Obamacare

Reason Writers on TV: Tim Cavanaugh Talks Paul/Johnson GOP with Russia Today

|

On May 6, 2011, Reason Senior Editor Tim Cavanaugh appeared on Russia Today with Lauren Lyster and National Review's Reihan Salam, to discuss Thursday's Republican debate.

Topics: Do libertarian-leaning candidates stand a chance? Will the rest of the GOP need to change its tune in response to the libertoid surge? And given the conventional wisdom that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson lack credibility, what does it take to be a credible Republican (other than going bankrupt multiple times, getting your ass handed to you by John McCain in 2008, being unable to name a newspaper, and introducing the prototype of Obamacare in Massachusetts, that is)?  

NEXT: New York Times Remembers Reason Founder Lanny Friedlander, 1947-2011

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. Nice. Tim, you didn’t cheerlead hard enough. Also, this Reihan Salam seems like a decent fellow.

    1. “…seem like a decent fellow”, I hate to die.

      1. No more rhymes, I mean it.

    2. I agree. Reihan seemed like a mensch.

      I can’t disagree more with the Douthat/Salam thesis that a more paternalistic GOP would win over the Working Class (charming people, I’ve been told). But this is all colored by a brown bag lunch I once attended where David Brooks and Ross Douthat addressed the group, with Brooks assuring us that as a bright boy he could certify that Douthat was also a bright boy, then Douthat going on to talk about natalism and a bunch of other Ceausescu-type stuff. Quebec, for some reason, was pointed to repeatedly as a model for GOP behavior modification policy.

      (Douthat, by the way, proves that big government is not and never was a problem in this recent Pangloss gloss on Radley Balko’s “Osama Won.” Because if your enemy wants to destroy your way of life, and you’ve already given up 90 yards through your own sloth and wastefulness, so he just has to run the ball in, he doesn’t technically get to call it a win, and besides he’s DEAD, so we won. Because America isn’t about a bunch of rights and values and constitutional blah blah blah. And did I mention that we won?)

      But Reihan seems to be willing to give Gary Johnson a fair shake, so he’s OK by me.

  2. Serious Question: Does anybody watch Russia Today outside of YouTube?

    1. I saw an ad for Russia Today on a Chicago area UHF station a couple of months ago, so they must be on some cable system or other.

      1. I have Time Warner in NYC and I get it.

    2. Serious question, does anyone watch TV outside of YourTube?

      1. Leave my tube out of this.

    3. Does anybody watch Russia Today outside of YouTube?

      American and perhaps British ex-patriots living in Russia.

    4. Last month in India, I could flip between RT and al Jazeera on adjacent stations. Then I flew home, landing in Newark, and immediately knew I was in a third-world country once again.

    5. I know that as of the 1990s, RT had a whole goddamn low power UHF station directional up the Hudson Valley from the World Trade Center.

      1. I think it was mainly for the Russians in Riverdale. And ISTR they were covering libertarian stuff a lot even then.

  3. Russia Today is a good place for this tripe. You fucks can shove this up your right wing twats then pull it out of your neck. Then shove it back up there again.

    1. This well-supported argument so articulately stated has caused me to reconsider and reject my previously held convictions.

      1. WOOT!!!

        Warren is back!!!

    2. Max|6.24.10 @ 3:29PM|#

      Go suck ron puals dick, morons. You peeple are fucking retarded. I`m done coming to this wingnut sight. this is my last post.

      1. Should I spit or swallow?

    3. I didn’t even know I had twats on my right wing.

  4. Tim, that was a mighty surly grimace you gave when introduced. I am proud.

  5. The GOP will ignore the ‘libertoid surge’ till it becomes popular enough not to do so but Karl Rove will not make the same mistake he did with the Tea party

    1. No one will read your post, rectal. Please, post your referrer views again. I want to see the pitiful, pathetic numbers some more. It’s hilarious how little they go up when you post them again and again.

  6. Wait, there were multiple candidates at that debate? I guess I must have been blinded by the awesome electability of Tim Pawlenty.

    1. The last man standing once the only “top tier” candidates Huck, Newt, Daniels, and Romney accede to his inevitable electability.

    2. Of course there were multiple candidates. Did you forget about Rick Sanitarium?

      At least that’s what I heard the next day on every single talk radio station on.

      1. It’s pronounced Sanatorium.

  7. I was pretty impressed with Salam ( not knowing what to expect) and the lady who was squeezing the grapefruits.

  8. Things that will happen before Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination:

    1. The Pope will reaplace holy water with dog shit.

    2. Resaon will stop asking for donations

    2. Tim Cavanaugh will ask how the culture feels about something, and the culture will tell him to kiss its ass.

    1. 3. Max will learn how to count to 3.

      1. 5. Tulpa will learn to count to 4.

        1. 6. Joe M will learn how to count to…wait, where were we?

      2. 7. Max will learn to spell “Reason”.

    2. “1! 2! 5!”
      “3, sir!”
      “3!”

    3. Max|6.24.10 @ 3:29PM|#

      Go suck ron puals dick, morons. You peeple are fucking retarded. I`m done coming to this wingnut sight. this is my last post.

  9. Why does Cavanaugh keep his mouth open while others are talking? He looks like a retarded adult.

    1. Struggling to stay awake when he’d rather be enjoying a siesta in the shade of his sombrero while leaning on a large cactus.

    2. Max|6.24.10 @ 3:29PM|#

      Go suck ron puals dick, morons. You peeple are fucking retarded. I`m done coming to this wingnut sight. this is my last post.

    3. You’d know what a slack-jawed retard looks like, Edward, just from looking in the mirror. Or at shriek. Or rectal.

  10. Dude makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

    http://www.totally-anon.at.tc

    1. Thank you.

      1. Fuck off, Max. Anonbot wasn’t referring to you.

      2. Max|6.24.10 @ 3:29PM|#

        Go suck ron puals dick, morons. You peeple are fucking retarded. I`m done coming to this wingnut sight. this is my last post.

  11. what does it take to be a credible Republican (other than going bankrupt multiple times, getting your ass handed to you by John McCain in 2008, being unable to name a newspaper, and introducing the prototype of Obamacare in Massachusetts, that is)?

    You have to stand by your full support of TARP, apologize for your support of cap n tax until the election is over,acknowledge that Ben Bernanke must know what he is doing because Bush installed him at the Fed, wonder how you are going to get “comprehensive immigration reform” and ultimately a VAT past the Teabaggers after you are elected,reassure all the stakeholders in our corn-based ethanol infrastructure that any campaign criticism is just to placate Teabaggers who actually love them some “energy independence”,privately call Herman Cain a “hankie-head” while admitting you might have to toss him the VEEP-spot to quell an insurrection,pray those cunts Palin and Bachmann stay the fuck out or at least act as dumb and crazy as liberals say there are, MARGINALIZE RON PAUL AS A CRAZY OLD RACIST BIRCHER CONSPIRACY THEORIST WITH DOPER SUPPORTERS WHO SPAM POLLS AND CAUCUSES!!1!,get all your RINO-con pals on board with the program,get Reince Priebus and Rupert Murdoch on board with limiting debates to the “top tier” of candidates, reassure the Trilateral Commission, the CFR, and the Bilderbergers* that Romney/t-Paw/Mitch Daniels are “Team-Players”,…and so on and so forth…

    *SLD: for the purposes of answering this question I am assuming the roll of “staunch conservative” the Pew poll would’ve pegged me as if I admitted you Godless fucks couldn’t have morals.

    1. So “the unable to name a newspaper” is the best shot Reason has on Palin these days? Really? The fact that it was a bullshit question and the interview was edited to make her look bad will never be acknowledged in Reason land I guess. And after going on three years of public life and any number of great shots on the other side “death panels” “WTF moments” and so forth, all Reason can remember is one off handed comment. And rises to the level of real shit like supporting TARP or cap and tax or ruining healthcare in Massachusetts how?

      1. And of course we are supposed to forget the Ron Paul racist news letters but remember the Couric interview for all time. Serious question, if Palin had been associated with such newsletters, would Reason be so forgiving?

        1. You seriously like Palin? Why are you here?

          1. In hopes of waking dumbass posers like you out of their slumbers. I can’t help it. I always dream the impossible dream.

            1. posers like you

              What is he/she posing as?

          2. Doesn’t anybody remember Palin BEFORE McCain picked her, or in the immediate hours afterward? She was supposed to be some kind of “great libertarian-leaning hope”, taking on the GOP establishment in AK, supporting jury nullification, working politically with libertarians. Whatever happened to that Sarah Palin?

            1. Hey! What’s this?

              A Decent Pick
              Libertarians could do worse than Sarah Palin

              Radley Balko | September 10, 2008

                1. And all coming from an Obama supporter like Balko too!

                  Radley Balko|9.10.08 @ 1:39PM|#

                  As someone who prefers Obama to McCain

                2. From what little of Palin I know thus far

                  That’s not the beginning of a ringing endorsement.

            2. Before being picked Palin was known for working across the aisle with Democrats against GOP heavyweights in her state. That was not going to play to the base who wanted someone to attack Obama so whe elected to be GOP attack dog and her pandering has never stopped.

              That’s the essence of the criticism of her “all of them” answer (not only to what she read but also to Beck’s question about favorite founding father), it’s not so much ignorance as a profound cowardly pandering that is evident in them.

              1. “Before being picked Palin was known for working across the aisle with Democrats against GOP heavyweights in her state.”

                It would be more accurate to say that she fought the established interests in Alaska. The partisan aspect was less important except to the Democrat media which played up the fact that she was bucking the Republican Party, played it up, that is, until it had decided it had milked the anti-Republican angle as much as it could and then it turned on her like a rabid weasel.

              2. I wouldn’t mind having more profoundly cowardly pandering politicians in office, as long as they’re profoundly cowardly pandering toward me. We all want them to pander to us, that’s why we vote. Nothing wrong with it per se. A more flattering word is “responsive”.

                Would you want the opposite extreme, a candidate who says, “Fuck you, I’ll do what I want in office, and I’m not telling you what that is.”?

                Anyway, the singal to noise ratio about Palin is so low I’ve no idea how good she’d be at pandering to me. She never seemed so bad to me, nor so good, as anybody says she is.

            3. Palin was doing well until she let the God Squad in the Republican Party make her into a female Jesus.

          3. Because he is a dumb fuck.

      2. Sarah Palin’s not like a train wreck where you can point to a sigle problem. It’s more like The Soviet Union, where the failures are systemic; there are so many issues that you’re stymied trying to list them, because they’re all stuffed in a doorway trying to get through at the same time a la the Three Stooges.

        1. That is just not true. I am not saying she should be President. But the idea that she is some sort of idiot is just an expression cultural snobbery of the most pathetic sort. I would say Joe Biden says more dumb things in a week than Palin says in a year. Obama more dumb things in a month.

          1. Palin is much less in the public eye than those two…and of course Biden is also an idiot. I don’t think Obama is an idiot, he’s just (a) not as smart as the left thinks he is and (b) lives in an ego-enhancement bubble like every other star politician so he never gets a reality check.

          2. Palin carefully picks any appearance and still has all these gaffes, Biden will talk for hours to any person lonely enough to allow that and makes a lot. It’s a ratio thing, but more importantly Palin’s own self-isolation from speaking indicates that she herself knows she’s not much of a speaker.

            1. Remember that gaffe where she said food prices were going up? The WSJ, Bloomberg, Michael Moynihan and the whole nutroots called her out on that one because government research shows FOOD PRICES HAVE FALLEN OVER THE PAST YEAR
              What a dumb cunt that Palin is with her gaffes!

              1. Food prices? Why didn’t she just say “all of them!”

            2. It is curious that Biden is treated as adorable when he gaffes in much the same way that WJC was treated when he spouted one of his endless series of bold-faced lies. Other politicians don’t get the same break. I wonder why? It’s not a partisan thing since Gore didn’t get a pass for his lies when he was running for Prez.

              1. There’s just something likable about Biden when he looks at the camera. I noticed that decades ago when he chaired the Bork hearing. I don’t think the known in-person techniques of fixing one’s gaze would come across photographically like that. Maybe he just has a winning smile. He does seem to have great teeth — false ones, I think; real dentition never looks that good.

          3. I would say Joe Biden says more dumb things in a week than Palin says in a year.

            Not exactly setting the bar high, John. My poodle, if she could speak English, could give Biden a run for the money.

            1. You own a poodle. Your words have no import.

      3. the best shot Reason has on Palin?

        Chill, amigo. It wasn’t about her exclusively. Palin’s reading habits (the Bible, and, um…other things that she surely must have read at one time…I…um…you know, the people in their great wisdom, and the Constitution and the ah…Supreme Court…the multitude of great and courageous Americans who fought for our liberties you betcha, and…) What was the question?

        1. I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some . . . people out there in our nation don’t have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over HERE in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future, for our children and Palin is a geneeass

      4. Trump makes Palin look good.

      5. It seemed to me that Palin knew during the interview that she was going to get smeared by Couric and that her hesitation on the newspaper question was due to the fact that she was trying to make a panicky political calculation about what publications would be deemed acceptable to the likes of Couric. Naturally, her detractors spun her hesitation as proof that she doesn’t read since it fit the narrative that she is too stupid to be President. I’m not surprised that Reason joins the Palin-bashing. Reason, despite its posturing, is just another publication allowing an affectational fringe to talk to itself.

        Does anyone really think that Palin has less of a chance of being elected President than Gary Johnson or Ron Paul? All three have/would/will be attacked mercilessly by the political establishment, but Palin at least has demonstrated that she can draw large crowds to hear her speak. I don’t see RP or GJ actually drawing crowds and, no, big money bombs are not the same thing.

        1. Palin’s hesitation was more inexperience in front of the camera, and her panic was obvious.

          She has vastly improved, whereas Johnson and Paul still have a style handicap. I am certain Paul is incapable of overcoming his comportment

          1. Gary Johnson seemed a little wired up by nerves in the “debate”. Strange for a former two-term governor. But maybe that’s just how he is when speaking.

            1. Gary Johnson is nothing without his hired Sherpas.

              1. OT but I was going to write on the Sherpa who just died. Fascinating man.
                http://www.poughkeepsiejournal…..pa-dies-79

        2. Ron Paul regularly draws large crowds. WTF are you talking about?

          1. The Greatful Dead had a crowd of Dead Heads that followed it around the country. Ron Paul has his traveling band of affluent pseudo-hipsters with nothing better to do who follow him around the country. Palin goes to different parts of the country and draws crowds of locals. She may not have enough supporters to win a nomination, but she does have a real base.

    2. Reason doesn’t like religious conservatives that lean libertarian.

      1. True. And the sad fact is that libertarians will never get anywhere politically until they figure out a way to appeal to either cultural leftists or religious conservatives. They have been boot licking cultural leftists for 30 years now and have gotten nowhere. Maybe they should try a different approach.

        1. Paleocons/the LRC crowd do quite a lot to appeal to religious conservatives. Look up Gary North.

          1. True. And religious conservatives stand to be harmed by the government just as much or more than anyone else.

            1. The current religious right establishment got rolling because it was angry about losing tax exemptions in 76.

              1. Let’s remember, he said animatedly, that the Religious Right did not come together in response to the Roe decision. No, Weyrich insisted, what got us going as a political movement was the attempt on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to rescind the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University because of its racially discriminatory policies.

                http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..Id=5502785

                1. NPR lives in a fairytale magical land filled with unicorns and wizards.

                  The rest of who have ever had a conversation with the religious right realize Roe v Wade is what binds them together and it was the fairness doctrine that created them (reason actually covered the fairness doctrine’s influence in creating the religious right).

                  Why don’t you put down the 20 sided dice and join us?

                  1. Did you not realize that this was NPR covering this guy’s book and views, not NPR? Careful analyst you are there.

                  2. The Catholic Church was basically alone in the fight against Roe (and the earlier legislative repeals of abortion laws) until the late 70s. Quoth the wiki:

                    Before 1980, the Southern Baptist Convention officially advocated for loosening of abortion restrictions. During the 1971 and 1974 Southern Baptist Conventions, Southern Baptists were called upon “to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” W. Barry Garrett wrote in the Baptist Press, “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision.”

                    1. Catholics. Check. Southern Baptists. Check. Well that about covers all the religious groups in America and everyone knows that it is only religious people who oppose abortion.

                    2. I take it you have evidence of evangelicals agitating against abortion in the early and mid 70s in large numbers? What evidence there is seems to point in the opposite direction.

                      I’m a pro life atheist myself, so I’m aware that there are such creatures…but they are a tiny, tiny minority of both pro-lifers and atheists.

                    3. Do you have evidence that evangelicals are the only Christians besides Catholics or that Christianity is the only religion? Of course, philosophically opposing abortion and organizing as an institution against it are two different things. Catholicism has a centuries’ old tradition of entwining itself with government. Many Protestant sects struggled mainly to be left alone by government.

                    4. You and Nat Hentoff.

                  3. If Roe v. Wade were responsible, why did it take several years for the religious “right” to be identified with the anti-abortionists? For several years after the court decision, the anti-abortion movement was neither obviously of the “left” or of the “right”, although activists on boh ends of that spectrum were involved. It wasn’t until the late 1970s that it shook out that way. So I think that’s evidence that Roe v. Wade did not “make” them.

                    1. The most prominent anti-abortion group I remember from the early-to-middle 1970s was Soujourners, the anarcho-communist Catholic organiz’n. On the far right were the people thinking, good, we can abort the niggers now, and on the far left were those thinking, bad, they’re going to abort the negroes now.

                2. Yep, what really motivates religious conservatives is racism, not small government. Thats why Ron Paul paid Lew Rockwell to write the newsletters and why Lew and his boys are big government apologists when the victims aren’t angry old white dudes. Money in the bank.

          2. Which explains why the LRC crowd is even smaller than the LP.

          3. There are a bunch of Southern Evangelical An-Cappers and libertarians.
            I recall some here being surprised by the redneck biker chick in a Rothbard shirt at the Glen Beck rally.

        2. Maybe you should try a different blog.

          1. WAAAAAAAA

            1. I mean, what do you hope to accomplish here? Is it simple narcissism, or do you honestly believe you can change anyone’s mind?

        3. Did you ever stop and think most religious conservatives aren’t willing to give up their desire to enforce their moral views with the power of the state? Yes, I know Christianity doesn’t contradict libertarianism, and in some ways libertarianism is more compatible than other political systems, but that’s not the view most religious conservatives take.

          Why is Group X’s refusal to accept libertarianism always the libertarians’ fault?

          1. Evangelical religious conservatives didn’t used to vote in great numbers until Reagan came along.To the extent they did participate in politics how much of it was in Goldwater conservatism and the JBS?

            1. “Evangelical religious conservatives didn’t used to vote in great numbers until Reagan came along.”

              More historical ignorance from our resident GOP shills. Evangelicals were quite active in the early Progressive movement (William Jennings Bryan anyone?).

            2. Goldwater’s support in the evangelical Deep South had little to do with his libertarian tendencies, at least beyond his vote against the CRA.

                1. Send me a postcard from the mirror universe you’re apparently inhabiting.

                  1. You’re trying to say Goldwater supporters were largely principled constitutionalists except in the South where they were the KKK. We don’t wear shoes down here either.

          2. ^^^^THIS.

            What John is saying paraphrases the Marine Colonel in Full Metal Jacket. Libertarians should “come over to the big (red) team, so that we can all go in for the big win.”

            Sorry. As card carrying LP member, I am just as much against the Nanny staters who won’t let me smoke indoors as I am the Fundamentalists who want to tell me as an adult where I can gamble, if I can smoke pot, and if I was gay that I couldn’t marry another gay adult. The GOP is the height of hypocrisy when they say they are “limited government” but are more than happy to use government as their bludgeon to force their religious views on consenting adults whose actions harm no one.

            Freedom under those terms, isn’t really “freedom” at all. Which is why I’m a Libertarian.

            1. Sorry. too slow. My “This” was for Tulpa’s comment

              1. The urge to control other’s behavior by force isn’t inherent in the Bible.You find it in progressive instincts no matter which “team” they play on.Your dichotomy suggest that the left-leaning Nanny-Staters aren’t full bore behind restricting gambling and marijuana use. The Obama/Holder Justivce dept would beg to differ.How’s their policy on Fed recognition of gay marriage working out?

                1. “The urge to control other’s behavior by force isn’t inherent in the Bible.”

                  This might beat Epi’s Steve Smith mother-rape comments as the funniest thing written on H&R in years.

                  1. I eagerly await MNG’s comprehensive list of Jesus’ statements advocating for using government to control other people’s behavior.

                    1. The OT, OTOH, is full of authoritarian government advocacy.

                    2. “The OT, OTOH, is full of authoritarian government advocacy.”

                      Give that guy a prize!

                      In the NT the authors were out of power so it is not suprising there were few calls for the use of government power for this or that. In the OT where the believers had power it was a different story. And I don’t know what churches you go to but most Christians take the OT fairly seriously.

                2. The urge to control other’s behavior by force isn’t inherent in the Bible.

                  So? Not everything Evangelicals do is based on the Bible. Even their beliefs are not Bible based, for instance the Trinity and sola scriptura itself.

                  Your dichotomy suggest that the left-leaning Nanny-Staters aren’t full bore behind restricting gambling and marijuana use. The Obama/Holder Justivce dept would beg to differ.

                  Yeah, and the chock-full-of-evangelicals Bush administration advanced federal power faster than any administration since LBJ’s. People in power tend to be scum, regardless of religion or ideology.

                  1. Uh, Commodore, the point was about me. Try to stay on message, ok?

            2. Then figure out a way to get the liberals to vote for you or enjoy the wilderness. Sorry but “Fuck you” is not a way to build an effective political coalition. Why is it up to Libertarians to compromise? Because the Libertarians are the ones on the outside with no power. That is why. Honestly, most libertarians would rather be casandras telling the rest of the world how great they are than actually accomplish something.

              1. The compromises that would be necessary to achieve an immediate alliance with either group would be so severe as to render us ex-libertarians. They have to compromise a little too.

                It’s a conundrum for sure.

                1. “They have to compromise a little too.”

                  Unfortunately, libertarians don’t have enough support to make such a compromise attractive to the other groups.

          3. “Why is Group X’s refusal to accept libertarianism always the libertarians’ fault?”

            Because the job of a political movement is to convince other people to come around to their view or at least compromise some. Libertarians have failed to do that. And that is their fault and no one else’s.

            1. @SIV “The Obama/Holder Justivce dept would beg to differ.How’s their policy on Fed recognition of gay marriage working out?”

              Nice False Dilemma. Where in my post did I endorse the current administration?. Typical “Team Red/Team Blue” thinking. I (like an apparently increasing number of Americans according to polls) aren’t a fan of either Democrats or Republicans–which would explain why I’m a Libertarian.

              @John If your idea of compromise is: “Hey we like your group’s fiscal conservatism, but, please, leave the other half of your platform at the door” it essentially amounts to the same thing I originally posted.

              That isn’t “compromise” that’s a GOP hostile takeover.

              1. Where in my post did I endorse the current administration?.

                You draw a distinction between those currently in power and those who are not (and thankfully, never really have been in this country)

                I am just as much against the Nanny staters who won’t let me smoke indoors as I am the Fundamentalists who want to tell me as an adult where I can gamble, if I can smoke pot, and if I was gay that I couldn’t marry another gay adult.

                The progressive nanny-staters are the current bunch shutting down online poker, conducting Fed marijuana raids and telling you they won’t recognize your gay marriage (congrats btw)

              2. “Hey we like your group’s fiscal conservatism, but, please, leave the other half of your platform at the door”

                Are you kidding? The fiscal position of the GOP at this point is that taxes should be lower, hands off Medicare, hands off Social Security, hands off imperial defense spending, just take money from the programs for the dark people.

                Unfortunately there isn’t enough dark people money in the budget for that to be feasible — which is why the most balanced GOP budget proposal still has a 600B deficit.

            2. I vote for “None of the above.”

            3. Sorry John, but the libertarian/GOP thing is over. It’s not like we don’t remember why we got together in the first place. We both hated the commies abroad and the Great Society at home. We knew you were a little more religious than us, but we figured that if we respected your beliefs you would respect ours.

              But it quickly became apparent that we weren’t living up to your standards. We weren’t patriotic enough for you. We hung around with journalists and intellectuals that made you feel inadequate. We kept asking why you were out all night with those major corporations, or why you wanted to waste our money bombing other countries.

              That’s when you started to get abusive. It was just little things at first. The Ten Commandments displayed at courthouses, prayer in schools. But when we tried to have the abortion discussion, you just lashed out at us, calling us all kinds of horrible names like “nihilist” and “baby-killer.”

              We blamed ourselves, like all victims do. Maybe we hadn’t considered the loss of freedoms of the white christian majority. Or your fears about losing your culture. But the truth is we felt trapped. We knew that the Democrats wouldn’t have us. They would see us as damaged goods. I mean sure, we used to have fun smoking pot with them and talking about freedom of speech, but lately they had started to get really uptight about drugs and music.

              So we believed you every four years when you promised this time it was different, this time you had changed baby. You understood the value of free markets and open culture. Maybe we didn’t really believe you. Maybe we just wanted to. So we just put on a little concealer, told the other ideologies that we ran into a doorknob, and went and voted for you.

              But it wasn’t

              1. But it wasn’t long before we caught you in bed with major corporations, talking about trade barriers and subsidies. We knew you were out all night, invading the middle east, and we hated you for it.

                But when you started tightening security at home, tapping our phones and patting us down before we went anywhere, we knew it was over.

                We didn’t care if the Democrats would have us anymore, all that mattered was that we wouldn’t be your victims for one more day. So we walked out, and we’re never coming back.

                We’ve got all our lives to live, we’ve got all our love to give, and we, we will survive. Hey hey.

            4. Yes. It’s definitely my fault that some so-con feels he has the moral authority and obligation to use the government to throw me in jail because I might want to smoke pt on my deck at 3 am.

              It’s absolutely MY responsibility to conform to that motherfucker rather than him saying something to the effect of, “maybe it is in everyone’s best interest that I mind my own fucking business”.

        4. “They have been boot licking cultural leftists for 30 years now and have gotten nowhere.”

          WTF? Historically the’ve tried working with the right establishment, with little results I might add.

        5. OK, so rather than boots what would you suggest we should lick?

        6. That’s OK, at least we got to write the constitution.

        7. Im confused.

          Fucking explain me then.

          1. Dropped as a baby, molested by father, dressed in spandex by mother, slept in bedroom near a furnace leaking carbon monoxide – all before smoking crack heavily cut with rat poison.

      2. Reason doesn’t like religious conservatives that lean libertarian.

        Yeah find me one reason staffer that does not like Ron Paul.

        What planet do you live on?

        1. i was about to oblige till I checked the masthead.Staff is getting pretty thin. All the Paul-haters are listed as “contributors”. If you go back to the “newsletter controversy” many of the Reason/Cato contributors went out of their way to damn Ron Paul.Particularly if academe is their ricebowl.

          1. You got a link of someone at Reason “damning” Ron Paul? And no, saying he should have been careful loaning out his name, or should identify who was writing that racist crap under his name, does not count as “damning”.

            1. http://sandefur.typepad.com/fr…..arian.html

              Check the names of some of them against the extensive list of Reason contributors. You might not recognize everyone.


        2. The Shame of Ron Paul

          by Will Wilkinson on January 10, 2008

          It now seems quite clear to me that Ron Paul has for years used racism, among other vicious sentiments, to build financial and political support.

          I’ve been pretty negative about Paul from the start, attracted only to his antiwar stance, since I find his old right brand of nationalist, populist anti-statism pretty repellent and at odds with the cause of human liberty.

          1. Link above. Yes Wilkinson was listed as contributor/staff at the time of his Ron Paul love.

    3. Boy, nothing exorcises SIV and John like criticizing Palin!

      1. I didn’t even catch the Palin ref in the post until John pointed it out. The T-Paw/Romney/”top tier” establishment doesn’t want her in the race questioning their guy’s conservative cred and sirrin’ up the Bible-thumpers and teabaggers

        1. Yeah, sure, that’s why you’ve spent about a dozen posts defending Palin and her fellow evangelicals.

          1. All timestamped after John’s catch of “being unable to name a newspaper” as a Palin reference

  12. It’s frightening to see how willing libertarians are to play fifth column.

  13. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05…..r.html?hpw

    Colleges and universities have long offered majors in religion or theology. But with more and more people now saying they have no religion, one college has decided to be the first to offer a major in secularism. Starting this fall, Pitzer College, a small liberal arts institution in Southern California, will inaugurate a department of secular studies.

    1. Gee another major that offers no hope of post graduate employment. Just what American higher education needs.

      1. Since when should higher ed become vo-tech centers? For a long time the whole idea behind a college ‘liberal arts’ education was that it was a ‘gentleman’s pursuit’ of non-instrumental educational goals.

        1. Back when only gentleman who had enough money not to care pursued it, that made sense. But to offer degrees that have no value in the private sector to middle class kids going into massive debt borders on the immoral.

        2. Not to make women marriable housewives? But since women have moved on to have careers themselves, there’s little point in such education.

        3. That’s fine for that small portion of people going to college who do not need to work for a living.

          For the rest of us, an education that might help in obtaining gainful employments seems like an useful thing to be offered by higher ed.

          A general liberal arts education can be useful in obtaining employment — most employers prefer employees who can read and write well and diagnose and solve problems.

          So it doesn’t have to be woodworking or hotel management, but seriously? A department of secular studies?

    2. How the hell do you get a degree in a personal philosophy?

      1. Go to Evergreen State College in Olympia Washington.

        1. Goddard College in VT offers graduate degrees in personal philosophy. My cousin has one from there.

    3. In their defense it is hard to find a criticism of substance against Palin here or in other media.

      It seems to be all about her “seeing Russia from her deck” or that her new born is retarded.

      What are her policies and political positions are they good or bad? Who the fuck knows…no one ever talks about those so how can anyone know?

      1. She like, wants to “drill baby drill”, and she like, doesn’t like “death panels”.

        1. Jury nullification and marijuana decriminalization. Authoritarian statist stuff like that.

    4. Most colleges and universities don’t need departments of secular studies since they are institutions of secular studies. Seriously, a department of secular studies is one of the most brain dead ideas I have heard in a long time. Pitzer won’t be getting any tuition payments from me.

  14. I’ve said it before, Obama is either lying or cannot control his own DOJ. To be honest, with the reneging on these kind of promises so common it’s entirely understandable why people like SIV have such emnity towards liberals bearing such promises.

    New Federal Crackdown Confounds States That Allow Medical Marijuana

    Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but that has not stopped a fuzzy industry of marijuana farms and dispensaries from rising to serve the 15 states that allow the drug to be used for medical purposes. Under President Obama, the federal government had seemed to make a point of paying little attention ? until now.

    As some states seek to increase regulation but also further protect and institutionalize medical marijuana, federal prosecutors are suddenly asserting themselves, authorizing raids and sending strongly worded letters that have cast new uncertainty on an issue that has long brimmed with tension between federal and state law.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05…..a.html?hpw

    1. Honestly, I might be inclined to believe you that he has no control over his own DOJ. DOJ has been out of control under administrations of both parties. It seems to answer to no one.

      1. That’s no excuse for him. If he can ram Obamacare through Congress and take the fight to Al Qaeda he can control the DOJ…

        1. How did that Dawn Johnsen nomination work out? Now we’re left with one of these DOJ career lawyers who already worked in that office during the Bush years.

        2. Pelosi rammed Obamacare through Congress and the Navy Seals took the fight to Al Qaeda, or at least to Osama. Obama plays golf, takes vacations and hosts parties on the taxpayers dime. Talking to military leaders in Afghanistan, leading the battle to push legislation through Congress and putting in a full day at work are beyond Obama’s capabilities.

        3. He’d have to travel to the United States of Amer. to do that.

    2. He can fire every one of those US Attorneys and the Attorney General if he wants. To say “he has no control” is ludicrous.

      Now, he may not want to deal with the political consequences of such firings, but that doesn’t mean he has no control.

  15. I just made the foolish error of flipping over to Fox; Bill Kristol is giddily advocating a Presidential campaign of “all murder, all the time”. Fuck you, Kristol, you bloodthirsty little shit.

    NO BLOOD FOR OIL VOTES

    1. So last Sunday it was Axelrod this Sunday Kristol. Dude, watch Sportscenter, better for your blood pressure.

    2. So killing Bin Ladin was murder?

      1. That depends on whether he was shooting back.

      2. Not until we get a conviction of those damn white-boy Navy SEALs.

      3. It wasn’t murder-murder.

  16. I have to try to keep track of what the Serious Journalists are feeding the rubes like you.

  17. And I’m an equal opportunity hater; I don’t bother to pretend there’s a lick of difference between David Axlegrease and Bill Krystalsmasher.

    1. It’s Krystalnacht, you ahistorical reply button nonconformist.

  18. Sportscenter? Seriously?

    Fuck that, I watch Thrillbillies.

  19. Times are hard in the Big Apple, but the news is not all bad:

    The Bloomberg administration is also proposing expansion in several areas. It said it would open 10 new senior centers, each serving 250 to 300 people, around the city. One of the centers would cater to the visually impaired, while another would be intended to serve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender seniors ? the first such center in the nation, according to the city’s Department for the Aging.

    EVER VIGILANT!

    Union officials and a variety of advocacy groups are gearing up to fight the proposed budget with a series of protests scheduled to begin on Monday. “Same smoke, same mirrors, same attempt to blame others for his decision to lay off thousands of teachers,” said Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers.

    1. One of the centers would cater to … transgender seniors

      Dammit! Scooped again!

      1. Eh, there’s a gay retirement home right off of Vine in Hollywood.

        1. We provide a comfortable, pleasant environment for our treasured residents in the sunset of their years. Maid service is available as is in-home delivery of meals. Our full-service on-site medical staff is experienced in treating the common afflictions of the elderly as well as the special problems associated with a loose sphincter caused by years of anal intercourse.

    2. Are you suggesting that the trannie grannies (OBVIOUSLY NSFW, probably NSFL either) don’t need a place to commiserate?

  20. From the NYT maedical marijuana story:

    When the Legislature was drafting the bill it passed in its most recent regular session, Mr. Ormsby said, “No one consulted with me about what I thought of what they were going to do and did I think it ran afoul of federal law.”

    *Appointed bureaucrat struts onstage, says, “Fuck you, peons!”*

  21. Religious groups in Australia are allowed to discriminate against people who are gay or transgender, prompting criticism from gay rights activists who find it galling that religious social service programs receive millions of dollars in government funding.

    Such exemptions to anti-discrimination laws exist elsewhere, but other countries including Britain and the United States have narrowed their scope in recent years

    “States are providing large amounts of funding to services along with essentially a license to discriminate with the provision of those services, and it just seems very out of date and inappropriate,” said Alan Brotherton, a policy director for ACON, an organization promoting health issues for the gay community.

    http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap…..49686.html

    1. If the issue is that a private org cannot provide certain services without a government license then I would oppose anti-discrimination licensing provisions, but if they are getting state funds to provide services they should not be allowed to discriminate in providing those services.

      1. I agree. Charities receiving state funds should not discriminate against rich people.

        1. Yeah, you’re right, and the police should not discriminate between the guilty and innocent either.

      2. I agree with this to a point, but without knowing enough of the specifics of what goes on down there, it’s possible that the “receipt of state funds” isn’t as simple as it may sound. It’s quite possible that to operate such groups becomes difficult without taking gov’t money.

        Situations where a government says “once you take a dime from us, you have to do exactly what we say” can be (and have been) very badly abused by people who desire to wield considerable power over others. Right now virtually every person in the United States receives some sort of tax-break or subsidy from the government in one form or the other. Using that as an excuse to infringe on the freedoms of all is a very dangerous precedent.

    2. Churches receiving govt funding should be forbidden to discriminate and eugenics organizations receiving govt funding should be forbidden to kill human organisms.

      1. *except for Planned Parenthood

  22. So killing Bin Ladin was murder?

    He’s dead, isn’t he?

    What the fuck else would you like to call it?

    Assassination? Hit? Wet work? Sanction? Termination? Happy ending?

    1. “Accidental expiration.”

      1. Terminal Kinetic Action.

        1. They should have just told everyone that he had gone to Vietnam to be a Russian Roulette player and that he finally lost.

          “One shot.”

          1. Are you calling Christopher Walken a terrorist?

    2. To the people who are upset about Bin laden’s death and/or the subsequent jubliation, I offer the following:

      Let’s say he was taken alive or with minimal injury (a bullet to the shoulder, etc.). What would/should his punishment be? Death, just like Hussein. What would the difference have been between this alternate pathway and the present?

      1. We get to keep our integrity?

        1. But what does that even mean? Bin Laden was going to be killed and deserved it. If some scumbag killed my family, I wouldn’t give a shit if the cops shot him on sight.

          1. What it means (to me) is that we can tell those crazy fuckers that they won’t change us and our respect for the rule of law by blowing some of our people up.
            It means that we can tell them, “We will hunt you to the ends of the earth and bring you to justice,” and then actually bring them to justice by way of a firing squad after a trial.
            It means we can export liberty and civil liberty by example instead of at the end of a bayonet.
            It means we stay better than the savages who would enslave us as they enslave their own followers.

          2. Another question for you: how will you feel when Obama or another president sends a drone to kill Anwar al Awlaki? Remember, Obama has openly said he is a target for assassination.

            Will you continue to revel in the pissing on our Constitution?

            1. Ok, your first post makes a good point, but this “pissing on our Constitiution” nonsense is hyperbole.

              Please explain where in the Constitution it is written that we cannot execute an enemy combatant. Or, explain to me why OBL is not an enemy combatant.

              Who is Anwar al Awlaki??

              1. Anwar al Awlaki is the NYT’s choice to lead al Qadea now that Osama is allegedly dead.

    3. Murder means more than death. It means unlawful and unjustified death. Bin ladin’s death was neither.

    4. You could argue that killing Bin Laden was ‘homicide’ but not ‘murder.’

      I believe that would be the legal argument the gov’t would make anyway if it was forced to.

    5. Fluid loss due to shaped metal induced epidermal breach.

  23. Bin Laden may have been killed, but he really won in the end. He bankrupted America, bled it to death, just like he said he would.

    1. You know who didn’t catch Bin Laden?

      China.

      QED

      1. But all the surveillance equipment and electronics that the the SEALs were carrying were made in China.

        1. But all the surveillance equipment and electronics that the the SEALs were carrying were made in China.

          Source?

          1. Most likely not. That kind of shit is usually made in the US by small manufacturing businesses.

            1. Most likely not. That kind of shit is usually made in the US by small manufacturing businesses with political connections and lobbyists who are retired military.

              F[inished]IFY

              1. But they’re less likely to put deliberate defects or killswitches in the hardware, so there’s that.

  24. A couple of quick points of enlightenment:

    – For those upset about OBL’s death, just imagine he was a dog accidentally killed in a no-knock raid. Perhaps the dog was a Yorkie…

    – Palin’s policy positions are NEVER discussed because the media knows most of America would agree with her. Plus, it’s easier to wipe Obama’s semen off your chin than to actually discuss foreign trade with a former governor.

    – The war on terror still only accounts for 5% of the total US budget. The fed still spends more on education than Iraq etc. Plus, seriously, killing murderers should never be a question of money. It’s the right thing to do.

    1. “Palin’s policy positions are NEVER discussed because the media knows most of America would agree with her.”

      Or because she won’t talk to the media. Or because she has nothing intelligent to say about foreign trade.

    2. – The war on terror still only accounts for 5% of the total US budget. The fed still spends more on education than Iraq etc.

      Every wasteful federal boondoggle is only X% of the total US budget. Just because it’s only part of the problem doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be eliminated.

      Plus, seriously, killing murderers should never be a question of money. It’s the right thing to do.

      What about killing, indefinitely detaining, and torturing people who may not be murders? What about assassinating US citizens? What about warrantless wiretaps? What about groping six-year-olds whose only crime is trying to get on an airplane? Are they the right thing to do? Should we spare no expense in our persecution of the American people and the maybe possibly potential murderers who lurk among them?

    3. Of the same coin

      Plus, seriously, killing murderers providing health care should never be a question of money. It’s the right thing to do.

      Plus, seriously, killing murderers paying for people’s utilities should never be a question of money. It’s the right thing to do.

      See how stupid that argument is?

      1. Killing organized foreign murderers of American citizens is an enumerated power in most cases.

        Doctor and light bills? No

    4. “The war on terror still only accounts for 5% of the total US budget. The fed still spends more on education than Iraq etc.”

      This is dumb. Total defense spending accounts for roughly 20% of the total US budget.

      The US spends 7x the Chinese who have the 2nd largest military budget in the world.

      “Plus, seriously, killing murderers should never be a question of money. ”

      No expense spared, right HC?

  25. I don’t feel particularly bad about bin Laden’s death, but I find the orgy of revenge porn fapping ghoulish.

    And people like that warmongering little turd Kristol saying the American President can (should!) send assassins anywhere on the planet to carry out extrajudicial executions of people he doesn’t like without being slapped down for being a jabbering maniac makes me think America is too far gone to be saved.

    1. I wonder if Kristol is planning on taking any international vacations any time soon.

    2. You don’t feel bad about Bin Ladin’s death but you will still piss and moan about it at every opportunity. Got it.

    3. Kristol has post cold war stress syndrome. So he has to keep making up new enemies to fight, just to stay somewhat sane.

  26. http://caffeinatedthoughts.com…..education/

    Mitch Daniels apparently let the mask slip in Washington and proved that he is the big government RINO I always thought he was.

  27. You don’t feel bad about Bin Ladin’s death but you will still piss and moan about it at every opportunity. Got it.

    Yup. You’ve got me pegged, by golly.

  28. By the way, John, what did we “get” exactly, from rubbing out bin Laden, other than an honor killing notch on the Presidential sixgun?

    If you want to claim we “showed those guys who’s boss” then we can bring everybody home now, right?

  29. Read about one third the way through this thread when I realized, ‘yuck! This is just about the ugliest and worst way to spend a Sunday afternoon conceivable.’ Some of the more briefly worded post were fun, so it is not all of you. But the long winded ones. . . holy Christ. Shit that no one gives a rip outside your respective tribes. You must be gov bureaurats or something. I’m going to see if I can salvage the rest of this day by finding a new fetish to rub one out to. Have some pride, people!

    1. I’m better than you people.

      [stomps off]

      1. MNG? John? I don’t think I sat that bar very high.

  30. As a Joe Liebermann-leaning Democrat, I dearly hope that Ron Paul wins the nomination. He has some very interesting ideas to contribute to the debate, and our nation needs a good laugh these days.

    1. Agreed.
      I’d just like to get a Sprite from the school vending machine. Heroin would be pure gravy!

    2. As opposed to cardboard cut outs being placed in front of cameras, saying pre determined words and then calling that a debate.

  31. This well-supported argument so articulately stated has caused me to reconsider and reject my previously held convictions.

    http://www.wholesale-order.com

  32. This is dumb. Total defense spending accounts for roughly 20% of the total US budget.

  33. This is dumb. Total defense spending accounts for roughly 20% of the total US budget.

    http://www.wholesale-order.com

  34. It means we can export liberty and civil liberty by example instead of at the end of a bayonet.
    It means we stay better than the savages who would enslave us as they enslave their own followers.

  35. It means we can export liberty and civil liberty by example instead of at the end of a bayonet.
    It means we stay better than the savages who would enslave us as they enslave their own followers.

  36. Please explain where in the Constitution it is written that we cannot execute an enemy combatant. Or, explain to me why OBL is not an enemy combatant.

    1. I know, we’re not going to get an answer to this one.

  37. Actually, John, it seems to me that Ron Paul has taught us the opposite. Consistent, honest and bold spreading of ideas, from a major platform, is the best way to get libertarian thought to spread. Ron Paul didn’t start the current wave by pandering to anyone

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.