of social conservatives!

                1. But if you have a federal court system that respects the constitution and the limits of federal power, that kind of stuff would not happen. I don’t think a federal court has any business telling Louisiana what their adoption policies should be, even if those policies suck.

                  1. Yes, John, but opposing this sort of thing requires a battle *on the federal level,* not exclusively on the state level as you propose in your ‘compromise.’

                  2. That’s not what the court did. The court told Louisiana that they couldn’t stop an adoption from occuring in New York.

                    To Mad Max, Louisiana has no states’ rights unless they can control what people in New York do.

                    1. I didn’t read it. I took his word. In that case, I agree with the courts.

                    2. Fluffy: ‘To Mad Max, Louisiana has no states’ rights unless they can control what people in New York do.’

                      The squirrels wouldn’t allow me to use a threaded comment to reply to you, so I’ll reply here.

                      The federal court ordered Louisiana officials to issue a new birth certificate for a baby born in Louisiana, to reflect a New York court order proclaiming to men to be the adoptive parents.

                      It is *Louisiana* officials, not New York officials, who are ordered by a federal court to change their public records.

                      I’m sorry to say that your reasoning smacks of ‘stop hitting my fist with your face!’

                    3. Ah, threaded comment feature worked after all.

                    4. The birth certificate is supposed to list the legal parents.

                      The men in question were the legal parents following the adoption in New York.

                      The court wasn’t declaring that Louisiana has to allow gay adoption in its own system. It ruled that it can’t refuse to recognize the New York adoption under the full faith and credit clause. And it can’t.

                      Louisiana was demanding the right to invalidate a New York adoption. If you support Louisiana in this matter on a states’ rights basis, you are arguing that for Louisiana to have states’ rights it has to be allowed to either prevent or invalidate New York adoptions.

                    5. ‘If you support Louisiana in this matter on a states’ rights basis, you are arguing that for Louisiana to have states’ rights it has to be allowed to either prevent or invalidate New York adoptions.’

                      I’m not sure how Louisiana could do that. There’s a NY court order requiring the adoption, and the baby isn’t in Louisiana.

                      The federal courts haven’t told New York to un-adopt the baby; they’ve told Louisiana to modify its public records.

              2. Libertarians need to realize they have lost the argument on terrorism and that most of the country pretty much supports unlimited detention and not giving foreign combatants access to the courts and using military tribunals and such.

                Since when??? Last time I checked, that was a major sticking point for almost all liberals, and it makes more and more moderates uneasy every day.

                1. If that is not true, why did Obama get killed politically over giving the 12-25 bomber his Miranda rights? Why is Obama not placating his base and getting rid of all of Bush’s terror policies? If the policies are unpopular it should be a win win for him. But they are very popular and Obama is selling out his base because of it.

                  1. So, Democrat leaders are willing to sell out their base.

                    That reminds me of another major party whose leaders keep selling out *that* party’s base.

                    In each case, the base rewards the party which sold it out by voting for the betrayers.

                    What kind of message does that send?

                    1. They sell out their base when their base supports unpopular ideas. When the base and populace agree, everything is great. Bush never sold out his base on the war on terror. Why? Because he didn’t have to. In contrast, he sold out his base big time on medicare part D because it bought a bunch of senior votes.

                    2. If only selling out the base had electoral consequences, politicians might do it more often. But reasoning like yours induces the base to vote for their own betrayers.

                    3. might do it *less* often.

                    4. The only thing that has electoral consequences is doing something that is unpopular with the country at large.

                    5. With Obama in his first term, his base hasn’t had a chance to vote for the betrayer, since he can’t betray them till after he’s election.

                      Bush was elected a second time after betraying his base on medicare, but his base didn’t really care. Bush et al made sure their eyes were on the national security ball.

                      Will those betrayed by Obama vote for him a second time?

                  2. I agree. I am terrified by guys who set their underpants on fire, too. That’s just crazy.

                    And no jury would ever convict him because they’d be too terrified of his crazy eyes and then he’d go free and kill all of us with his flaming underpants.

                    So we have to throw him into a prison with no charges and never try him because he might someday go free and wander around killing people with total impunity and then we’d have to surrender and become Mohammedans and not eat pork chops and I do like pork chops.

                    That underpants guy sure is scary.

      2. ‘Flip it around. Imagine if instead of starting a third party to split from the Republicans, you started one that split from the Dems. So that the Dems were getting 30% and the third party was getting 30% and the social conservative Republicans could win every election by taking 40%.’

        Or – the Republican Party reaches out to the new third party by embracing some of its ideas.

        Do you think the Republicans would be too pure to fish for votes among disaffected ex-Democrats? They’ve certainly done it before. Consider the Wallace voters and Nixon’s Southern Strategy.

        And to show how tough it is to make predictions, what if *two* parties split off from the Democrats – one party attacking the Democrats’ foreign policy, and another party attacking the Democrats’ civil-rights policies. Wouldn’t you expect the Republicans to win under that scenario? That’s what pollsters expected in 1948, when not one, but two parties split off from the Democrats (Progressives and Dixiecrats).

        And then Dewey defeated Truman, right?

        1. If you had four parties it would work. That way both sides would be at an equal disadvantage. But if you just split one side, the other side will roll.

          1. The Progressives and Dixiecrats only split *one* side – the Democrats. The Republicans were *not* split – that’s a key reason why the experts predicted a Dewey victory.

            1. Of course such a split cost Humphrey in 68, Bush in 92 and Gore in 00. It is pretty hard to win if your party splits.

              1. *sigh* hard but not impossible, because Truman did it.

                I was pointing out that it’s hard to make political prognostications. As Yogi Berra was reported to have said, it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.

    2. I thought Perot’s main platform was anti-NAFTA (giant sucking sound of jobs going to Mexico).

      1. That was one plank, but it obviously wasn’t as influential as the anti-deficit stuff.

        It’s not as if a third party can have its way on every issue.

  23. The only Republicans with principles are the stupid Republicans, like my very own senator “I like gridlock” Tom Coburn. But stupid and corrupt aren’t mutually exclusive, as proven by my other senator Jim Inhofe.

    The GOP is interested only in funneling money to their leash holders on K Street. All of their nonsense rhetoric (which libertarians dutifully help supply) is in the service of corporate welfare. So if you want to frame it as two stark choices you have this: welfare for those who need it, or welfare for the rich. What a moral quandary! I suppose pragmatic libertarians choose welfare for the rich. After all, they probably deserve it anyway.

    1. Tony, is nothing if not an honest Democrat. Why don’t you guys go ahead and have fun converting him to the cause.

    2. The GOP is interested only in funneling money to their leash holders on K Street

      The Dems aren’t any different on this point either.

      1. The Dems aren’t any different on this point either.

        Unions and Bankers are different then K street. Giving them money saved us from WW4.

        1. I hope you’re being sarcastic.

          As far as “K Street” (which is a hideously annoying term) and Dems, see Reason’s article that’s like two above this.

          1. I hope you’re being sarcastic.

            Only a little

            and by a little i mean a fucking giga-shit load.

      2. But that’s the thing, there is a difference, although there’s increasingly less of one. But you can thank the most liberal Democrats for standing up to the institutional bribery that has overtaken the entire GOP. Really what we mean by centrist Democrat is “more of a corporate whore.”

    3. Holy crap, you live in my state?!

      I have to move.

  24. Once a water-carrier, always a water-carrier.

    Can “Democrat” really be used as an adjective? That sounds so stupid to me.

  25. Think about what you people are saying. On at least a quarter of the threads the party line is that Americans all love big government and that is why we have it. Now, in this thread I point out that there are about 40% of the country that are never going to vote for limited government and if you split the other 60% that 40% will run everything. And all scream about how that is not true. There are all these economic conservative Democrats out there that are just dying to vote Libertarian. Well which is it?

    1. A good part of the 60% seems to want big government too.

      1. That was what they call a false alternative.

  26. It could just as easily be argued that if Republicans would quit running bad candidates (some of which were elected), the Democrats would not have the levers of power, today.

    Of course, the fact that those very levers are so powerful is why the parties exist. Power corrupts, but power also attracts the corrupted to it.

  27. John in One Sentence: Once a Catamite for the Republicans, Always a Catamite for the Republicans.

    1. If you want to have a discussion AO, lets have one. Running around screaming and throwing shit like an angry monkey is not very helpful. And frankly beneath your usual level of thought. I mean seriously, did Mike Huckabee beat your ass every day in grade school?

  28. And last I looked the Daily Kos was supporting the War in Afghanistan. Liberals love imperialistic war as long as it is waged by a Democrat.

    Did you just say that Afghanistan is an imperialistic war? Hell, even I do not believe that.

    Okay, lets split the Right.

    It’s called separating the wheat from the chaff.

    mean seriously, did Mike Huckabee beat your ass every day in grade school?

    No, what gets my dander up is the fact that salesmen such as yourself lie and lie and lie and you do go on with your lies about how, oh baby, i promise i swear we’re going to be limited government this time and I won’t cheat and then you always do. I’m mad because you treat us like we’re stupid.

    1. First, you make an ass of yourself when you start screaming LIE. I am not lying. I just disagree with you. Stop questioning everyone who disagrees with you’s motives. I don’t insult you. If you don’t like my opinion, fine. I don’t like yours. But stop it with the invective horseshit.

      Second, I don’t think the Afghan war is an imperialistic war. But liberals sure as hell did when Bush was in power. And liberals loved Kosovo when Clinton was in power. Obama has acted exactly like a third Bush term regarding the war. I happen to think that is a good thing. But, liberals who screamed about the “fierce moral imperative” and “greatest strategic blunder in history” now look pretty stupid as they carry water for Obama.

      And as far as separating the wheat from the chaff. Fine, you can form your own little elite vanguard and win 20% in every election and watch the Dems run everything. Seriously, what is that statement supposed to mean? Do you not think the people who disagree with you on the right should have a right to have a say in their own political party? Maybe we should just disenfranchise them or send them to re-education camps. The more you talk, the more I am starting to think that you really would fit in with the Left.

      1. Which Liberals thought Afghanistan was an imperialist war (I know some of them did, but here you go lumping people into monolithic groups again (seems a bit collectivist))? I thought the line was that Bush was bad (among other things) because he was too focused on Iraq, which was the wrong, bad war and ignoring Afghanistan which was the justified one.

        1. Liberals supported the invasion of Afghanistan because a) they are afraid of being called sissies and b) the Taliban is anti-feminist, to put it mildly. The people who called it “imperialistic” (which of course it is – it gives the US a military presence on both sides of Iran and allows us to check Chinese meddling in Central Asia – we’re not there because we care about the Afghanis) were mostly paleo conservatives and Ron Paul/Rockwell libertarians.

        2. Which Liberals thought Afghanistan was an imperialist war (I know some of them did, but here you go lumping people into monolithic groups again (seems a bit collectivist))?

          The monolithic grouping is well-deserved on the left. They’ve known for decades that a progressive ideology is incompatible with the ideological spectrum of America. Unable to face this reality, they console themselves by believing themselves intellectually superior to the average American, using international peer pressure by presenting arguments amounting to, “all the cool countries are doing it,” and scolding Americans as heartless, greedy, selfish, stupid, irrational, uneducated, simpletons for their inability to support their progressive policies. I am no political advisor, but I would presume that the first rule of being elected is not to insult the electorate.

          1. A agree that there is a smallish “elite” of liberals which behaves this way, but this does not comprise the whole Democratic party or even all of self described Liberals or Progressives. I disagree with them on most things, but I am honest enough to observe that there is diversity of opinion on all sides. You are fighting a caricature of the left, not the real thing.

            You are being just as stupid and closed minded as those on the left who think all conservatives are knuckle-dragging paleos who hate black people and want to impose a Christian theocracy. Stop being a collectivist dick.

            1. Yeah, I’m sure they exist, but any attempt to voice their opinion is held down by a slew of leftist special interest groups seeking to elect only progressives. All self-described liberals who regularly appear in the media are members of this elite. Their power in the Democratic party is great, and interest groups not comprising this elite (mostly non-black minorities, Catholic voters, and conservaDems) are constantly threatened by the party elite (just look at Bill Maher’s reaction to Evan Bayh retiring). Don’t blame me because I point out that, despite media reports to the contrary, the Democrats demand more ideological purity than the Republicans.

              1. You are crazy. I don’t see Democrats proposing purity tests or cannibalizing party members who don’t say the right thing about abortion.

                If the only liberals you come in contact with are the ones on TV then no wonder you think they’re all elites. Elite people tend to be the ones on TV!

            2. Considering that most of the tenets of liberalism are based on collectivism, I personally have very little problem with characterizing and attacking the left as a bunch of collectivists. They bring that on themselves.

          2. Americans do support progressive policies. Look at any poll about social security or medicare–not to mention the right of women and minorities to vote.

            The GOP wins when it can convince a large enough proportion of the middle to be scared of something. But only about 1/5 of the country at best supports conservative principles (such as they are).

            1. Voting rights are not progressive policies. They’re the appropriate expansion of rights to whom they are entitled. I’m still waiting for the Republican candidate who states, “women and minorities have no place in our electoral system.” I’ll probably be waiting a long time.

              Americans are well aware entitlement reform will be inevitable. Younger generations are more keenly aware of unsustainable nature of our entitlement spending, and considering our historical aversion to taxes, are more likely to support cuts in benefits to tax hikes.

              Additional support for progressivism could come from the portion of the population (30% to 40%) which pays little or no taxes, or receives money from the government.

              1. Voting rights are not progressive policies. They’re the appropriate expansion of rights to whom they are entitled

                So aren’t you grateful to progressives for showing society the way all these centuries?

                our historical aversion to taxes

                There is nothing historic about it, unless the 80s count as important history. Maybe our being accustomed to low taxes might have some correlation to our being accustomed to having the worst healthcare, highways, and schools in the first world.

      2. Ah ha, reeducation camps…and you wonder why we’re not having an adult conversation at this point.

        Second, I don’t think the Afghan war is an imperialistic war.

        Yes, you do. At least, you said that:

        And last I looked the Daily Kos was supporting the War in Afghanistan. Liberals love imperialistic war as long as it is waged by a Democrat.

        So Republicans such as yourself love them as long as they are being waged by a Republican, eh?

        Do you not think the people who disagree with you on the right should have a right to have a say in their own political party?

        Say whatever pack of lies you’re peddling today, John, I really don’t care. Just realize that we don’t believe you any more. Honestly…Bush twice? McCain? Why should we?

        An “elite vanguard” would keep shills such as yourself honest. And let me ask you: if a split did come, who would you vote for?

        1. “Yes, you do. At least, you said that:”

          I was being sarcastic towards Tony. Pay better attention next time. And as far as the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, I support Obama on them. I think he is doing the right slow pull out of Iraq. And I think he is doing the best he can with a bad situation in Afghanistan. I think the we need to be out of there at some point. But, I don’t object to his handling of the war.

          I only say that about three times a week on here. It would be nice if you would bother to pay attention rather than assuming I am anti-war now because Obama is in charge.

          “Just realize that we don’t believe you any more.”

          What is that supposed to mean? I have nothing if not consistent positions. Further, this whole thread is just pointing out to you the reality that you can either work with the Republicans or you can work with the Democrats. Your call over which one you find less loathsome. But what is not available is starting your own third party where the silent majority of real Americans will come forward and give you a pony. That is not happening.

      3. “Fine, you can form your own little elite vanguard and win 20% in every election and watch the Dems run everything”
        Well then, I’m sure after an election or two I hope the republicans would get the message and start overhauling many of their flawed policies. If they wouldn’t get the message, well I guess that’s the republicans fault and frankly I wouldn’t give a damn if their party died out and never again won an election.

        1. If everyone else would just give up and agree with you, everything would be great.

          1. Oh, Mr. Beam-in-thine-own-Eye, your office is paging you…

            1. I was stunned.

            2. Really? I am willing to make lots of compromise. But you being a fanatic dontronaire libertarian is convinced the only problem is no one else will compromise much. Name one thing that you are willing to say “I want this but I am willing to give it up to get the support of other people”. I will give you a head start. I would support pulling out of Afghanistan today and living with the dire strategic consequences if in return we had a government that cut taxes, regulation and spending.

              Now what sacred cow are you willing to butcher? If you don’t have one, shut the fuck up about how you are anything but a fanatic.

      4. Many, probably most, liberals thought Afghanistan was a just war, at least in the beginning. Some are against all wars, and a few people are just kooks who thought the Jews did 9/11 or something. Certainly the vast majority of Democrats agreed with the war in Afghanistan, at least at the beginning.

        Once we drove the Tailban out of power and gave up looking for Bin Laden and others who masterminded 9/11 (since if we were actually doing that, we would have invaded Pakistan at some point), a lot of liberals (and others) started to turn against Afghanistan. But at the beginning, it was a war of self defense.

    2. Afghanistan is an imperialistic war. It’s nation-building rather than sending in a few special forces to Black September Al-Qaeda.

  29. If two trainwrecks collide in the forest, and the only people to hear it are deaf, was it Obama’s (and by extension, Bush’s, and therefore, Clinton’s, etc.) fault?

  30. as a highly trained broadcast specialist, I think I know what’s going on …

    That’s where I stopped reading.

    1. I have already forgetted it.

  31. The Republicans are the party the people turn to for national defense and fiscal sanity, typically as a reaction to the last welfare state binge.

    Libertarians really do smoke a lot of dope, don’t they?

    1. Don’t judge us by what Republicans say.

  32. Shorter John: Winning trumps conscience.

    Seriously. Stop threatening to take all your toys and go home if we don’t start playing with them.

  33. Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t a third party (libertarian for arguments sake)allow the Dems a majority in either house but keep them from having a majority vote as a libertarian vote could always be used to defeat bad bills etc etc… I don’t think a third or even four parties means the end of democracy hell might even end up being a better demcracy…

    1. Good point. I mean, if third party politicians actually got elected to Congress, that would be the case.

      1. I wonder if the undue attention paid to the executive office naturally encourages a two party system.

        1. First-past-the-post single-candidate districts encourage a two-party system, not a strong executive.

          1. You mean 2 different things can’t encourage the SAME OUTCOME!? I can finally breathe a sigh of relief.

  34. You know what I would like to see, is both parties split. Then we’d have four parties:

    Fiscally and socially conservative: Republicans
    Fiscally and socially liberal: Greens
    Fiscally conservative, socially liberal: Libertarians
    Fiscally liberal, socially conservative: Democrats

    Or whatever, they could break-down how they wanted. Elections at the state and local level would probably only involve two or three parties; national elections would probably go to a winner with less than half the vote, making the president weaker and a better situation for all of us.

    1. I guess I should say, state elections for governor, congress, etc, and nation-wide elections.

    2. As I said above, a four party system would work. That would put both sides at an equal disadvantage. But if one side or the other splits, it just equals one party rule.

    3. Its not like we havent had legit 4 way presidential races in US history before either.

      1824 being my favorite, with 4 different Democratic-Republican candidates. The least stable 1 party system ever!

    4. No, you’re mixed up. It should be as follows:

      Fiscally and socially conservative: Conservatives
      Fiscally and socially liberal: Greens
      Fiscally conservative, socially liberal: Libertarians
      Fiscally liberal, socially conservative: Whatever crap is left over from the major parties.

      1. Fiscally liberal, socially conservative

        Those are the blue dog Dems.

        1. Actually, those are Republicans.

          1. Blue dog dems are republicans?

            And yes, there are a lot of fiscal liberal, socially conservative GOPers too. Them and the Blue Dogs can join together.

    5. That would be a good way to be. I have always wondered how the various political positions got stuck together in the same parties. I also wonder why we don’t have any successful regional parties in this country.

    6. Libertarians are not socially liberal.

      1. True and we are not fiscally conservative either. We are fiscally and socially libertarian.

        1. God I was afraid somebody was going to make me explain that.

        2. What does that mean? That’s like saying you’re fiscally and socially Aristotelian.

          There’s nothing wrong with the word “liberal” you know, despite the Orwellian mangling of it by Limbaugh etc.

          1. Correctly applied, it is true. There is nothing wrong with it.

            However, to label a libertarian “socially liberal” is to implicate him or her in a philosophy that embraces certain critical things as moral values which libertarianism simply does not and if you attempt to predict what a libertarian position is based on social aspects of “liberals” you will very quickly discover the limits of the method.

            In the realm of abortion, for example, it is commonly claimed by uncritical thinkers and the generally disinterested that libertarians have a socially liberal position, but it would be far more accurate to simply state that they share that position with liberals. Liberal support of legal abortion stems primarily from a perceived right of women to legally unburden themselves from pregnancy and parenthood for health and social reasons, while libertarian support of legal abortion comes from a perceived lack of government authority over a person’s reproductive rights.

            You might say “you are splitting hairs or getting into semantic debate,” and on this one position, you may be right, but if you use the liberal logic to predict a libertarian’s position on the sale of human organs you will find no shared social value.

            To sum up, to be “socially liberal” is to approve and encourage certain “liberal” behavior and discourage everything else, but to be “socially libertarian” is to understand that regardless of my approval, someone else’s behavior is not mine to encourage or discourage.

  35. But what is not available is starting your own third party where the silent majority of real Americans will come forward and give you a pony. That is not happening.

    Sounds like someone’s scared his Team might lose a voter. Mein Gott, the horror, the horror.

    1. They might not give you a pony, but you might get la deluge. And that has its satisfactions, too.

      Fiat justitia ruat caelum is easier to live up to once you reconcile yourself to the ruat caelum part.

    2. And you don’t have an answer. A third party would just ensure the Dems staid in power forever. The only way for that not to be true, is if there really is this silent majority of people out there longing for pure Libertarian politics. If such a majority existed, one of the two major parties would be the Libertarians. But since the Libertarians are lucky to get 2% of the vote, I am doubting the existence of such a majority.

      1. John, please explain to me how the hell the Dems would stay in power “forever”. That would imply that their decisions permanently placated a majority of Americans, which wouldn’t be the case simply because there was a third party. You seem to have a static model of American politics in your head.

        1. If there are three parties, they don’t need a majority, just a plurality. If you have three significant parties in this country, 40% probably wins about any election. And I think there are around 40% of the electorate that really support big time European style socialism. In a three party environment where you have “Left Dems” versus “Economic Conservative Libertarians” versus “Economic Social Conservatives, the “Left Dem” probably get 40% and win.

          1. John, you’re having a slight math fail here. It is possible that a Democratic presidential candidate could win consistently if we had three major parties, but in local elections, it would be a crazy mix of winners. I’d much rather see three relatively equal caucuses in the House and Senate than just two.

            1. It would be a mix at the state and local level. It is pretty hard to tell what that mix would be. But, every city and town in this country has a teachers and a public employee union. I think the Dems could manage to put up a pretty credible showing in every district but the most far right leaning ones.

              1. We need run-offs, that would solve the problem of worrying about pluralities.

              2. When did teachers become so liberal as a group? I went to public school in New Hampshire, I would guess the teachers skewed 55/45 GOP/Dem – and the fascistic school administrators were gung-ho Republicans (which is why to this day I don’t trust Republicans on personal freedom issues). The split was probably what you’d expect – math/science/gym/drivers ed were more right wing, language and social studies more left wing. Our shop teacher was a pot smoking libertarian – great guy. Also in New Hampshire most public employees were (still are) fairly conservative. The most liberal people I knew growing up tended to be artists, lawyers in private practice or university academics. Do you ever bother to get facts to back up your random generalizations? Just wondering.

              3. When did teachers become so liberal as a group? I went to public school in New Hampshire, I would guess the teachers skewed 55/45 GOP/Dem – and the fascistic school administrators were gung-ho Republicans (which is why to this day I don’t trust Republicans on personal freedom issues). The split was probably what you’d expect – math/science/gym/drivers ed were more right wing, language and social studies more left wing. Our shop teacher was a pot smoking libertarian – great guy. Also in New Hampshire most public employees were (still are) fairly conservative. The most liberal people I knew growing up tended to be artists, lawyers in private practice or university academics. Do you ever bother to get facts to back up your random generalizations? Just wondering.

                1. If you are in a union, who are you going to vote for… the people who uncritically love unions or the people who hate them with a fiery passion?

                  It’s not about liberal or conservative attitudes, it’s economic pragmatism.

                2. When did teachers become so liberal as a group?

                  When we established a system of public education in this country.

          2. So all variances in the many election cycles over the last 200+ years is the direct result of the presence or absence and political make up of 3rd parties? Cause that’s what you’re saying.

            1. That is not way I am saying at all. How could you possibly think that? Some of the variances are the result of third parties. When one side splits, it is going to lose. The only way it will win is if one of the parties dies like the wigs dying when the Republicans rose.

              1. But by your theory, instead of one party dying you keep saying the one left unsplit will reign perpetually.

                Forever, dude. You’ve said it like a hundred times. That would mean the Republicans would never have risen and we would still be ruled by the 19th century Democratic Party. Since forever is forever. Do you not really mean the things you say?

      2. Well, the fact that the GOP bothers to lie about being for small government would seem to in and of itself prove that there’s a constituency for it. Why is the GOP pretending to be for it? Who are they trying to deceive?

        If it were possible to paint a bright enough scarlet letter on the GOP, damning it forever as a big government party and burning it to the ground, maybe there would be room for a small government party to move in and take away those voters that the GOP is currently lying to. Maybe not the libertarians, but a less extreme but sincere small government party could move in.

        And sure, this would lead to Democrat victories at first. And then when the Democrats shat the bed and the country was looking for alternatives, they would have two choices: the “Let’s kill brown people and maybe burn some witches so the baby Jesus will help us fix the country” party, and the “Let’s shrink the size of government” party.

        1. “Let’s kill brown people and maybe burn some witches so the baby Jesus will help us fix the country” party, and the “Let’s shrink the size of government” party.”

          I will admit that the witch burnings under Bush were a problem and kind of an embarrassment. And the fact that everyone had to sign an oath of loyalty to Christ and atheists were routinely burned at the stake was a little overboard. But, somehow I don’t think the next Republican Administration will go that far.

          I don’t care if you leave the Democrats in power for 20 years, you are still going to face the same problem. You either can find a way to work with religious people and non-trans nationalists or you can let the Dems run the country. A significant portion of any successful anti-Democratic coalition, is going to be people you find distasteful. That is just reality. Pretending it is not true and hoping that if we just let the Democrats bankrupt the country it will be true, is not going to change it.

          1. What do you mean “let” them run the country? They are running it whether you let them or not. Your coalition of witch-burners compromising with bank executives is exactly how they walked into the end zone in the first place. Talk about pretending…

            1. That is fine. Tell everyone who is not an atheistic libertarian that they need to go to hell and need not apply. And then see how well you do in the election. Have fun. Good luck with that.

              1. Not all of us are atheistic. Some of us are compromising.

      3. If politics weren’t so heavily influenced by media distortion, the parties would be entirely different. Maybe I have too much faith in humanity, but I’ve long held the belief that if people voted for a set of principles and ideas rather than for a particular candidate (who they get to see and hear through the lens of the media and whose party affiliation affects people’s opinions) then we would be living in a libertarian utopia.

  36. If the majority of this nation wants to vote for a shipwreck (in either direction, left or right), let’em. I’ll just quietly prepare the lifeboat to leave the sinking ship behind. When the parties want to start talking about options for avoiding failure, then maybe I’ll pick one I think is best.

  37. Republicans are not even saying “This time will be different”. Until they even make that one small step I am cheering the Beck camp. Republicans need to start to actually talk about how they will shrink government.

    George Will said it at CPAC….why is it so hard for actual elected conservatives to say it?

  38. The smart move is not a third party, but to have no party affiliations. Currently Dems make up around 35% and GOPs 32%. These are pretty much guaranteed votes for those parties so the 32% who have no affiliation have the power. They are the ones the parties have to woo and the best way to get them to change their policies is not to create a third party that guarantees the votes are not in play but to make them compete for the votes. It’s like any negotiation, you have more power if the other person knows you can and will walk away at any time depending on what they are offering.

    1. You could only do that if your candidate would drop out of the race and then endorse one side or another. If that were the case then there would be a reason to try and get the third parties support.

      But good luck in creating a political party and getting someone to run for the nomination when the sole purpose of doing so is to drop out and endorse another candidate.

      1. First Sentence in my post.
        The smart move is not a third party, but to have no party affiliations.

        Your Response
        But good luck in creating a political party and getting someone to run for the nomination when the sole purpose of doing so is to drop out and endorse another candidate.

        Care to explain what the heck you were responding to?

  39. Lifeboat? That didn’t work out so well for Willi.

    1. boo hoo

  40. I watched Glen Beck last Friday and yesterday and if there is one thing that struck me about him it was how much of what he says sounds as if it is straight out of Reason. He even mentioned Reason a couple of times.

    1. He seems a very instinctual type. Instinct, I observe; reason, I can respect.

  41. For libertarians, the most effective long term strategy would be to form significant voting blocks in both parties.

    Can it be done? Some will scoff at the notion (just for the sake of argument I’ll take the usual numbers they throw around seriously), ‘You represent maybe 13 percent of the population, you’ll never really count.’

    Ever ask, what percentage does the much hated, and deservedly so, public employee sector of the population, represent? Yet, in spite of being a minority representing a very unpopular minority interest, the current make up of the Democratic party is owned by them with trial lawyers (just a fact to be pointed out, I have no beef with them), and Wall Street divvying up whatever remains. If the libertarians were to organize a strong presence in both parties we would see a very different set of out comes than we currently have.

    As for that incredible quote:

    The Democrat Party is the only reason we are threatened with the things we’re threatened with. The Democrat Party. Solely. They own it

    I for one am uninterested in negotiating with an entirely unrepentant GOP. The first step is admitting you have a problem, but before then, I can’t help you.

    1. The Democrat Party is the only reason we are threatened with the things we’re threatened with. The Democrat Party. Solely. They own it

      So a full blown crony-socialist wins a presidential election simply by repeating “Hope, Change” 15 million times….and Republicans had nothing to do with that?

      Yeah sure it is the Democrats fault…whatever.

  42. The Democrats were the force behind the prescription drug benefit. The Republicans weren’t going to pass it if the media drumbeat hadn’t threatened their jobs, and still, some had to be bribed. It was all the GOP could do to keep the program in private sector hands.
    As for third parties, I’m up for a few more years of Democrats governing the way they currently are. It might get them under 20% and open the door to a conservate (real small government) third party.

  43. Call me crazy, but when the big libertarian surge does come, I can see it coming from the disaffected “left.”
    Prove me right, you stinkin’ hippies!

    1. Call me crazy, but when the big libertarian surge does come, I can see it coming from the disaffected “left.”

      Reagan came from the dissatisfaction by the middle with high energy prices and a stagnant economy and leftists plans to control their lives rather then fixing high gas prices and “getting america working again”. Reagan is no perfect libertarian but close enough. Any libertarian surge will come from similar events. Government will reach to far and the alternative to that over-reach will be embraced. If you want the surge then your only hope is to be that alternative.

  44. And am I evil for enjoying John’s apoplexy?
    (Don’t worry, John. I’ve never voted Republican, so they don’t need my vote anyhow.)

  45. The Grand Poo-bah of conservative broadcasting gives the performance-artist upstart a what-for in response to Beck’s trashing of Republicans at CPAC.

    I would like to point out that Welch is way better at this then Moynahan. At least when it comes to conservative talking heads.

  46. For once I agree with John. Hoping for a viable national 3rd party is pointless. Our system simply won’t allow for it. Voting 3rd party is pretty much giving a vote to the major party guy you like least.

    Of course I disagree that the good choice is the GOP. Sure Dems are for big government, but at least they don’t lie about it, and they tend to care about paying for it.

  47. Don’t most elections have less than a 50% turnout? Gotta be some votes there.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.