Tea Party

Should Small-l Libertarians Root for O'Donnell, Paladino, and Angle?

|

The schmuck caucus

That's the question pondered by Tunku Varadarajan in this Daily Beast column. Excerpt:

My first instinct as a libertarian is, of course, for Republican victories everywhere, particularly for candidates running specifically on a small-government platform. The big-government Bush Republicans have already been punished; now it's time to get rid of the big-government Democrats—i.e., all of them. […]

But there is a delicate, almost aesthetic question that remains: Do we back candidates like Carl Paladino and Christine O'Donnell—people we wouldn't ask home to dinner, except in a Dinner for Schmucks sense? Put another way: Is our thirst for a resounding defeat for the statist Democrats so great that some of us would be prepared to swallow a mouthful of "Paladonnell" rotgut along with the premier cru of a GOP victory in the House, the Senate, and elsewhere?

Personally, I would love to see Paladino and O'Donnell lose, since they've distracted attention from the small-government message by adding in their own social conservatism and cultural weirdness. Republican primary voters need to be reminded to be more grownup, and practical. […]

Nevada's Sharron Angle raises similar issues: She, too, is an unconventional Republican candidate, easily typified as "extreme" by the media. There is no doubt that, objectively, some of her positions are, indeed, hard-line. But there are no libertarians, I would wager, who'd like to see her lose to Harry Reid. However distasteful she may be, the political and symbolic importance of defeating Reid is so great that its imperative trumps all distaste. Reid, to libertarian eyes, is the incarnation of our big-government malaise. If he survives, all our hearts will sink and the world will go dark.

My other libertarian wish this election is to see the mainstream media thoroughly miserable with the results. I've never been so appalled at the MSM as in reading their hysterically biased coverage of the Tea Party, and of libertarians like the Koch brothers. The MSM is so threatened by any challenge to its closed, statist mind-set that it is ever ready to demonize dissenters.

I for one will not believe for a second that "big-government Bush Republicans have already been punished" enough until the Washington GOP establishment begins to show any seriousness at all about restraining government. If anything, the rise of the unwashed Tea Party types indicates that Republicans have lost the ability and/or incentive to produce credible candidates who take spending cuts anywhere near as seriously as tax cuts. Until that happens, and until anyone with an R by his or her name shows any inclination to cut back on defense spending, war making, and the stockpiling of Executive Power, let alone getting the hell out of whole swaths of private peacable transactions between consenting humans, the most enthusiasm you'll get from me is seeing politicians and parties get fired, while their captive customers increasingly defect from their tired, predatory bullshit.

Link via Instapundit.

NEXT: Nuclear Deterrent

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. A Delaware acquaintance of mine, laughing at the inexperience and weirdness of O’Donnell, wanted to know if I’d be comfortable with her introducing legislation to ban masturbation. “Sure,” said I, “Do you think it would pass?” Obvious answer is no, not in 2011 America. But I can certainly see Mr. Coons being a swing vote that would send America further down the road to statism, so – if I lived in Delaware – I’d hold my nose and vote for O’Donnell and monitor closely whether she deserved renomination in six years.
    Yes, she is going to get killed in the Delaware election and that should be a warning to tea party types to run credible, experienced candidates and not flakes, cliche mouthers, and goofballs.

    1. Yes, she is going to get killed in the Delaware election and that should be a warning to tea party types to run credible, experienced candidates and not flakes, cliche mouthers, and goofballs.

      Hey, Biden was Delaware’s senator for 38 years. The poor people of Delaware have had enough of flakes, cliche mouthers, and goofballs.

    2. I would rather have the bearded Marxist than the professional concern troll Mike Castle. Castle was nothing but a concern troll. He would have spent his entire term running around to the media telling them how crazy the small government supporters were and how the Republican party was ruled by radicals who didn’t support cap and trade. It would have allowed the media to portray people like Rand Paul as crazy because even a “conservative” like Mike Castle thinks they are nuts.

      I don’t care what happens in the general election. Castle had to go. Also, Bennett and Castle going down has done more to reform the Republican establishment than anything Reason Tunku has ever done. Those rat bastards will do the right thing for the wrong reason. But you have to threaten them with retirement to get them to do it.

      1. I agree with this. It’s not important that O’Donnell won, it’s important that Castle didn’t.

      2. I don’t care what happens in the general election.

        I’m pretty sure you have really strong opinions on which candidate wins there. I doubt you will be happy if the “bearded Marxist” wins.

  2. I would love to see Paladino and O’Donnell lose, since they’ve distracted attention from the small-government message by adding in their own social conservatism and cultural weirdness.

    Think of it like breeding plants or animals for certain characteristics. You’ve got to start somewhere. You find individuals who strongly exhibit some traits you want, no matter that they’re mixed up with a lot of ones you don’t want, and breed them. Over generations you get closer to exactly what you want, but the stock you started with may not look so good overall. The stock you start with just has to stand out in some way against the pack in one or more traits you want.

    If not Paladino, etc., where would you start? You can choose only from those who are candidates to start with. Would’ve been nice to have gotten Levy in NY, but since he lost the primary and Paladino is a clear repudiation of the chief thrust of big gov’t, why not pull for him? You’d also be rewarding his defeat of Lazio, who did not stand out from the pack.

    1. You know who else supported breeding superior people?

      1. Gregor Mendel?

      2. Margaret Sanger?

      3. Khaaaaannn!!

      4. Dr. Zeus?

        1. dammit, should have confirmed spelling…Dr. Zaius?

      5. All my ex-girlfriends?

        1. Did they support breeding superior people by dumping you?

          1. If they wanted superior breeding stock, and thought he was that, would they have dumped him?

            I think that was intended to be funny, BTW.

  3. Tunku nicely summarizes the Establishment disdain, doesn’t he:

    Do we back candidates like Carl Paladino and Christine O’Donnell?people we wouldn’t ask home to dinner

    I don’t want to hear any scornful snickering the next time we point out that, in the Establishment, its all about the cocktail parties.

    Should we root for them to win? Well, are they better on just about every freaking issue that matters to us than their opponents? If so, then, yes, you should hope they win.

    Any soi-disant libertarian who thinks that Paladino would result in a larger, more intrusive, more corrupt government than Cuomo is an idiot who cares more about having the Right Sort in charge than they do anything else.

    1. First, O’Donnell is pretty cute and seems quite charming if a bit quirky. I would invite her to dinner long before I would Welch or Tunku.

      Beyond that what the establishment types like Welch and Tunku don’t get is that most of the country is not up to attending their cocktail parties. For every Reason and Daily Beast hipster there are millions of Christine O’Donnells and Sharon Angles. And if Libertarians want to ever see their ideas implemented they better figure out a way to embrace those millions. And they also better learn to live with the fact that those unwashed millions might occasionally want to run for office and have some say over their government rather than be ruled by their betters.

      Welch and Tunku are no better than the worst liberal. They both embrace the idea that majority of the people in this country are unfit to have any say in their lives or the body politic and that ruling should be left to those of the proper breeding.

      Why shouldn’t Christine O’Donnell be a Senator? Does she hold any ideas that millions of other people don’t also hold? Is she going to reliably vote for the right things and try to best represent her state? I think so. Who ever said you had to be some sophisticated genius to be a Senator? Fuck that. It is one of the easiest jobs in the world. And I would rather have someone that I could rely upon to vote the right way most of the time then some fucking hipster elite who is liable to gravitate to the next cool intellectual fad and wakes up every morning worrying what all the cool set in Washington thinks about him.

      1. You forgot the cocktail parties, John.

      2. By reading this comment, you’d think that I had come out against Christine O’Donnell being senator. Or that I host cocktail parties in Washington. Neither is true.

        1. If anything, the rise of the unwashed “Tea Party types indicates that Republicans have lost the ability and/or incentive to produce credible candidates who take spending cuts anywhere near as seriously as tax cuts. ”

          Did you not mean that as a swipe against O’Donnell Matt?

          1. O’Donnell is the definition of an “unwashed” candidate — unpolished, un”professional,” can’t get her life story straight, a whole bunch of blinking red lights compared to the “normal,” a.k.a. “credible,” candidate. The fact that she did well enough to make the finals in spite, or because, of these factors, is what’s most interesting here, but it’s a story you cannot tell if you refuse to acknowledge that she is substantively different than your run-of-the-mill professional politician.

            1. Matt, why can’t you just acknowledge that true libertarians vote Republican?

              1. True libertarians don’t vote.

                1. But they sure do bitch about the outcome.

                  1. Unlike your people, who win all the elections and still bitch about the outcome.

                    1. good one domo

            2. Plus she’s TOTALLY NOT A WITCH!

          2. It was a swipe against tea partiers, John. As expected.

        2. It appeared to me that you implied she wasn’t a credible candidate. Was there an implication somewhere that her opponent is less credible?

          1. Do I have to insult Chris Coons every time I talk about Christine O’Donnell?

            By the Republican Party’s own standards (which are debased in a thousand ways, to be sure), O’Donnell is an outlier, and was considered (for a few moments anyway) beyond the pale for a lot of GOP establishmentarians. My point, which a certain defensive mindset apparently cannot digest, is that complaining about her not-ready-for-prime-timeness is misplacing the concern and pinning the blame on the wrong culprit: The only reason an unpolished government-cutter has the GOP nomination in Delaware is because the GOP no longer produces government cutters, period.

            1. Who cares if you think she is “ready for prime time”? That is just politics as sporting event. Oh she doesn’t block and tackle correctly. Big deal. Why can’t someone who holds quirky views on things be a Senator? Why does every Senator have to be the same lying slimy weasel who makes people like you consider them “ready for prime time”. I have yet to hear O’Donnell say anything that is so bad that I should consider her unfit for public office. She is a strict Catholic and considers masturbation to be a sin. So do a lot of other people. I don’t. But I am not going to say all of them, no matter what their views otherwise should be bared from ever receiving my support.

              1. O’Donnell IS a lying slimy weasel regardless of whether she’s good at “prime time” politics. And she considers masturbation to be a sin–and wants everyone else punished for it too. She is a fucking Democrat for god’s sake. Al Gore thinks using coal for electricity is a sin and wants everyone punished for using it too. You cannot see the difference because you are emotionally attached to her, just like Palin. Of course O’Donnell isn’t culturally acceptable–she wants to limit people’s freedom as do the Democrats, she just wants to do it a little less.

                1. Did you type that with one hand?

              2. Funny that you draw that metaphor, because it really resonates with me now. As you can see from my current link, I’m coaching football. What you don’t see in that picture is that I’m not the head coach, not even the only assistant — I’m just the only one who showed up that day for a scrimmage — and note our lack of players who showed up, there’s just a bare 11 in that photo, and one of them was an apparent ringer we never saw before or since that day!

                Anyway, I’ve been frustrated that I’ve had so little influence on the team because our head coach is friendly but a control freak, needing to supervise every detail to the point that my presence at practice sessions was nearly superfluous much of the time. I thought we could get much more done if he’d delegated more and done more drills in parallel instead of series. However, our head coach’s attendance has been somewhat spotty because of his other commitments — including basketball coaching now. So at mostly unexpected times I’ve been in charge, and that’s where my primary influence has been.

                So I note that our team’s form is awful because of the little time spent on it — and they gave us little prep time total anyway. However, in 3 games we’re undefeated, untied, unscored-on, have the highest points per game, and the only opponent on our schedule (double round robin) we haven’t played yet is a cellar dweller we’ll probably slaughter this Sat. You see, all the other teams have the same faults as us in terms of form, and we have better athletes who are also relatively good at paying att’n. We even wound up with the only girl in our class (i.e. division), and she (not in the photo) turned out to have been a good pick, playing nose guard on defense.

                This is very much like how it can be in politics, e.g. with Paladino in the GOP primary. We had little influence on him, his “form” is awful, yet he slaaughtered his opponent. We had very little to do with his success, and he in turn may be slaughtered in the gen’l election (although I think it’ll be a lot closer than the polls predict), but what do you do, sneer at success? Prefer him to have lost?

                So it’s not like my coaching ideas have any basis for being promoted by our success, but my reputation will probably be advanced a bit by my having ridden this winning horse. So it goes in politics too.

                1. I was referring to John’s metaphor of blocking and tackling form. Nesting is great, but breaks down when you can’t nest infinitely deep as on Usenet.

                2. I took a shit on a football field in the Bronx once.

              3. She isn’t unfit because she holds quirky views, she is unfit because she wants to impose them on everyone else, and moreover is apparently not self aware enough to realize that very few people want that.

                1. She isn’t unfit because she holds quirky views, she is unfit because she wants to impose them on everyone else

                  Evidence?

                  1. Well, she “opposes masturbation” on moral grounds and favors “legislating morality”. She also says that it is equivilent to adultery, and act which is still illegal in some US jurisdictions. Is she going to get it passed? no. Would she even introduce it? no. However, she is a candidate who is running on a “smaller government” platform who can’t get out of the primaries without even a hint of suggestion that she would support such a creepy totalitarian regulation. Not getting my vote.

                    1. Show me a link to where she has said and affirmed that she wants ban masturbation. You people will believe anything if it fits your prejudices.

                    2. I will, right after you give me a single credible argument as to why a candidate for public office should be offerring her view on masturbation in any form. That, and after you show me a link to Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate.

                    3. “I will, right after you give me a single credible argument as to why a candidate for public office should be offerring her view on masturbation in any form.”

                      She never has as a candidate. These are quotes people dug up from her past where people asked her questions. People like you are the ones bringing it up not her.

              4. Uh, John, her comments about masturbation were unbearably stupid and creepy. Anybody who sincerely speaks of masturbation that way is not, in my view, ready for public office. They are ready for therapy.

            2. “The only reason an unpolished government-cutter has the GOP nomination in Delaware is because the GOP no longer produces government cutters, period.”

              So O’Donnell isn’t part of the GOP? That makes no sense Matt. I would say they did produce a government cutter. You just don’t like her. You are proving my point. Unless they produce people who are culturally acceptable to you.

              1. It wasn’t nice talking to you.

                1. It’s Friday Funday!

                2. So when’s your Christine O’Donnell book coming out, Matt?

              2. But dude, she’s not running on a GOP ticket. So no, she’s not part of the GOP. They may have been happy to accept her support in the form of votes and campaign donations for many years, however, they are clearly unwilling to put her forward as one of their own.

                1. She IS running on the GOP ticket.

                  1. She is now that she won, but it’s not like the Delaware GOP are happy about it.

              3. Reason does seem to be populated by the cool kids, doesn’t it? The kind of kids who are happy to pontificate but unable to actually get anything done in the nasty reality that is actually outside the Beltway. It was more important for them to sneer at Sarah Palin (accompanied by deliberately chosen unflattering photographs of her) than acknowledge that she did more to hold up ObamaCare than all of them put together.

                1. Sarah Palin is a Christian Zionist who will lead us to war with Iran if she thinks it will benefit Israel. I sure hope the GOP doesn’t nominate her.

            3. Do I have to insult Chris Coons every time I talk about Christine O’Donnell?

              Of course not, but it seems hard to reconcile “you’d think that I had come out against Christine O’Donnell being senator” with your implication that she is not a credible candidate unless you believe that her opponent is even less credible. Otherwise, it looks very much like you did come out against her.

      3. “Welch and Tunku are no better than the worst liberal.”

        That’s a bit harsh, but they sure do sound like the worst of the liberal elite in this article.

        1. They’re leftist revisionist wreckers and must be driven from the party. No deviationism can be allowed in the Glorious Republican Party!

          Which is kind of funny, because Matt Welch isn’t a Republican.

          1. Matt’s position is that they’re just not desirable candidates from a libertarian perspective. I also want to see the Democrats go down hard for cramming Obamacare down our throats, but I hate to see them replaced by a bunch of warmongers and cultural conservatives.

            1. Well said, but a Republican congress/Democratic president works well for us. Unlikely to invade and unlikely to see any new domestic programs.

              Vice-versa, like ’07-’08, is the worst.

              1. But can Obamacare be repealed with a Democratic president?

                1. Technically, yes. Attach a repeal of Obamacare to any legislation funding any part of the federal government, forcing Obama to choose between repeal, and shutting down the federal government and thus throwing unionized public workers out of a job.

                  Course, last time something was tried like this in the mid-90s, the Rs blinked. Doubt they’d sack up any better this time.

                  1. Republicans will blink again. Chris Christie and Gary Johnson are about the only Republicans with enough guts to pull off something like this, and they’re not in Congress. Sigh.

                  2. Actually it was tried just recently with DADT. Team Blue inserted a repeal of DADT in to a defense spending bill they didn’t want knowing it would get struck down. Politically speaking, it worked like a charm.

                2. Even with 100% republican control of congress and a republican in the white house, Obamacare doesn’t get repealed.

                  Anyone who thinks that they’re willing to repeal Obamacare is is an idiot. They don’t want to repeal it, they want to improve it in their image.

                  Our only hope is parts being found unconstitutional by the wise 9, which I wouldn’t count on either.

                  Methinks we’re stuck with this turd.

            2. I also want to see the Democrats go down hard for cramming Obamacare down our throats,

              Actually, given O’Donnell’s comments about masturbation, I’m pretty sure she also disapproves of men talking about “going down hard” and “cramming … down our throats”.

          2. Depending on who is shouting at him at any particular time, Welch is a Republican, a Democratic, a fascist, a Nazi, or even-gasp!- a libertarian. He makes a good bogeyman.

            Matt’s position is that they’re just not desirable candidates from a libertarian perspective.

            Nearly 100% of candidates for national offices are desirable from a libertarian perspective. That is nothing new. O’Donnell is undesirable from a mental health perspective, which is why it would be fun if she won.

            1. As far as I’m concerned, 99% of candidates from both major parties are not desirable from a libertarian perspective.

              1. Of course, I meant to say NOT DESIRABLE and whiffed it. So, what you said. D’oh.

      4. I agree she is cute. But, if she is gonna renounce being a witch, which I understand from watching porn on the innertubes, consists mostly of lesbian sex, that I would have to ponder my choice for a moment.

        But when you consider her opponent, who believes all that bat-sh*t crazy standard Washington TARP stuff, well she is obviously the more intelligent and grounded in reality candidate.

        1. With regard to the witch thing, I was figuring on her incantations and spells helping us out a bit.
          by the way, I am not being sarcastic! Seriously!!! Look at where we are now with the “estalishment” candidate and types like him…it rational to put more like him in Congress???

    2. Cocktail parties, fucking hell, can’t we kill that worn out trope already. Jeebus it has been played to fucking death.

      Is that all republicans think about; how to turn any story or event into bitching about goddamn cocktail parties?

      If you’re so fucking sad ’cause dem dang ol’ libruls won’t invite you to their cocktail parties, then maybe it is time that you threw yer own.

      Do people actually have cocktail parties? Do keggers count, cause if so then I’ve been to lots of ’em?

      1. It is shorthand for being liked. People like Welch and Tunku culturally want to be accept by the big media and establishment in Washington. It is hard for them because they don’t hold to liberal doctrine. So they try to make up for it by bonding culturally. Tunku can say to his boss Tina Brown “sure I hold these crazy small government views but I am not like all those hillbillies out there. I am one of you. I belong”. And Republican politicians do the same thing. For them it is fun to have the New York Times say nice things about you. It is fun to know you are better than the rest of the boobs in your party.

        1. John — You really have no idea what you’re talking about. I am too old to care about “bonding culturally” with anyone, I avoid both cocktail parties and the murmuring approval of The New York Times, and I have written in fora not unfamiliar to you that people getting flustered about O’Donnell’s masturbation policies are ignoring the fact that she ran on a campaign of reducing the size of government.

          1. is it true there’s a certain airport restroom in the Minneapolis area where toe tapping constitutes ones desire to “bond culturally”?

          2. I avoid both cocktail parties and the murmuring approval of The New York Times

            Aha! So, there are cocktail parties!

        2. Sometimes the rubes are rubes, John.

          I am probably the furthest thing from what you would consider an elitist, but when people start talking about the earth being 6000 years old, or that masturbation/porn is akin to adultery, that’s it, game over. You have proven yourself to be a window licking moron.

          The cocktail party elitist thing is shorthand because it is easy, and requires absolutely no thought. It energizes the base, as they say.

          Also, the idea that city people are one way and country people are another is collectivist at best and not to mention demonizing/hagiography of groups based on geography.

          1. Really? I don’t really care about how old a Senate candidate thinks the earth is. And when I hear someone talk about how we can spend our way out of the recession or cap and trade is necessary, I consider them to be a dangerous window licking moron.

            All you are doing is fighting the culture war. You hare religious people. Well that is your right. But you can’t really then bitch when those people hate you to and won’t listen to your ideas. Most people in this country are religious. Unless and until Libertarians get over their religious bigotries, they are never going to be anything but a fringe movement. You may not like that. But it is a fact nonetheless.

            1. Oh, fuck off with your persecution complex, and your binary thinking. I could give a shit what someone’s religious beliefs are, but when you start spouting off at the mouth making obviously false assertions you are a moron. Especially if done so in a prideful manner.

              Besides it’s you and teamblue’s culture war, I could give a fuck; outside of a desire to be left alone.

              Additionally, I’ll believe the smaller government claims when I see results. I’ll be more than happy eat crow if Jesus himself came down and reduced the deficit, but I ain’t holding my breath.

              Answer me this, John: Who, in recent memory, has used culture wars to cover up gross ineptitude and record spending?

              What are you doing here anyways? Shouldn’t you be out defending christmas from the barbarian hordes?

              1. LOL, John truly is blind to a big government lover when she’s got big tits.

              2. Not done.

                Where do you fucking think you are anyways? Why should we get down and start licking the boots of every republican because they ejaculate platitudes about smaller government? “Oh, Scott Brown yer soooo dreamy with yer chevy truck, and mass care and obama care”…doesn’t change a fucking thing.

                You think we are liberal cityfied elitists, and chody thinks we’re racist conservatives. Well you guys made a big fucking mess of this country and us loserdopians are looking pretty good right now as a clean up crew.

                Sheeeeeit, I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

                And for the record I consider libertarianism more of a political philosophy than a team to join.

                1. Sorry reality intrudes on your fantasy there Capitol. But it is not my problem you don’t like it. The fact most people in this country are religious. And running around telling then you can maybe accept it as long as they don’t say anything is not going to buy you any converts. Have fun in the wilderness dipshit.

                  1. And running around telling then you can maybe accept it as long as they don’t say anything is not going to buy you any converts.

                    You’re either full of shit or fucking retarded John. Many religious people, ODonnell included, wanted to shove their religion down everyone else’s throats and control our decisions and base laws on their religion. For fuck’s sake, O’Donnell wants the law to control ON WHAT PART OF MY BODY I PUT MY HANDS.

                    1. Citation, please. Don’t make up stuff, come up with a credible citation that O’Donnell wants to ban masturbation.

                  2. You still don’t get it, do you? Do even read other people’s posts before responding.

                    I don’t care what silliness people adhere to.

                    But, if you want to go on teevee and tell america that evolution is a myth and that taxpayers should be paying to teach abrahamic based sciences in the classroom, then not only are you a moron but a dangerous moron.

                    People’s religion is not some untouchable thing, a place we dare not tread. If you say stupid shit you will get called on it.

                    And the “fact” is that a cross section of people that pollsters consider representative of this country self identify as religious. That could mean a lot of things. There is variance there, John. Do all religious people adhere to anti-scientific claptrap: nope. You know why?—> ‘Cause they are not fucking morons. They are religious people who are not morons. Want me to repeat that for you, again?

                    1. Why are you so obsessed with evolution Capital? Who the fuck cares what a Senate candidate thinks about evolution. Are there going to be evolution laws up for vote in the Senate?

                      You are just fighting the culture war. She is in the other tribe and you won’t vote for her even though she would do better than her opponent on things that matter.

                      You sound like Shrike.

                    2. This is really exasperating, John. I wish you would at least skim my post before responding, it’s the least that you could do.

                      I have to go to work anyways, and don’t have a job where I can waste my employer’s money debating you…maybe later.

                    3. I could see where her position on evolution could be a problem if we had a creationist president who appointed a creationist justice to the Supreme Court who wanted to mandate equal time to the teaching of creationism in the public schools. But such a circumstance that a majority of Senators would confirm such a loonie is probably unlikely.

                    4. Although, we do have some conservative justices in our present Supreme Court who would probably do just that.

              3. You trying to say Jesus Christ can’t reduce the deficit?

                Or hit a curveball for that matter?

                1. “You trying to say Jesus Christ can’t reduce the deficit?

                  Or hit a curveball for that matter?”

                  Judging by his pitching arm, he can barely throw to home plate.

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3g2R6K7wSs

                2. Fuck no! He totally fucking could. But so could Jobu.

              4. Additionally, I’ll believe the smaller government claims when I see results.

                You can’t get results when you’re afraid that the candidate will pass some kind of legislation that says you can’t play with your junk because the planets too young to see that kinda shit.

                Does anyone really think that O’Donnell is cooking up anti-masturbation legislation? And, even if she did, does anyone think that it’d go anywhere?

                But does anyone really think she’d vote for cutting spending? repealing Obamacare? making the government smaller?

                Hmmm…..I can indulge in paranoid fantasies about nonsensical laws getting passed or I can vote for the candidate who might actually do the things I’ve wanted done for years……hard to decide…

              5. Answer me this, John: Who, in recent memory, has used culture wars to cover up gross ineptitude and record spending?

                Duh

                The progs have used the culture wars to distract retards like your for decades.

                Look out those crazy christians are gonna stop you from masturbating!

                Then when you look where their pointing they loot the treasury.

                Buy yeah those fascist christians are the problem.

                JackAss!

            2. If someone believes a falsehood about a basic fact of science what makes you think they’ll be any more rigorous in their thinking when it comes to fiscal policy?

              1. Hate to say, but I’m agreeing with Tony.

                1. and, I’m off to shoot myself in the head.

              2. Could they be any more than people like you?

                1. Could you rephrase your sentance in the form of a sentance?

              3. It’s called “compartmentalization”, Tony. People can be intelligent regarding some things, but put their brains on hold when it comes to religion.

                1. Exactly. I wouldn’t care if she really were a wiccan if she supported the things I cared about.

                  1. This is of course all academic, since she’s demonstrated that she is in fact a complete idiot.

          2. You mean the Earth isn’t thousands of years old? What was it, then, born yesterday and we have fake memories? We have records going back generations and AFAIK they came about on Earth, so it’s gotta have been thousands of years.

            1. Maybe the records were faked by the people that created the earth.

        3. Does being liked really have much to do with one’s ideas on subjects like that? Is the political personal?

          I thought it was weird when my now dead friend David Lindelof revealed to me that he thought that way. He explained that he’d purged himself of a bunch of his friends because they said they were going to vote for Nixon for POTUS; I don’t remember in which election. He said that he found my views repugnant, but that my saving grace that caused him to retain me as a friend was that I’m Jewish — which is especially weird because he’s not and I’m not either! (My father’s side of the family is.) He figured a Jew couldn’t be all that bad.

          I just think more people are like me, who don’t give a fig what friends think about stuff like that.

          1. Sounds like you’d be better off without him.

    3. Hear, hear. You have to pick a candidate closest to your own values and not wait for perfection. I would love to have Christine for dinner at any time any place. She is so much more inteligent and good looking than that idiot Biden.

  4. Should Small-l Libertarians Root for O’Donnell, Paladino, and Angle?

    No. An asteroid strike.

  5. I pretty much agree with article excerpt. Yay Angle! (I don’t know a ton about here, I hope I don’t live to regret that yay). ODonnel ….. uhhh … kinda don’t care either way, I still am emotianally rooting for here, because she isn’t one of “them”, but shes probably bad for freedom in the long run. Paladino just seems like a big jackass.

    Fortunately, Angle is the only one with a real shot of winning way, isn’t she?

    1. It would take some serious doing for her to be worse than Reid over the next six years. Also, knocking off the Senate Majority Leader is a good way of getting the Establishment’s attention.

  6. The graveyard is full of indispensible people…when government is intrusive and locked into two parties, shouldn’t it always be about throwing out the incumbents?

  7. Personally, I would love to see Paladino and O’Donnell lose, since they’ve distracted attention from the small-government message by adding in their own social conservatism and cultural weirdness. Republican primary voters need to be reminded to be more grownup

    I shall (nay, MUST!) cleave to my tribe!

    SIUYA, you dipshit.

  8. With Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove still being given credence as conservative pundits, it is obvious that big government Bush Republicans, aka RINOs, have not been punished enough.

    Bush bragged that he had remade the Republican party in his own image. Making John Boehner (Bush’s congressional point man on No Child Left Behind) Pelosi’s replacement will only show that the punishment hasn’t really begun and no lesson has been learned.

    1. Electing insurgent Tea Party candidates is still punishing the Establishment, even the Tribe Red Establishment.

    2. One of the real bright spots of this election is that people like Angle, Bachmann, and O’Donnell raised enough money to be highly competitive without being beholden to the National Republican Establishment. The NRSC, NRCC, and their Democrat counterparts were the big losers in this election. May this trend continue.

  9. There are some detestable GOP candidates on my ballet this November. More of the same Turd vs. Douche choices. Thankfully, the LP also has a swath of candidates, so I can flush my vote down the toilet like usual.

    1. That’s my plan. I might vote for the Dem (Bill White) for governor, on the Get the Fuck Outta Here Already, Perry, ticket.

      1. Reconsider. I’m as tired of Perry as anybody, but Bill White isn’t an improvement by any standard.

        1. No? Think of the money TX will save on hair spray.

      2. I’m going for Glass.

        1. Nullification? OMG Trans Texas Corridor will destroy us all!!! Gimme a break. Libertarian purity personified. But…

          Fuck Perry. No way on White. So she has my vote too. The tribal zealotry vote. God I’m depressed.

      3. I’m considering voting for Perry, then mostly straight ticket Libertarian on everything else. Here is my thinking:

        The “precinct-strength-rating”, or something like that, is based on # of votes for top of ticket. So the more votes our precinct casts for Perry, the more we can send to the county-level shebang. My precinct is a big time Ron Paul kind of precinct and we can infect general GOP with more freedom vibe. So for the cost of wasting my vote on Perry instead of a Libertarian, I might actually make a micro-difference in the local GOP machinery.

    2. There are actually some Libertarians on the Florida ticket for once. I’m happy to “waste” my vote on Snitker (he’s almost a Tea Party candidate, but still better than anyone else). Unfortunately, the gubernatorial candidate is a write-in. Ah well, WTF.

      1. Yeah. I might have until he invited me down to the WorldNetDaily conference. Supporting people culturally to the right of Ann Coulter is not exactly what I’m looking for in the Libertarian party.

  10. This is a tough question, but in the end, as distasteful as O’Donnell’s weird statements are, she would be a vote against statism (or, at least, for a less virulent form of it). Also, she’s one vote out of 100 and, especially due to her lack of seniority, wouldn’t have enough power to do much harm.

    Paladino is a different story, as NY is a powerful state, and he’d be their chief executive. Pulling the lever for him would be a bit harder (if I were a New Yorker), but I couldn’t vote for Cuomo in good conscience.

    I wrote a piece about the O’Donnell/Coons debate and the Supreme Court question, which I thought was ridiculous. Plus there’s some fun info about Wickard v Filburn, an obscure but important case from the 40s. Please take a look and let me know what you think!

    Thanks
    Greg Garrison
    http://www.thejoyofreason.com/…..mount.html

    1. Wickard v Filburn, an obscure but important case

      obscure? Where the fuck do you think you are?

      1. Point taken. Saying that on H&R is a bit like explaining what Prop 19 is.

  11. Lumping the tolerable Angle in with the other two grade-A whackadoodles is something you’d expect to see on MSNBC. She ain’t perfect, but she’s significantly better than her opponent (as compared to the other two who are just a slightly different flavor of turdcicle than their opponents.)

  12. I’ll probably hold my nose and vote for Paladino. I’d like to give the Dems in NY a nice big shitburger to eat for saddling me with Schumer for all these years.

    Besides, this is everyone’s best opportunity to see a politician fist fight in the capital.

    1. I’m thinking of doing the same Nick.

    2. Besides, this is everyone’s best opportunity to see a politician fist fight in the capital.

      Didn’t we get that with the Senate shenanigans in the summer of 2009?

      Of course, our asshole journalists had to call it a “coup”, even though it was no different from what Jim Jeffords did in the US Senate in 2001.

    3. Agreed, anyone but another Cuomo.

  13. RC, I agree. However, I think tea party types candidates should find a better Speaker and not support Boehner no matter what pressure they must endure. Otherwise, they will find that two years go by quickly.

  14. The big-government Bush Republicans have already been punished

    Like Boehner? And McConnell?

    What an idjit.

    1. Nope. They will be rewarded unless they get voted out of their positions by the new majority. And the only hope for that happening is enough of the tea party types to win. If all of the proper types that Tunku seems to love win, then yes, the establishment will be rewarded not punished.

      I hope a bunch of hell raisers get in that if they can’t vote Beohner and McConnell out will at least drive them nuts.

      1. I am very skeptical of the idea that the “tea party types” would dump Boehner or McConnell. I would love it if it happened… but I’ll hold my breath until it does.

        1. You must be dead by now.

  15. Is a guy like Paladino, who advocates using eminent domain for groups he doesn’t like, really small government? Anyone who advocates using the state to take the property of people he doesn’t like can’t be called “small government” under any rational definition of the word.

    1. No he is not. Pallidino does seem like a serious nut. But, is rule by idiot son any better? Basically New York and California are screwed.

  16. So where are the educated, reasonable small-government types running for office?

    What strange company. It’s almost as if basing your political philosophy on small government platitudes is by itself sufficient for being a cretin.

    1. The academic policy establishment is in love with the complexity they themselves have created.

      “You can’t tinker with the complex machinery of the modern state!” they say. “If you touch it in the right place, the whole thing will come crashing down!”

      They don’t realize that this is actually an attractive prospect.

      If you have no stake in the existing bureaucratic state, you have no reason to join these folks in desperate defense of its complexity.

      And once the complexity goes, issues of governance literally won’t require anything other than basic literacy to master. It’s not that complicated, until you want to steal. Stealing while covering yourself in accolades requires the rhetorical skill and philosophical legerdermain that comes with a university degree. Honesty really doesn’t.

      1. I have no idea what you’re talking about, but it sounds anti-intellectual to me.

        General rule: if most of academia is against you, you’re probably wrong.

        1. Tony that is the most unaware and funniest thing you have ever written on here.

          1. I said probably.

            It’s possible you’re smarter than the people who are by definition the smartest people in the country. Just not likely.

            1. “by definition”? Keep on digging Tony, it’s fantastic.

            2. So your definition of smart is having spent more time in school. Surely you must be aware of the difference between education and intelligence…

              1. Yes. The engineers I have known…

                But let’s not fall into the trap of assuming someone is suspect because they are educated.

                1. See my comment downthread touching on how how easy intellectuals have historically been to manipulate. Their pursuit of knowledge has often made them willing and/or unwitting tools of totalitarianism of both ends of the spectrum. That doesn’t make me suspicious of intellectuals, it makes me suspicious of the people paying their bills.

                  1. In any repressive totalitarian regime there are intellectuals who support the state, and those who are shot (or flee). It is an absurd statement to say that intellectuals are somehow easily manipulated compared to stupid people. Stupidity is the state of being easily manipulated.

          2. Anti-intellectualism is one of the first steps in the direction of fascism, John.

            1. So you insulting the economist PhDs at George Mason means you’re a fascist?

            2. It was the slavish devotion to “action” by the intellectuals like Futurists and those ridiculous Situationalists that paved the way for a dominant state in Europe.

              And our early 20th century “Progressive” proto-fascists came straight out of the Ivy League. Must try harder.

              1. Alan YOU are the fascist, you just don’t realize it. Progressivism came out of minority and labor rights movements as well as academia. Your idea of what progressivism is comes from Glenn Beck, anti-intellectual extraordinaire (who has all the answers), an obvious proto-fascist. Anti-intellectualism is never okay, and is always scary. The professors are always some of the first ones off to the gas chambers.

                1. The German universities and their professorships supported Hitler almost to a man, Tony.

                  Precisely because the entire crop of post-enlightenment thinkers in Europe fully supported the idea that capitalist democracy was degenerate and decadent, and fully supported the idea that society could be improved by decisive action taken by inspired leadership with no regard for its short-term human costs. Heidegger was a Nazi for a reason. If a Hitler had risen in France instead of in Germany, Sartre would have been a Nazi, too.

                  1. “The folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work primarily to the inoculation of mere knowledge, but to the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies. The training of mental abilities is only secondary. And here again, first place must be taken by the development of character, especially the promotion of will-power and determination, combined with the training of joy in responsibility, and only in last place comes scientific schooling.” (50)

                    “A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate, weak-willed and cowardly pacifists, will not storm the heavens, indeed, they will not be able to safeguard their existence on this earth.”

                    –Adolph Hitler

                    It’s not surprising when influential people like professors join the party when there’s a fascist anti-intellectual dictatorship going on. They burned books Fluffy. Naziism and other fascisms are in part defined by their disdain for intellectual activity. It’s always about “common sense” over reason and science.

                    Academics not supporting capitalism isn’t the same as them being fascists themselves. There is a not illegitimate case to be made for the flaws of capitalism.

                    1. It’s not surprising when influential people like professors join the party when there’s a fascist anti-intellectual dictatorship going on.

                      Tony, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t know the first thing about the intellectual history of Europe after 1700.

                      The entire concept of a “Volk” was an intellectual fashion or affectation, arising from a critique of the enlightenment that was first undertaken by philosophers and artists. There was no such thing as a “Volk” until its existence was asserted by philosophers writing in reaction to the “bloodless reason” of the enlightenment.

                      The book burning undertaken by the Nazis was seen as a purification of the national culture – and that purification was only seen as necessary because 150 years of post-enlightenment philosophy said that it was. People who don’t think books are important don’t burn them, Tony. Only an intellectual fanatic obsessed with the content of books burns them.

                      Like most Americans, you have a kind of Andy Griffith notion that intellectual development advances in one direction, towards reason. And that’s just not the case. The Nazi movement may have been anti-reason, but it was not anti-intellectual, for the simple reason that from 1870-1939 European intellectual fashion was anti-reason overall.

                    2. Fluffy that’s an interesting post, and while that may all be the case, that doesn’t excuse current anti-intellectualism in the US. I don’t think the US academia is infested with post-enlightenment fascists. Outside of the context of specific anti-reason movements in intellectual circles, in general I think it’s a scary thing when political movements start attacking academics. You know it’s rampant here on the right, and in general its purpose is to replace reason with a folk wisdom that legitimizes the power of demagogues.

                    3. I don’t think the US academia is infested with post-enlightenment fascists.

                      Everyone in the sociology, psychology, and philosophy departments probably gets the bulk of their foundational source material from thinkers who were overtly hostile to the Enlightenment model of man as a rational being. Whether that makes them into political fascists generally depends on how seriously they take their own material.

                    4. Well the “model of man as a rational being” is on its way out and it’s not coming from philosophy, but biology. Hard science is of course the culmination of Enlightenment principles.

                      One of my majors was philosophy and, while perhaps my experience wasn’t typical, I wasn’t inundated with post-enlightenment thought. Generally we studied the history of thought from the Greeks to the cutting edge of philosophy, with theology thrown in the mix. I’ve since become dismissive of philosophy as a route to truth and pretty much put my trust in hard science as our best bet. Just like any other enterprise, I feel, political systems should be guided by pragmatism and evidence. Libertarianism hardly qualifies as an Enlightenment project.

                    5. “Libertarianism hardly qualifies as an Enlightenment project.”

                      Libertarians are classical liberals. Classical liberals were a product of the Enlightenment. In that sense you could say that libertarians are a product of the Enlightenment.

                    6. bookworm you may think that, but it is not the essence of the Enlightenment to be stuck in a quasi-religious devotion to first principles that never evolve with a changing society, which is what libertarianism is.

                    7. Well the “model of man as a rational being” is on its way out and it’s not coming from philosophy, but biology.

                      Only to fools. If man does not have rational capacity, then by what faculties will he determine this?

                      Hard science is of course the culmination of Enlightenment principles.

                      What is the scientific method, if not a rational process that attempts to discover “truths”?

                    8. “You know it’s rampant here on the right, and in general its purpose is to replace reason with a folk wisdom that legitimizes the power of demagogues.”

                      You seem to have confused “desire to solve problems at the community and family level, as opposed to the federal level,” with “folk wisdom.”

                      Just because people don’t share your view of government doesn’t make them ignorant rubes.

                      If conservatives in general display hostility to academia, it’s due in large part to the current academic-educational complex being dominated by individuals who promote a political philosophy that is openly hostile to their cultural mores of local self-sufficiency and self-determination, in favor of a Leviathan state uber alles.

                      Your caricature of their leaders as “demagogues” is remarkable in its complete lack of self-awareness regarding your own political tribe, which has made demagoguery SOP for the last 100+ years. Let’s get real, the last thing modern progressives have worked for is stable, healthy communities–such associations would rarely require the gentle kiss of the federal regulatory machine, after all–as much as fomenting perpetual discord to justify their own state-funded and academia-promoted social engineering.

                    9. The Left co-opted intellectuals by giving them the financial support of the state. They didn’t do this because the wanted free and objective scientific inquiry. They did it because they wanted intellectuals to give them plausible cover for their ultimately disasterous totalitarian economic policies. They bought them. The Extreme right has, of course done the same. It’s not a question of whether team red or team blue likes intellectuals most, its a matter of who is currently paying their bills. For all their smarts, the intellectuals have proven easy to manipulate.

                    10. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 2009, as National Physical Fitness and Sports Month.

                      I call upon the American people to take control of their health and wellness by making physical activity, fitness and sports participation an important part of their daily lives. I encourage individuals, businesses, and community organizations to renew their commitment to personal fitness and health by celebrating this month with appropriate events and activities.

                      – Barack Obama

                    11. A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate, weak-willed and cowardly pacifists, will not storm the heavens, indeed, they will not be able to safeguard their existence on this earth.

                      I can’t find this quote in Hitler’s work… where did you find it?

                      The first quote I found in Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter 2.

                    12. Found the quote….

                      A nation composed of learned men who are physical weaklings, hesitant about decisions of the will, and timid pacifists, is not capable of assuring even its own existence on this earth.

                      It’s in the same chapter.

                2. You got me Tony. My desire to be left alone and to leave others alone is classic fascism. If this is intellectualism, I weep.

                3. “The professors are always some of the first ones off to the gas chambers.”

                  Ironically enough, the professors were typically the ones supporting the gas chambers when it wasn’t their particular tribe being sent there.

                  1. The academics will sell people the rationale with which we will gas them.

                4. “Progressivism came out of minority and labor rights movements as well as academia”.

                  No, that was more the liberals, anarchists, and socialists. Progressives were more about to the moral, technological, and sometimes genetic improvement of society. Because this implied a massive social engineering run by an educated and morally superior elite, it certainly had appeal to academics, of course.

            3. This is true–hence the left’s focus on perpetual studenthood. Keeping the ‘intelligence’ shackled to training instead of functionality leaves a nation run by half-wits who never had to be able to do things in a practical sense.

              We exist in a state in which the anti-intellectuals control all facets of education and training. Like all idiots, they believe that calling themselves smart, and telling others that they are, by ‘definition’ smart, is the same thing as actually being smart.

        2. Accusations of anti-intellectuality won’t get you anywhere with me, baby doll. I’m immune to that nonsense.

          I’m not surprised that you have no idea what I’m talking about.

          The belief that modern government requires a technocracy is based on the idea that modern government is inherently complex. It’s not. It’s only complex because we’ve made it complex, by adding layer after layer of bureaucratic procedure. What we have made, we can unmake.

          Were it not for the endless arms race between rent-seeking and the impossible desire to prevent rent-seeking while still having an interventionist state, the business of government would be quite simple. It would not require a technocracy at all.

          But “most of academia” would never support any system change that reduced the need for a technocracy, because that would reduce the need for their employment.

          BTW, does the “you’re wrong if academia is against you” rule apply to your Leninist economics? Because the last time I checked, economics departments were dominated by your ideological opponents.

          1. I dunno, the world is complex, I fail to see how a few simple rules will make it all function smoothly. The simplest tort, for example, requires a lot of bureaucracy in order that all parties are convinced a fair process is underway.

            Touche on the bit about economics departments.

            1. It is because the world is complex that it is necessary for there to only be a few rules.

              There are billions of people who, by and large, only want to do peaceful things. Why should they be “directed” or “controlled” or “planned”? Furthermore, with that many people, all engaged in different behavior, how can they be managed?

              They can’t. So leave them alone until and unless they hurt someone or steal something.

              1. Exactly. Complex rules undermine the intelligence of the people that live under them. However smart the rule-makers may be, they are not smart enough to solve all or even many individual problems. To do so would require a crystal ball.

        3. “General rule: if most of academia is against you, you’re probably wrong.”

          True in everything except public policy, where the intellectual ego has a stake in convincing people of its own importance, and is threatened by the idea that there is a self-organizing principle at work in a free society.

          Intellectual integrity is at least as important as intelligence, which gives strong reason to be skeptical of the intellectual establishment.

          1. No I think it still applies. Just because most serious academics aren’t libertarians is probably more of a reflection on the inadequacies of libertarianism than of academia. Again, probably. You could be right.

            And I said “serious” because there are plenty of libertarian intellectuals, mostly supported by corporate funded think tanks. There’s more reason to be skeptical there than a normal academic who doesn’t have a financial incentive in his political views.

            1. a normal academic who doesn’t have a financial incentive in his political views.

              Somebody hasn’t spent much time around academia if they think that’s true.

              1. I’ve spent plenty of time in academia, and what I do know is that the reason there aren’t more conservatives there is because conservatism has become viciously anti-intellectual.

                1. I actually think it’s the opposite.

                  Academia became dominated by leftist politics during the 30’s, and ossified in that state due to the way the tenure process creates self-replicating cells of ideology in university departments. Not to mention the fact that the university structure itself is bloated with departments where the basic premises of the discipline ultimately aren’t compatible with a capitalistic, rights-based system. This “freezing” of academia in a cartoonish leftist mode drove conservatives to becoming anti-intellectual, not the other way around.

                  1. No, I’m pretty sure that in today’s context smart people just tend to be liberal. And I don’t get why you think professors should be required or even encouraged to trumpet the virtues of capitalism.

                    1. Who said anything about anything being required?

                      You asked me to explain why there are so many leftists in academia.

                      Let’s consider a single department, just by way of example. In every Psychology department everywhere, in the Intro Class you will read Freud and Jung and probably Fromm.

                      And you’d have to be a fucking idiot to find even the first scintilla of actual value in any of those three. They can be entertaining to read, but mainly as punching bags. That’s their sole value.

                      So the department is self-screening for moronic assholes right there in the Intro course.

                      Any time you self-select for moronic assholes, you will end up skewing to the left right off the bat.

                    2. “And I don’t get why you think professors should be required or even encouraged to trumpet the virtues of capitalism.”

                      Who said anything about “required”? That’s a ridiculous strawman on your part.

                      Fluffy’s point is that the communist and Marxist-sympathizing, social-engineering fetishizing culture of academia that solidified itself in the 1930s has become a self-perpetuating institution of tribal group-think. If conservatives aren’t getting Master’s or PhDs, it doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t intelligent, but that they don’t share the same political views as the people who run the departments and recommend the hirings.

                      Not that this is unexpected–would you honestly expect a hiring manager at Goldman Sachs, for example, to bring someone on who stated in their interview, “I think the workers at this company should try to make LESS money”? Academia is no different than the private sector in this regard, they just have better job security once they become “made men.”

                      What incentive would any conservative academic have to spend their career banging their head against the wall trying not to be treated as a pariah in their own field? It isn’t just about doing it for “the love,” they have bills to pay, too (bills which the same educational complex has seen fit to raise at four times the level of inflation, btw).

                      To argue that the professional pressure for young undergrad and graduate students to not conform to the established philosophical mindset of the nation’s various academic institutions doesn’t exist, is the height of either ignorance or deceitfulness. Anyone that’s spent even a modicum of time in academia, knows first-hand that dissent from the philosophy of the regime is NOT encouraged. Such flights of non-conformity are typically squashed in various forms, from something as small as a grade on a paper to something as large as the stonewalling of a career.

                      Just because today’s “smart” people tend to be liberal, it’s only because they have entrenched themselves in institutions that were traditionally considered breeding grounds for the cultural elite. Anyone who has seen our largely Ivy-league educated government leaders in action the last few decades would be empirically hard-pressed to assert that these people are any smarter or more capable than someone with a high-school diploma. It’s certainly hard to imagine how the latter could have fucked things up any worse.

                    3. I think it’s insidious to even worry about the political inclinations of professors. Either their work in their field is good or it isn’t. Who they vote for is generally not relevant to anything except in a McCarthyist’s mind.

                    4. “I think it’s insidious to even worry about the political inclinations of professors. Either their work in their field is good or it isn’t. Who they vote for is generally not relevant to anything except in a McCarthyist’s mind.”

                      What? Are you serious? You make an argument above that you wouldn’t vote for someone who held certain social or scientific views because it would thus call into question their ability to run the government. But then we’re supposed to take the work of professors at face value, without taking into consideration the professional biases and culture in which they propogate themselves?

                      The actual “quality” of the work is entirely subjective, and who they vote for on a consistent basis–or more approriately, which political party they support–is quite relevant, as their political philosophy informs and instructs both their professional work, AND who they choose to carry the torch after them in the field.

                      Consider the case of Michael Bellisiles, who wrote a work that was praised to the skies and won awards merely because it conformed to the prevailing philosophy of the academic regime. It was only after conservatives actually dug into his work and found that he was less than honest about his sources that he became discredited, and there was no other choice but to cut him out. The actual QUALITY of his work was irrelevant to the fact that the evidence against him was so overwhelming, that he had become a liability to the reputation of the academic complex.

                      Please don’t try to pretend that the work of professors is constructed independently from their political philosophies, and that this doesn’t affect the hiring process. I’ve spent enough time in academia to see this with my own eyes, and the assertion that a professor’s political philosophy is irrelevant to their work is flat-out deceitful.

                      The McCarthyism charge is even more intellectually lazy, given that 1) many of them are openly proud of their political leanings and are not shy in the least about hiding them; and 2) no one here is looking to remove them from their jobs for said beliefs. Pointing out that openly Marxist or socialist-sympathetic professors are sympathetic to Marxism and/or socialism isn’t McCarthyite in the least. That’s like arguing that a Red Sox fan in Boston is being coerced by Yankees fans in NYC from supporting the Red Sox.

                    5. Red,

                      Most academic work has nothing to do with politics. Worrying about a professor’s political beliefs is something people do who aren’t good enough to make it on the merits of their own work, so they invent conspiracy theories about bias. This David Horowitz bullshit is all about securing affirmative action for conservatives in academia.

                      People with PhDs will tend to be liberals. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just a fact. Now rather than assume life is treating you unfairly, why don’t you sit and think about the other reasons this could be?

                      And Bellesiles was a victim of exactly the type of witch hunt I’m referring to. If his scholarship was bad (and it may not have been any worse than is typical), then there are professional avenues to deal with that. He was attacked by a powerful political movement because he made claims they didn’t like. That is not a good example for rampant liberal bias in universities. It is however a good example of McCarthyist attacks on universities.

                    6. “Most academic work has nothing to do with politics.”

                      Really? Prove it.

                      “Worrying about a professor’s political beliefs is something people do who aren’t good enough to make it on the merits of their own work, so they invent conspiracy theories about bias.”

                      Are you actually arguing that most of academia isn’t biased to the left, and has been for decades? The whole fucking point that Fluffy and I have been making is that the institutional bias of academia makes it nearly impossible for conservatives to advance in the field, because the culture of the professors who advise and direct the graduate programs is naturally hostile to the merits of conservative ideas, and has created a self-perpetuating environment of intellectual fossilization.

                      No one is arguing for “conservative affirmative action,” and you know it. You just need a strawman to knock down because the actual foundations of your rhetoric are so pathetically weak.

                      “And Bellesiles was a victim of exactly the type of witch hunt I’m referring to.”

                      Oh, bullshit. Were you actually paying attention during the whole period from the book’s publication to Bellesiles’ removal?

                      “If his scholarship was bad (and it may not have been any worse than is typical), then there are professional avenues to deal with that.”

                      Ah, the Jon Weiner defense–“His mistakes are normal!” How pathetic that you have to rip off the apologias of an intellectual enabler.

                      There was a professional avenue employed–and he was smacked down by his own colleagues after he obfuscated his research to them. But to think that this would have happened without the scrutiny of those outside academia into his sources, is quite frankly sheer ignorance. “Arming America” would be considered a definitive work on 2nd Amendment issues had conservatives not done the academics’ job for them.

                      “Arming America” was universally uncritically hailed upon its release. The initial praise and awards showered on it is probably the best example of insititional bias imaginable in the field.

                      If Bellesiles’ type of scholarship is in any way “typical,” then it calls the whole collection of methodologies employed by academia into question, does it not?

                      “He was attacked by a powerful political movement because he made claims they didn’t like.”

                      And their claims were perfectly accurate, as the panel at Emory later determined.

                      And Bellesiles didn’t help his cause at all by publically using the appeal to authority that you did earlier in this thread.

                      “That is not a good example for rampant liberal bias in universities. It is however a good example of McCarthyist attacks on universities.”

                      Just because conservatives managed to get one scalp due to an academically biased and lazy historian doesn’t mean McCarthyism is at play. Otherwise, the Duke professors that declared the lacrosse players guilty of rape would have been tossed a long time ago, and there was 10 times the attention on THAT issue than there was on the more obscure Bellesiles.

                    7. If conservatives aren’t getting Master’s or PhDs, it doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t intelligent, but that they don’t share the same political views as the people who run the departments and recommend the hirings.

                      Not that this is unexpected–would you honestly expect a hiring manager at Goldman Sachs, for example, to bring someone on who stated in their interview, “I think the workers at this company should try to make LESS money”? Academia is no different than the private sector in this regard, they just have better job security once they become “made men.”

                      They also operate in an arena that does not punish failure.

                      Hell, failure is not even possible.

                2. As opposed to all those e”publically funded” think tanks?

                3. For years I was a cog in the academic machine at a major R1 university as a freshman comp TA. In my experience as a teacher, the leadership demanded a pro-liberal curriculum. The Readers were only of liberal/progressive authors, and were, on many occasions, openly hostile towards reading anything outside what they specifically prescribed. They were anti-intellectual in their intellectual pursuit by refusing to allow real debate, or, at the very least, allowing limited debate using approved materials.

            2. For the record, a larger percentage of Republicans hold undergraduate degrees than Democrats, but the Democrats have more post-grads.

      2. That is the best post you have ever written fluffy. You are exactly right.

      3. If you touch it in the right place, the whole thing will come crashing down!

        That’s so hot.

    2. They lost to even more big money people of the likes of McMahon.

  17. Paladino, no, simply because he’d be a Governor and actually have the ability to unilaterally act, which is scary since A.) he’s crazy and B.) His sunken in eyes make him look like a Batman villain. O’Donnell and Angle, they will be in the Senate and should, at the very least, help bolster some of the fiscal-cons actually in office. And none of their social-con crap will get off the ground. Though I do worry about some of their neo-con like tendencies with regards to immigration.

  18. Look, I said on this very board that I was entirely done with the GOP and would not support them until and unless there was turnover in personnel.

    My beef with the GOP is that nearly every federal officeholder in it had repeatedly lied about supporting small government.

    These new folks are crazy, in certain ways, but you know what? They have no record of having lied to me before. They’re running on a small government platform. I said that if the GOP turned over its personnel I’d support them, and these are new personnel. They deserve their shot. Vote in Angle and O’Donnell [Paladino has absolutely no shot] and I’ll take my chances. If it turns out that they’re lying bitches, then I won’t support them next time. Easy enough, right?

    1. Wait. I thought O’Donnell was a witch!

    2. Fluffy, I am glad to see you say this. It is certain that some of these people are far from ideal, but considering it is either new blood, with ANY chance of reducing government, or the same-old, same old with NO chance of anything but increasing government.

      Sure, we are likely to be disappointed, but with the establishment candidates we are certain to be disappointed.

  19. Neither is true.

    But the wifebeating…. you didn’t mention that, did you?

    And what about those plaintive bleats, late in the evening?

  20. It may take this one more election cycle to make people realize that anyone who is capable of winning in a Republican primary is not likely to be suited for public office. People may be mad at Dems and choose Repubs reflexively, but god what a freakshow it will be. The first thing I’m interested in seeing is whether the new crop of hill people taking over the GOP, who profess to be independently minded, will actually be so once elected. Or will they be easily manipulated by the usual puppeteers who control the GOP and stand in lockstep with the leadership? If Dems were to retain the majority, then it wouldn’t matter, as the Repubs have already been behaving in a manner pretty much indistinguishable from Sharron Angle’s tenure in the state legislature: vote no on everything. But if they actually get a chance to legislate, it sure will be fun to see who sticks to their principles and who caves to the influence of corporate lobbying and pork.

    1. Goddamn you are bigoted.

      1. I don’t blame stupid people for their stupidity, in general, but I don’t want them representing me in government.

        1. I don’t know, smart people are probably more likely to think that they know better than I do how to run my life. Stupid people might be more likely to leave me alone. Might be. Worth a shot, they can’t do much worse than the damn geniuses that have gotten us where we are.

        2. “I don’t blame stupid people for their stupidity, in general, but I don’t want them representing me in government.”

          But you do need to have them around to vote for Democrats, don’t you?

    2. Geez, Tony, what do you think their going to do? Vote for a trillion and a half dollar deficit or something?

      1. The bitch slap heard ’round the world.

      2. I think they’re going to be obedient little lapdogs for the Chamber of Commerce like all Republicans.

        Tea Party candidates are not running on a platform of freedom, they are running on a platform supplied to them in a memo from the corporate lobbies. Even if they do what they promise they’ll do, it will be everything the establishment GOPers were doing anyway.

        1. So, they’re just like Democrats, then?

          Can’t see why you’re worried, myself.

        2. Tony 11:35AM-
          but god what a freakshow it will be. The first thing I’m interested in seeing is whether the new crop of hill people taking over the GOP,…

          Tony 4:37 PM Even if they do what they promise they’ll do, it will be everything the establishment GOPers were doing anyway.

          So which is it?

          Are they crazy “hill folk” or corporate clones?

          1. Both. I’m afraid they’ll be easily manipulated, and probably they’re already in the corporate tank anyway. There is no rhetoric anywhere on the right about solving abuses of corporate power. It’s all laissez-faire, all the time.

    3. Tony, one of these days, if you are lucky, you will take the wisdom of Dr. Thomas Sowell to heart.

      “People who are very aware that they have more knowledge than the
      average person are often very unaware that they do not have one-tenth
      of the knowledge of all of the average persons put together. In this
      situation, for the intelligentsia to impose their notions on ordinary people
      is essentially to impose ignorance on knowledge.”

    4. Riddle me this: How in the hell do you manage to type anything with those big blue pompoms in your hands?

      1. My blue pompoms serve a practical purpose and I make no secret of my support for the Democratic party.

        Because Republicans are going to destroy the country, if not the planet, if they are given power back. That’s a good enough reason for me to set aside philosophical purity and join the team.

        1. “Because Republicans are going to destroy the country, if not the planet, if they are given power back….”

          Are you seriously trying to pretend that you’re part of the “intelligentsia” with your mindless hyperbole? That kind of language comes from preteens, not people remotely interested in intelligent or serious discourse.

          1. That kind of language comes from preteens,

            Or, in the case of Tony, people who are stuck at that intellectual level.

          2. I wish it were hyperbole. Most Republicans are either too stupid or too evil to stand up against oil and coal and do something about climate change.

            Now this is pretty much the only major political party on earth that holds an anti-science view in this matter. And we happen to be a powerful and heavily polluting country. So Republicans should they gain power could very easily cause the end of mankind.

  21. I for will not believe for a second that …

    Not trying to nitpick, but your editor was asleep at the wheel again.

  22. We don’t need to root for them, they’ll win or lose on their own merit. Should we campaign for them? Only if we feel like involving ourselves in Red Team vs. Blue Team BS. Personally, the candidates I’m rooting for and supporting are: Rand Paul in Kentucky and Mike Lee in Utah. And I would love if Gary Johnson ran for President. Angle I support because, I can’t stand Harry Reid. Paladino has no shot, and I think he’s a nut job anyway. As for O’Donnell……she would be entertaining I give her that much.

  23. So where are the educated, reasonable small-government types running for office?

    Maybe they are doing something useful with their lives, like starting and running businesses.

    I am an educated and reasonable (most of the time, anyway) man, and I would rather be torn to shreds by a pack of hyenas than run for political office.

    1. It’s a pity small-government corporate puppets have spent the last 30 years making public service out to be something only awful people would engage in.

      1. Gee, and I think it’s a shame public servants have spent the last 30 years making the corporate world out to be something only awful people would engage in.

        What an odd dichotomy.

        1. And I think it’s a shame public servants have also spent the last 30 years making the real world something awful to live in.

          1. Don’t forget how bad we’ll be fucking up the next 30 years, too.

      2. You realize that big-government politicians are the TRUE corporate puppets, right?

        Corporations are much more threatened by the likes of Ron/Rand Paul than they are by Barry Obama. Look at Obama’s campaign contributors. Look at his voting record.

        1. Nobody is threatened by irrelevant fringe whackjobs like the Pauls.

          Obama has had to dance with corporate America, that’s for sure, and they were smart enough to hedge their bets with him, but they would certainly prefer a Republican, since the entire policy platform of the GOP nowadays is to give corporate America whatever it wants.

          1. Yeah. That’s right. Only republicans thrive with corporate cash. Democrats suffer it, giving in to big money only because it’s necessary in order to remain in politics and make real change for the benefit of society.

            Or something.

            Fuck off, shit eater.

    2. Not to mention there are few sane, non-power hungry people willing to go through the political wringer and drag their families through it. Why would someone normal and productive want to have every detail of their life, not to mention those of their spouse and kids, dragged in front of the whole country unless they were nuts or power hungry?

  24. What views does Angle hold that would bother small l libertarians? She’s pretty solid about saying no to everything.

    1. Yeah, the striking thing about Angle to me is that the reason she’s portrayed as “crazy” is…because she once said we should get rid of social security.

      Wow, what a crazy bitch!

    2. Not sure; she seems pretty legit. Comparing her to Paladino and O’Donnell is a slap in the face to Angle.

    3. And if you say immigration I will have to bring up the words of a famous small l libertarian who had concerns about borders and welfare states.

      1. Saying “I think every state should have a sheriff like Joe Arpaio” goes beyond standard bad-on-immigration.

  25. Maybe angle. Paladino cant keep his mouth shut without saying something stupid and neither him or Odonell are serious about fiscal reform. Because any real discussion would include military spending. I really see no difference between them and mainstream republicans, except maybe in how social conservative they are.

    1. No, Paladino is serious about fiscal reform. The military spending of NY’s gov’t being a tiny portion of its total budget, compared to that of the US gov’t, it’s easy to see why a candidate for governor shouldn’t make that a priority for fiscal reform.

  26. The notion that a two year vacation from power has sufficiently punished Bush-era Republicans is appalling.

    This is really the year to vote third party. The Republicans: still crazy and evil. The Democrats: still crazy, still incompetent, and working hard to close the (already narrow) “evil gap.”

    Fuck ’em. This isn’t a year when there’s a big legislative agenda on deck (well, not one that’s different from party to party), and one in which tactical voting is pretty moot (the Democrats are going to have the white house, of course). It’s a great time to express dissatisfaction with the two parties.

    At this point, I’d be more enthused about someone voting Green or socialist than either Democrat or Republican. I intend to vote libertarian for every position for which there’s a libertarian candidate, and any random other third party candidate for any others, and abstain from any vote where it’s just R and D.

    1. The Democrats don’t have a gap with the Republicans. Idiot. Both are evil as fucking hell.

    2. his is really the year to vote third party. The Republicans: still crazy and evil. The Democrats: still crazy, still incompetent, and working hard to close the (already narrow) “evil gap.”

      Idiocy.

      1) The dems have all the power now, they are clearly the threat that must be stopped.

      2) If the republican seriously under perform this year they will say it’s because they became “too conservative”

      3) The only way to get small government pols in is too fire the big government ones. This is happening already in the republican party. If, and it’s a big if, the pressure can be maintained for 2-3 more election cycles the entire republican party will be replaced with small government advocates and that will yeild benefits for decades.

      State growth has been the default position for the last Eighty years. So much that we take it as a fact of nature, but no such thing is true. It is possible to make shrinking government the default position, but it will take a decade or two of consistent pressure to get their. Sitting on the sidelines making snarky remarks about the imperfection of the people that actually stick their necks out to actualize that change is pathetic.

  27. General rule: if most of academia is against you, you’re probably wrong.

    Dumber

    and

    dumber

    and

    dumber

  28. I for will not believe for a second that “big-government Bush Republicans have already been punished” enough until the Washington GOP establishment begins to show any seriousness at all about restraining government. If anything, the rise of the unwashed Tea Party types indicates that Republicans have lost the ability and/or incentive to produce credible candidates who take spending cuts anywhere near as seriously as tax cuts. Until that happens, and until anyone with an R by his or her name shows any inclination to cut back on defense spending, war making, and the stockpiling of Executive Power, let alone getting the hell out of whole swaths of private peacable transactions between consenting humans, the most enthusiasm you’ll get from me is seeing politicians and parties get fired, while their captive customers increasingly defect from their tired, predatory bullshit.

    Voting for a Republican or a Democrat lends legitimacy to the party and the two party monopoly on power.

    I refuse to be part of it any longer. It’s third party or leave the slot blank.

  29. My first instinct as a libertarian is, of course, for Republican victories everywhere

    He’d already lost me with that opening.

    Paladino and O’Donnell are hardly the only Republicans who have “distracted attention from the small-government message by adding in their own social conservatism”. Social conservatism is much more central to the Republican agenda than small-government principles. Anyone who puts small-government ahead of social conservatism risks getting denounced as a RINO.

    This election I’m voting straight capital-L.

  30. The only reason an unpolished government-cutter has the GOP nomination in Delaware is because the GOP no longer produces government cutters, period.

    Thank you.

    1. Republican organizations in blue states don’t produce them anymore. That much is true.

      1. And yet horribly flawed candidates won republican primaries in those states running as government cutters.

  31. I have no idea what you’re talking about, but it sounds anti-intellectual to me.

    If the “name” box would accept that many characters, I’d adopt this as my handle.

  32. If you used IHNIWYTABISAITM, I would know what you meant.

  33. I said it b4…and I’ll say it again.

    Libertarians have a very difficult decision to take. Will they support Harry Reid and live with BIG GOVERNMENT or will they support ultra-right-wing (anti-abortion, anti-homo, anti most things libertarians support except small government) and BIG GOVERNMENT.

    I choose liberty (legal weed, abortion, mexicans, etc.) and big government (which I don’t like either) as oppose to wacos (religious-right, locking everyone up, throwing out mexicans, etc.) and big government (war, war, war, ‘lock-up this one…lock-up that one’, etc.)

    1. Re: Alice Bowie,

      Now that you’re in the business of advocating false dichotomies, what would you prefer: To fucking die or to be maimed?

      1. very mature response mexico.

        1. Re: Alice Bowie,

          Thank you. Your posting was just as mature and insightful, and got the response it so deserved.

          1. So tell me Mexico, will you vote for a so called-small government candidate that will take away liberties ?

            1. I can’t vote, darling.

              1. Not legally, at least.

            2. As opposed to a big government candidate that will do the same thing?

              1. Can’t compare the two rock and roll.

                Republicans are looking to significantly take away many many freedoms.

                1. That’s okay because they’re for the biggest freedom of all: an extra 5% in the pockets of millionaires.

                2. Didn’t Bush have a Republican Congress for four years? Was taking away your freedoms at the bottom of the ‘honey do’ list? And the new Congress has them at the top of the list? Maybe so, but I’m thinking the economy is going to come up first. Though they do, in fact, want to take away your freedoms (and a mayor wants your pocketbook).

                3. How’s that PATRIOT Act repeal coming?

    2. You must be smoking some pretty good weed if you think the Democrats are going to legalize weed or do anything about the Drug war.

      Jesus Christ Alice are you that stupid or do you think we are?

      1. Hey John,

        I started hating Obama when he appointed eric holder. The truth is, as much as i bitch about it, i’m really not that concerned about the legalization of weed. I’m more concerned about the religous wacos getting their way with other matters.

        1. Considering that Obama’s justice department still prosecutes porn and online gambling and not a damn thing has changed under Obama, just what the hell are the religious wackos going to do?

          Pat Robertson could get elected President and the government would be no different on these issues than they are today. You are just a sucker. The Dems tell you bullshit and then ignore you once they get in power.

          1. I think that’s the same with Republicans. And BTW, I’m very unhappy with Obama.

            1. Ummmm, you may want to have a visit with the mirror. Obama delivered exactly what somebody of his experience would likely deliver.

              On a thread ripping O’Donnell, can anyone really say that she’s less qualified to be a Senator than Obama was to be a President? A non-Obot anyone that is.

      2. What and you think Republicans will end the drug war?

        You wanna end the drug war, elect more liberal Democrats. I don’t immediately see another option.

        1. Riht,

          The super liberal political establishment of CA is all behind prop 19. Oh wait a minute, no they aren’t.

          Not only that but high profile dems are leading the drive to defeat it.

          Oh yeah and the “progressive” rags that mindlessly support every expansion of government are all “reluctantly” opposed to prop 19.

  34. I for one will not believe for a second that “big-government Bush Republicans have already been punished” enough until the Washington GOP establishment begins to show any seriousness at all about restraining government.

    You guys are missing the point entirely – the real battle to scare the shit out of the establishment happened in the PRIMARIES, as hated and lousy incumbents were displaced. It does not matter if the result is a O’Donnell with little political drive, she ousted a disgusting RINO out of his spot. Who cares if Angle is not for extra-small government? Even if she does not win, her candidacy shows the Tea Party groups have enough clout to castigate the Repubs.

    It is in the primaries that the change is made – the election is secondary. Even if prince Harry wins, he will have much less power now as his base has been corroded.

    1. And what good would it do to replace Reid with some scum sucking Republican who was just as bad and gave all that bullshit bi partisan cover? Better to take your chances with Angle win or lose.

      1. Re: John,

        And what good would it do to replace Reid with some scum sucking Republican who was just as bad and gave all that bullshit bi partisan cover?

        Exactly the point I am making – it is in the primaries where the real change happens, as arrogant incumbents or establishment cronies are ousted, scaring the crap out of the DC crowd.

        The very reason the DC crowd (Dems and Repubs) are SO concerned about candidates like Angle and O’Donnell is not the fact that they may win (because it does not matter) but that THEIR favorite “good-ol’-boys” LOST.

        This is just the beginning, folks. The apparatchiks like Karl Rove who pay lip service to the Tea Party community will have a rude awakening come next election.

        1. It’s even better than that Old Mexican.

          One of the ways the establishment controlled back benchers in the past was by giving and withholding campaign funds.

          Candidates like Angle, Bachman, O Donnell have tapped into true grass roots funding and are not beholden to the leadership at all.

  35. Another GOP handjob pretending to be libertarian….*yawn*

  36. Hey Libertarians (please anyone excect Mexico unless you are willing to give a mature answer).

    Are you willing to vote for tea-party candidate that says they are for small government and are anti-abortion, anti-immigration, pro-war, etc.

    1. The reason I ask is that I don’t see too many Tea party candidates that are not ultra-right-wing.

      1. The only one I would vote for is Rand Paul.

      2. Re: Alice Bowie,

        The reason I ask is that I don’t see too many Tea party candidates that are not ultra-right-wing.

        So much for “maturity.”

        1. So what part of this is immature?

      3. Linda McMahon is pro-choice and moderately skeptical on the wisdom of permanent war.

        But you’re right, most of the TP candidates who like small-government in the abstract turn out to be typical big-government conservatives when it comes to immigration, war, abortion, gay rights, drugs, criminal justice.

        Not that the Dems are any better.

        1. “Linda McMahon is pro-choice and moderately skeptical on the wisdom of permanent war.”

          Then I would probably vote for her if I was in her state.

        2. Maybe, but the Tea Party platform is economic. It’s agnostic on the other issues. Whenever I see rallies there are lots of signs. Those that speak to an issue are almost entirely economic.

    2. Hey Alice, since the Democrats have been in power for two years and have done nothing about the drug war, abortion immigration and have escalated the war in Afghanistan and actually have harsher WOT policies than bush, who the fuck are you kidding in trying to claim voting Democrat is going to make any difference?

      Can you please stop pulling everyone’s dick?

      1. John, I’m very unhappy with Obama. But I don’t want a federal and supreme court packed with Sam Allitos.

        1. That’s okay, I don’t want a federal and supreme court packed with Sonia Sotomayors. Ethnic tribalism is so 1970s.

    3. Seriously?

      The Tea Party candidates aren’t monolithic in their stances on immigration, abortion, and war….likewise libertarians.

      I am most definately voting for Tea Party supported candidates.

      But I can reverse the question–

      I choose liberty (legal weed, abortion, mexicans, etc.) and big government (which I don’t like either)

      I took this to mean that you’re voting ‘D’. Will you actually do that considering that pot has a good shot at legalisation in California via Prop 19–but Dems are rushing to oppose it. Dems had majorities large enough to push through action on immigration reform/amnesty and abortion issues–but did nothing. Dems continued the WoT in the Middle East–and even upped the troops, drone killings and targeted assasinations of American citizens.

      Can you vote for them when they have lied to your face so baldly?

      I think this election cycle, more than any I’ve seen before, confirms the fact that Dems, and the left, do no more than pay lip service to ‘culturally liberal’ ideas in the hope that this keeps them in power.

      1. Likewise, do Republicans do any more than pay lip service to cutting spending? Will they really make an effort to repeal Obamacare? My biggest fear is that they would be more likely than the Democrats to get us involved in a war with Iran.

        But I’m not voting for Democrats. I want the Republicans to stomp the Democrats this year, but I’m very leery about what a majority Republican Congress and President will do to us regarding war with Iran.

    4. I’m not!

    5. Re: Alice Bowie,

      Are you willing to vote for tea-party candidate that says they are for small government and are anti-abortion, anti-immigration, pro-war, etc.

      Being for small government does not preclude one either ethically or morally or even philosophically from being anti-abortion. This is why it is quite impossible to answer your questions, are they are clearly (in a crass way) loaded.

      Is that “mature” enough for ya?

      1. I give up. Vote republican. Last I remember, the country was so well off after Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

        1. Reagan’s tax cuts did bring about a couple of decades of prosperity. The end of the Cold War was also a good thing. Unfortunately, it didn’t take the military/industrial complex long to find us a new enemy.

  37. Tunku Varadarajan is not a libertarian, just another republican

  38. As far as I can tell, of those incumbents in the House and Senate who are seeking reelection, only 3 in the Senate and 4 in the House have lost their party primaries. The 21% congressional approval rating that’s gotten so much press doesn’t seem to have translated into partisan voters choosing new candidates to represent them in the general election.

    1. But consider that the Republicans only have 41 Senate seats and only a third of the Senate is up for re-election. That is three incumbents going down out of what maybe 12 up for re-election? That is a pretty big number.

      1. 37 seats are up for reelection in the Senate. The incumbent sought reelection in 25 of them. 12 Republicans and 13 Democrats. Three failed to win their primary: Murkowski, Specter and Bennett.

        In the House, according to wiki, 37 incumbents are retiring and not seeking election. There are also 5 vacant seats. That means 435 – (37 + 5) = 393 seats have an incumbent seeking reelection. Only 4 lost their primary: Griffith (R-AL), Kilpatrick (D-MI), Inglis (R-SC) and Mollohan (D-WV).

        I dunno. Given all the righteous anger people supposedly have against Congress in general (i.e. including their own party’s representatives) I’d have expected more incumbents to lose their primaries.

        1. We also had 7 establishment anointed senate candidates being defeated in their primaries.

          1. That’s a situation where there was no incumbent, though. I was trying to gauge how pissed voters were at existing members of Congress.

  39. At least nutbags like O’Donnell and Paladino make things interesting. Here in PA, we have the most boring governor race in history between Dan Onorato and Tom Corbett and they are both the biggest bores.

  40. “She’s too crazy to be electable” will never be a viable argument as long as Maxine Waters remains in office.

    1. Or Alan Grayson or Sheila Jackson Lee or the Pericles who was worried about Guam tipping over.

      There is no one on the GOP ticket – not Angle, not O’Donnell, no one – who is any stupider or any crazier than current Senators and Representatives.

  41. By the way, latest Rasmussen places O’Donnell now just 11 pps below Coons, a jump from the average of 17.5% lead that he had.

    1. That’s about the usual Rasmussen GOP bias.

  42. OK, Paladino is starting to win me over.

    http://wnymedia.net/paladinoporn/

  43. Are you willing to vote for tea-party candidate that says they are for small government and are anti-abortion, anti-immigration, pro-war, etc.

    Yes.

    1. I am sorry, but don’t favor small government if you are pro-war and anti-immigration. You are just a conservative.

  44. “Are you willing to vote for tea-party candidate that says they are for small government and are anti-abortion, anti-immigration, pro-war, etc.”

    you betcha!

  45. Actually if the social cons lost but the small-government ones won, that would give the GOP the perfect second whipping it needs to actually maybe truly reform itself.

    The likely scenario if they don’t is that they keep humping big government while paying lip-service to the libertarians.

    But if they actually ended up with LESS seats that they otherwise would, and have it clearly be due to wierd social-con candidates, then they might actually get the message. And of course, the added bonus of having fewer social cons in power to raise money and inclfluence the party.

    So yeah, I guess O’Donnell and Paladino should lose.

    Anyway, if we don’t want to see Sarah Palin as a primary candidate in 2012, we damn well better hope that her minions get their asses kicked.

    1. But whoever the GOP nominated was expected to lose for governor of NY, so Paladino’s losing wouldn’t say anything there, unless he loses by more than was expected. And I think he’s going to lose by less than expected.

  46. O’Donnell and Paladino losing won’t do anything to discourage the extreme social cons from supporitng another retarded candidate who agrees with them.

    1. What I mean is, if you are a social con in a Deep Blue state like Delaware or New York, you are used to be ostracized. That is what makes them pick fellow weirdoes like the two above.

  47. “Until that happens, and until anyone with an R by his or her name shows any inclination to cut back on defense spending, war making, and the stockpiling of Executive Power, let alone getting the hell out of whole swaths of private peacable transactions between consenting humans, the most enthusiasm you’ll get from me is seeing politicians and parties get fired, while their captive customers increasingly defect from their tired, predatory bullshit.”

    So, Matt….

    If the federal government defaults and creates a currency crisis, would that lead you to get over you tired, I-don’t-want-to-admit-that-one-side-is-actually-less-bad bullshit?

    Or should only the unwashed hoi polloi be forced to make these unfortunate compromises, in, you know, actually influencing something in the imperfect system called politics.

    This is why people give the cosmotarians at Reason shit. This nation actually has extremely serious financial problems right now, and instead of acknowledging that and making imperfect decisions, you guys seem to want to have an polite way out of having to take a stand against your leftist friends.

    There are such things as priorities. Last time I checked, poor federal legislation on marijuana, gay rights, or even our ridiculously bloated defense budget (20% of fed spending but no legally-mandated exponential increase) are not existential crises threatening the very survival of a nation…..

    1. The argument to be made, however, is whether a belief in small government as a platform and the willingness to continue with their so-con ways reconcilable?

      The only fact worth considering is whether any of the existing candidates are for actually cutting government across the board, taking on what you would consider the most pressing financial issues, and those which you deem as less important. All of these issues are married to our fiscal situation. And I’m not sure that I can yes about anyone other than Ron Paul.

      This is not an endorsement for Team Blue; I won’t vote for a Team Blue player. But it is one for abstention in some/many cases.

      As a Kentuckian, I have the opportunity to vote for Rand Paul, but I’m not sold on him being much more than your average so-con (with the exception that he thinks the WoD needs to end at the federal level, to be taken over solely by states, if at all – a big deal IMO). I do, however HATE Conway, and would be sick to see him win out here. I’m likely to vote for Paul, but either way it’s Paul or abstain.

  48. And you don’t see other countries on the brink of collapse over issues like marijuana, gay rights, or whatever their local equivalent is. You’re seeing it happening over money.

    It’s not as if other countries don’t have social issues, either. They got ’em in spades, but they can simmer for many years without erupting. Meanwhile, the bills are due now.

    Consider your own life. If you were on the ropes financially (as I’ve been recently), wouldn’t that take precedence over any social or lifestyle issues?

  49. If someone believes a falsehood about a basic fact of science what makes you think they’ll be any more rigorous in their thinking when it comes to fiscal policy?

    I know plenty of Mormons who believe batshit things contradicted by science who are very good at fiscal policy. It’s called compartmentalization.

    The question is whether the candidate is sane about the stuff that counts. And when it comes to Democrats, virtually all of them seem to profess batshit insane economic theories that have real world consequences.

  50. Exactly.

    I don’t care if O’Donnell thinks masturbation puts hair on your hands or that dinosaurs were an early form of public transportation. Neither belief threatens my freedom or increases the debt or the size of the federal government.

    My personal freedom; the national debt; the size of government. That’s all I’m concerned with.

    That, and seeing Nancy Pelosi’s frozen rictus as she contemplates the enormity of her party’s losses and the part she played in it.

  51. The Koch Brothers are libertarian. Damn, you learn something new every day.

    I thought they were just old fashioned plutocrats spending money to make sure that the people in Congress were prepared to ‘favorably respond’ to them.

    Was I naive.

  52. Actually, they’re spending money in hopes of creating a future in which those of us who own businesses and provide jobs and work fucking hard to earn our money don’t NEED anyone in Congress “favorably responding” to us.

  53. Very interesting place I found, Reason.com

  54. Does anyone recall great Generals from our past, such as “Chesty” Puller, MacArthur, or Patton, as they cried out, “Oh, if we only had more homos in our ranks, we would be so much better off.”

    NO.

    Nobody who has ever had to fight wants more homos in our military.

    This is not a “hate” or “unfairness” issue. It is about winning battles; and you don’t win battles with a bunch of cranky lesbians.

    Do not weaken our Armed Forces. Instead, insist that they recruit the best warfighters and make no exceptions for women, minorities or homosexuals.

  55. I would not vote for them. Anyone who is anti-masturbation I’m sure wants a war on pornography. It will be legislating morality and government censorship non-stop.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.