Politics

Minnesota Mean, Presidential Submission, Gotcha Questions, and More From the GOP Debate in Iowa

|

Minnesota nice is now Minnesota mean: At the GOP presidential debate in Iowa tonight, the two Minnesotans on the stage—Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Rep. Michelle Bachmann—didn't quite come to blows, but at times they seemed awfully close.

No submission here.

When Pawlenty, after prodding, doubled down on a prior claim that Bachmann has no record of results, Bachmann responded with a recitation of Pawlenty's lowlights: Support for cap-and-trade, a long-ago flirtation with an individual mandate to purchase health insurance, and an old declaration that "the era of small government is over."

Pawlenty responded by attacking Bachmann's "record of making false statements"—and by expanding on his argument that, for all her rhetorical volume, her frequent attacks on liberal policies had produced nothing of substance. She may have led the fights against ObamaCare and raising the debt limit, but those fights, Pawlenty pointed out, were lost. "If that's your idea of effective leadership, please stop," he said. "Because you're killing us."

The audience seemed possibly ready to kill questioner Byron York after he asked Bachmann whether, as president, she'd continue to be a "submissive" wife—as she's said she is now. The crowd booed, and Bachmann waited it out before answering gently: "I respect my husband," she said, confidently avoiding the question. "He's a wonderful godly man. And we respect each other."

Several of the candidates, though, seemed to have little respect for the panel moderators. Pressed about the constitutional basis for the individual mandate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney got snippy, and argued that it wasn't the U.S. Constitution that mattered. "Are you familiar with the Massachusetts constitution? I am," he all but sneered before proceeding to note that states force people to do all sorts of things, like make children attend school. Why should buying health insurance be any different?

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, twice accused questioners of posing "gotcha" questions—including once for being asked about his conflicting statements both for and against the Libyan no-fly zone. Pushed to answer, he rambled, dissembled, and then insisted that we should "rethink" our entire approach to the conflict. After all, he said, he's running a campaign based on ideas. I suspect it won't be long before he starts to rethink his troubled candidacy.

Former Pennsylvania Senator and social conservative stalwart Rick Santorum literally had to remind the audience that he was still on stage—waving his hands at one point as if to say "I'm still here!" and grousing repeatedly about the relatively low number of questions thrown his way. Sure, he was there, but you have to wonder why: Santorum's primary mission seemed to be defending every last aspect of the GOP's authoritarian streak: militarism in the Middle East, hyper-moralism at home, federal authority over marriage and the states. He bragged about his hawkishness and got in a drawn-out squabble with Ron Paul about the 10th amendment.

Ah yes. Ron Paul was there too. And he acted, well, a lot like Ron Paul usually does: forceful sometimes, rambling others, frequently both at the same time: He naysayed the non-cuts in the final debt deal and answered a question about immigration with partially explained references to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and international drug dealers. He reiterated his dislike for amnesty, and allowing illegal immigrants to vote, but he doesn't want to force employers to play immigration cops either. For Paul, it's as much a question of emphasis as anything: "Why," he asked, "do we pay more attention to the borders over seas and less attention to the borders at home?" Paul's own biggest hang-up came from a question about his longtime professional backyard: the halls of the Capitol. After making a case for far more comprehensive spending cuts, including to the wars, he paused, unsure of himself, when asked whether he could get his plan through a divided Congress. 

Jon Huntman tried to avoid divisive talk about civil unions, arguing that his support for them didn't mean those who disagreed were in any way wrong. Civil unions are a good idea. Or a bad one. Whichever one you pick, he thinks you're right. I guess that's what makes him a moderate. 

There were no divisions amongst the Republicans about tax hikes, though: Every single one raised their hand to signal they'd turn down a deal that cut 10 dollars of spending in exchange for one dollar of tax increases. Even if it balanced the budget, and the new tax revenues came entirely from closing targeted tax giveaways and loopholes? Apparently.

After a deep-dish response in the last debate, former Godfather's exec Herman Cain didn't mention pizza this time around, but he did declare at one point that "America's got to learn how to take a joke." A lot of Republicans, at least, will probably need to: They'll be voting for one of these candidates. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Rosebud

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. ” Every single one raised their hand to signal they’d turn down a deal that cut 10 dollars of spending in exchange for one dollar of tax increases. ”

    Wow. Then they’re asses. I wouldn’t think they’d all be that much of asses. The republicans keep picking the worst candidates.

    If they meant that they want cuts first and THEN would be willing to talk about a further mix of cuts and tax increases, then that would be more reasonable

    1. Tax increases are never reasonable.
      Stop expecting them to be liberals.

      1. The budget will never be balanced without tax increases.

        The Dems will never agree to cut spending by $1.5T a year if the Bush tax cuts remain in place.

        Stop pretending liberals don’t exist.

        1. Am I a great ventriloquist, or what?

        2. You know one thing that might politically work? Another ‘stimulus.’ And by that, I mean a $700 billion dollar ‘re-structuring’ charge.

          You take two million Fed workers off the books, hand each a check for $350,000. And say sayonara. Politically, how can the unions – even the workers – think they got screwed there? Everybody just about dreams of getting that kind of pink-slip.

          But long-term, you wipe $trillions$ off the books in both hidden structured debt, intra-governmental holdings (hahaha! such a funny term), and on net ~$300 billion a year or so in outlays for payroll and what not. Plus the messes these Fed workers, uh, worked on. That would be hella stimulus.

          What gets axed and consolidated etc. with minus 2 million employees is vast and interesting to think about. But politically, you wipe out the most vocal opponents of such a scheme, take away their best argument. No one’s gonna buy a guy with a $350k severance package is getting ‘screwed.’

          Some variation of that idea, could get the gov crushed down within its means without raising marginal rates. Especially with tax-reform to complement it.

          1. You have the right idea, but that’s only 4 years pay for the average federal worker and they’re presumably forfeiting their pension and health insurance. All they’re gaining is 4 years of not having to “work” in a job with cushy conditions and no accountability.

            1. Politically, its unassailable. And if that check’s tax-free…damn that’s a nice check.

              When they grouse about that as some kind of injustice, everyone in the wider body-politic will just laugh. And you frame the debate in the jobs they do. And the Treasury market will absolutely Like you on Facebook so-to-speak.

          2. Would the axed federal workers be eligible for 99 weeks of unemployment benefits?

          3. That’s stupid. Just fire the 2 million fed workers and hand them NOTHING. Fuck them.

        3. The Dems will never agree to cut spending by $1.5T a year if the Bush tax cuts remain in place.

          Republicans will never agree to raise taxes.

          Stop pretending that nearly every Republican in congress has signed Grover Norquist’s pledge.

          1. I guess we’re never balancing the budget then.

            1. no…the logical conclusion would be an infinite government shut down.

              If congress never appropriates money then the government can’t spend any money.

              But this is all hypothetical fantasy.

              both our mythical results are unsustainable….so something will give.

              either the republicans will raise taxes or the dems will accept a deal to not raise taxes.

              Which one do you want?

            2. How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?

              You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it’s a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

              Attn Dept G
              Bureau of the Public Debt
              P. O. Box 2188
              Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

              1. Set, and Match.

        4. I don’t give a shit what liberals will or won’t do.

          I don’t compromise with thieves. As long as the American people do not vote thieves out of office, they deserve the economy they get.

          1. so the american people are the thieves?

            1. Many of them, including the rich bloodsuckers that get fat government deals. Thieves, the lot of them.

            2. A good portion, yes.

            3. A Government of and by the People. They are not only thieves, but tyrants, too.

              1. The thieves are the ones who want civilization for free.

                1. I thought the thieves were the ones who wanted to pick someone else’s pocket to pay for civilization.

                  1. No, libertarians are the dirty thievers. Still wondering how much more we have to cut taxes before the private sector fixes this country’s crumbling highways.

                    1. Give them the highways and all toll rights & they will fix the highways. The ones that get used anyway.

                2. The thieves are the ones who want civilization for free.

                  For once, Tony is actually right about something!

                  1. Shovel-ready jobs, Tony!

                    Seriously, how many crumbling highways could have been repaired with eight-hundred-fucking-billion stimulus dollars?

                    1. I would rather have our gas taxes actually be used to fix the roads. All those toal roads, no thanks. Will I need to take a toll road to get in my neighborhood each day
                      ?

                3. Like the 50% of the population who don’t pay any federal income taxes.

                4. No, the thieves are the ones who want civilized people to pay them to be civilized.

        5. The budget will never be balanced without tax increases.

          I assume you mean that in a political sense? Because financially I can’t see it; is there any tax increase that could really raise enough revenue to make any more than a symbolic dent in the deficits this government is running? Plus, the deficit projections for the future are probably too optimistic.

          1. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would increase revenue by a few hundred billion dollars. Not nearly enough to balance the budget by itself, but paired with 10x that amount in spending cuts it would do the job with room to spare.

        6. Here’s one for you–I don’t plan to agree to tax increases. Fuck the Democrats. If they can’t play ball, then we can vote for people who will.

          1. OK, you need the White House, 60 seats in the Senate, and a majority in the House. You do realize that power imbalance happens once in a generation, if that?

            And as the Dems taught us in 2009-10, that still might not be enough to get any big deals passed without massively buying off the 59th and 60th senators.

        7. The budget will never be balanced without tax increases.

          This is a political truism, today, not a financial truth.

          Political truisms can change.

          At, what, 2005 expenditure levels, the budget would be balanced with today’s tax receipts. That honestly doesn’t strike me as being beyond the scope of possibility.

          1. Of course it isn’t. I’m flabbergasted that so many people accept the idea that “politically impossible” means something can’t be done. If some current politicians won’t do something, just let them know that you’ll vote them out for not doing it. Then impossible will turn to possible! If they don’t take the threat seriously, then actually vote for someone who will listen to you.

            Either cut spending dramatically, or prepare to leave office. We may not all be libertarians in this country, but enough of us have a modicum of common sense–you can’t spend what you don’t have and can’t borrow/pay back. And raising taxes is neither fair, a good idea in a recession, nor, most importantly, going to solve the problem. Cut spending.

            1. Too bad 60-70% of Americans still don’t want any changes in entitlemetns.

              1. Yes, well, we’re psychotic that way. I’d still do the cuts and preach economic recovery as a result.

                1. Asking for a very modest increase in taxes on the wealthy before gutting entitlements isn’t psychotic, it’s unassailable common sense.

                  It’s bizarre how you guys and Republicans assume Americans are mostly insane idiots who can’t tell a fleecing when they see one.

                  1. Americans are mostly insane idiots who can’t tell a fleecing when they see one.

                    I’m livin’ rent free, with a second-in-command who drinks out of a sippy cup, aren’t I…?

            2. And raising taxes is neither fair, a good idea in a recession, nor, most importantly, going to solve the problem.

              Ah, so it’s much more fair that poor people dependent on federal assistance get their support cut, middle class people can lose their federally-supported jobs, all while wealthy people keep their lowered tax rates.

              Now, you might think so; I’m sure Lysander will be back with another question-begging thought experiment in response, too. However, most people in the US are not going to consider that to be fair.

              1. Just go ahead and sign Tony’s name to all of your postings, from here on in.

              2. … and, right on cue:

                REALITY: Emergency decree: Italy delivers tough austerity measures

                TULPA, TONY, ETC.: “DERP!”

        8. “The budget will never be balanced without tax increases.

          The Dems will never agree to cut spending by $1.5T a year if the Bush tax cuts remain in place.

          Stop pretending liberals don’t exist.

          THANK YOU
          couldn’t have said it better myself, Tulpa

          1. Neither could I!

            1. If these guys “Edwin” and “Tulpa” are any example… you and I must qualify as “Libertarians” now, Rachel! WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE — !!!

    2. They are assholes with the exception of Paul’s pie in the sky idealism.

      However, judging by the reluctant hand-raising of some of them, they were probably terrified of the follow up question if they were the only one who didn’t raise their hand.

      1. Idealism – when perceived reality by others is in contradiction to one’s moral principles and one has the conviction to live by one’s principles.

        We need an more idealists!

    3. Why did Bush Sr lose against Clinton again?

      “Read my lips” ring a bell?

      By the way no candidate will ever lose an election for not raising taxes. Ever.

      1. Uh, by your logic Bush I lost precisely because he promised not to raise taxes.

        1. Uh, he lost to Clinton in his bid for a SECOND term after he broke that promise.

        2. no my logic says he broke a promise and raised taxes.

      2. People forget about the Ross Perot critter in calculating Bush 41’s fall.

        1. People forget about the Ross Perot critter in calculating Bush 41’s fall.

          No if Bush Sr had not lost conservative votes there would have been no Ross Perot.

          I will admit there were lots of balls in the air in that election…but the “read my lips” mistake was one of the bigger ones.

          1. It was a trope that got him for sure. But if Ross had stayed home, Bush 41 would’ve won.

            Clinton pulled down 42% of the vote, and I think Ross pulled down 19%. Which leaves Senior Shrub with ~36-37%.

            Bush and Clinton were close even with a fifth of the voting electorate that night off the table between them.

            1. While a common belief, the facts don’t back up the belief that Perot causing Bush to lose. Clinton won by 6.5%, which means Bush would have needed to beat Clinton 2:1 in all Perot voters. However, exit polls showed that Perot got half his votes from approximately equal amounts of Dem and Rep registered voters and the other half from independents. If you assume the registered voters cancel each other out, Bush would have needed to win over 80% of the non-party affiliated Perot voters to make up the 6.5% deficit.

              http://www.ropercenter.uconn.e…..ed_92.html

              1. I don’t buy that. Perot supporters were more right-leaning than not. So was Perot himself, when he was consistent on anything. Kind of a loon.

                1. They did lean more conservative, about 10:9:7 con/mod/lib, but that breakout doesn’t indicate that it would have been sufficient to make up a 6.5% deficit. Bush would have likely won among Perot voters, but I doubt he would have won them by a sufficient margin to win the election.

                  Anecdote, my dad voted for Perot (twice) and would have voted for Clinton otherwise.

          2. His gun ban helped him out of office too.

          3. We were going through a pretty shitty recession at the time. During Desert Storm Bush had high approval numbers, then the recession hit.

            1. ^^^ this is why. Same reason all one-termers lose.

              Trying to blame it on the tax pledge is downright insulting to everyone’s intelligence.

              And Perot’s campaign wasn’t based on Bush’s flip-flop, it was based on the deficit more than anything else. Plus him having a ton of cash to spend when any other challenger from the right would have been long gone.

    4. I hate taxes, I really do. But if that was the bill before me I would sign it. I would not trust the handshake of congress, I would actually need to see it in the bill, with teeth, a permanent spending cut.

  2. “If you’re keeping score at home, the number of questions asked tonight about Michele Bachmann being submissive to her husband: One. The number asked about entitlements and how to reform them: Zero. Unbelievable.”

    (H/T HotAir)

  3. Who else has a strong desire to strangle Chris Wallace?

    1. Here. But mostly because I need a new overcoat, anyway.

      1. Do you think I could get the same thing, only in black…?

      2. It puts the lotion on the skin.

        1. -10 for not knowing that Jame Gumb was Buffalo Bill.

  4. So Suderman thinks Ron Paul is a joke. Couldn’t agree more. The creator made him funny.

    1. the Deceleration of Independence is old and hard to read.

      1. This requires a special and witty response that I’m not up to at the moment. But I wish it were really Ezra Klein who said it’s the “Deceleration” of Independence.

        1. I have the same problem with Firefox spell check as Corning does.

  5. It’s still Thursday.

    1. AKA “Friday.”

      1. Not everyone lives on the east coast.

  6. We’re pretty much fucked until the Republicans realize that the only way they’re going to get entitlement reform is through tax reform.

    1. “Must… give… more… to… government… MORE…!”

      1. I am your beloved Sauron, and you are all my worshipful orc foot soldiers.

        1. “PRESENT!”

        2. You suck.

  7. Why no Gary Johnson? I mean, really, if Cain gets invited, isn’t everyone welcome?

    1. Agreed. He should have been there.

      … Hobbit

    2. I say if Gingrich gets invited, everyone should be welcome. Who exactly is voting for this man? Guys on their third marraiges who want one of their own in the White House?

      1. I say if Gingrich gets invited, everyone should be welcome. Who exactly is voting for this man? Guys on their third marraiges who want one of their own in the White House?

        Obama secretly prays to Allah every night somehow this man gets nominated.

        1. Heh. Yeah. “Secretly.”

    3. Gary ain’t black.

    4. Did Gary Johnson even try to be included or did he write-off Iowa as a non-starter for him?

      1. He wrote off the straw poll, which is a sensible stance. But he did not write off the television debate.

    5. Exactly – Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain? These people are all a running punchline. Johnson is sensible, has a great record and can debate circles around these guys. None of these people have the record or the smarts to win and be a good president.
      Can GJ miss these early chum-sessions and still be a candidate? Or are we doomed to awful GOP leftovers forever? In that case, Obama is gonna sweep.

      1. No. Obama will lose to any GOP candidate. We’re talking Jimmy Carter levels of disgust–maybe even worse.

        Which means, of course, that we’re likely going to have another bad president.

        1. I really think you’re overestimating the disgust factor. I would literally be lynched at my workplace if I suggested that BO has made any mistakes in office at all, except perhaps for not standing up to republicans enough.

          I think most people don’t like him. But I don’t think it’s anywhere near universal disgust. He can beat a sufficiently shitty GOP candidate.

          1. He’s dead in any number of ways. Economic problems–dead. Apparent ineptness–dead. Not making the core supporters happy–dead. And so on. He could lose if George Bush ran against him.

            1. Is that an option?

              1. Not without a constitutional amendment.

                1. Unless it’s Jeb, Bar, or George I.

            1. Yeah, with only the Sekrit Muslim on the ballot, Obama would lose. But what if he’s running against the Sekrit Wiccan? Or the Sekrit Mormon?

          2. the segment of people who would lynch someone for criticizing Obama are not the ones who will decide 2012 and were not the ones who decided 2008.

            Liberals are the smallest group, well behind conservatives and independents.

      2. Johnson is sensible, has a great record and can debate circles around these guys.

        Sensible, sure, great record, meh – not really, debate skills – not stellar, but he is certainly no worse than the any of them.

  8. Meanwhile, Suderman will be voting for, who?
    Can get his point if his answer his nobody, but if his answer is a Democrat than the joke is on everyone.

    1. I write myself in for every election.

  9. Peter, what’s the point of Reason being in business and you being employed? When Koch’s checks stop arriving, noone will notice the void.

    1. Num, num, num! Got any ketchup?

  10. Pressed about the constitutional basis for the individual mandate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney got snippy, and argued that it wasn’t the U.S. Constitution that mattered. “Are you familiar with the Massachusetts constitution? I am,” he all but sneered before proceeding to note that states force people to do all sorts of things, like make children attend school. Why should buying health insurance be any different?

    Suderman, you’re not this dumb, so either you weren’t paying attention or you’re fabricating bullshit. The question was about whether individual mandates AT THE STATE LEVEL would be constitutional, which was a stupid question because states have general police power rather than enumerated powers as the fed govt has.

    1. The question was about whether individual mandates AT THE STATE LEVEL would be constitutional,

      Was it? Could somebody quote the actual question for me?

      1. I don’t have the text of the question, but Wallace was specifically asking about the constitutionality of the Romneycare individual mandate, not the Obamacare one.

  11. There were no divisions amongst the Republicans about tax hikes, though: Every single one raised their hand to signal they’d turn down a deal that cut 10 dollars of spending in exchange for one dollar of tax increases. Even if it balanced the budget, and the new tax revenues came entirely from closing targeted tax giveaways and loopholes? Apparently.

    If the local mafioso promised to cut down on their expenditures on hookers and blow in exchange for extorting just 1/10 of that amount extra in addition to the amount they are currently extorting, in order to close the deficit that the mafia are running from spending more on hookers and blow than they are taking in from extortion, would Suderman also sneer at those who staunchly opposed any further extortions because they are just so unreasonable about the need to balance the mafia’s books?

    The morality is the same, just the government’s extortion racket has inexplicably gotten better PR.

    1. I’ve asked you this before, but never get a straight answer. Would you rather be sitting in the defendant’s chair in the US Tax Court for tax evasion, or sitting in a dark warehouse with a mafia don who thinks you didn’t give him his cut?

      1. I’ve asked you this before, but never get a straight answer. Would you rather be sitting in the defendant’s chair in the US Tax Court for tax evasion, or sitting in a dark warehouse with a mafia don who thinks you didn’t give him his cut?

        Oh, it depends on my lawyer and who he golfs with, for both scenarios.

      2. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these.

        Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these.

        In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

        1. Good ol’ Lysander must have lived somewhere where the thieves were exceedingly polite.

          And of course, it looks like I’m going to continue my streak of not getting a straight answer to my question about the mafia vs. the tax court.

          1. Oh, my answer is serious. There are externalities unconsidered in your hypothetical.

            The more accurate metaphor is, do you want to spend five years in the can for the extortion attempt, or just have your legs broken now? I’d have to think about that one.

            1. Broken legs or even death might be better than 5 years in prison. With the latter, I’d never be able to find a reputable job ever once “freed” and death would get me off this greasy hell-ball.

              Like Spooner said, crooks, in a way are more honest. I would have more respect for the government if they just came to my house, whipped out their guns, raped my dog, and threatened to kil my family if I didn’t give them 30-50% of my money which they will waste at least 90% of anyway. Some honesty would go a long way. Of course, if they actually acted like this, we’d soon see giant piles of burning G-men corpses in the streets as the serfs revolted…so it ain’t happening. They lie to us for the same reason we lie to women when they ask us if they look fat: to keep the peace(and our/their comfortable positions).

            2. Anyone who has watched “Lockup” knows that even broken legs don’t compare to the misery of our prison system.

          2. Personally, I’d prefer a one time ass beating over 20 years in federal prison.

            1. Can’t we have both?

            2. The amount that would get you a mere ass beating from the mafia don would probably just get you some angry letters and a tax lien from the IRS.

              The amount that you would go to jail for 20 years for from the IRS would earn you a seriously painful death from the don. Possibly for some of your family members too.

      3. Nice false choice. Let’s compare a theoretical worst case scenario versus one of the lesser punishments levied by the feds if you don’t pay up.

        “Would you rather be hung by the neck until dead or have marginally higher taxes?”

        Would you rather be slaughtered in Auschwitz’s ovens by one of those governments you desire, or be sitting in a titty bar run by the mob smoking weed smuggled in by the mob, in defiance of the federal government prohibiting both and threatening to toss you in a cage if you indulge?

        Let’s tot up the body count of people killed by the federal government over the past 100 years versus the number of people killed by the mob, and the average percentage of GDP extorted by the mob versus the percentage of GDP extorted in involuntary taxes by the feds, and then you’ll have an apples to apples comparison.

        1. Let’s compare a theoretical worst case scenario versus one of the lesser punishments levied by the feds if you don’t pay up.

          The lesser punishments from the IRS are threatening letters, tax liens, and audits. If you’re prosecuted in the tax court you’re a big fish.

          And your subsequent proposal of an “apples to apples” comparison is not apples to apples by any stretch of the imagination. The federal govt provides far more benefits to the people than the mafia does, including the defense of national security that requires killing lots of people sometimes.

        2. counting furriners or not?

      4. Would you rather be sitting in the defendant’s chair in the US Tax Court for tax evasion, or sitting in a dark warehouse with a mafia don who thinks you didn’t give him his cut?

        All things being considered I would pick the mafia don.

        1. You’re insane.

      5. At least I’d get a fair trial sitting in front of the mafia don.

      6. Ask Irving Schiff.

        1. Um, Irwin

          1. You mean Mr. Irwin “you won’t go to jail if you use the instructions in my book” Schiff?

    2. Give me a minute. I’m thinking.

  12. So basically, unless Rick Perry gets elected or Obama gets reelected, the president from 2013-16 will be in a position of having made a promise not to agree to a tax increase unless it’s part of a package with more than 10 times as much in spending cuts, which the Dems in Congress will agree to about as quickly as they’ll eat broken glass laced with Ebola virus.

    Yeah, this is gonna go just great.

    1. The missing political party in our ongoing spending vs. debt debate is the one with all the cash. And hence the one who really will call the shots: The CCCP in China.

      They will decide our debt ‘limit.’ At least the Zimbabwe phase of the operation. Indeed, they could dump Treasuries fast as Helicopter Ben himself these days.

      1. The PRC is already getting out of TBills as fast as they can. Right now we’re dependent on scared ex-Eurozone securities purchasers and internal paper-shuffling smoke and mirrors between Treasury and the Fed.

        1. The Japanese recently loaded up in desperate attempt to keep their currency cheap. And China controls its exchange rate by fiat, but adjusts their potential liabilities to match.

          So they have to buy Treasuries and dollar-denominated assets. And they do, less and less, their collective balance of those ‘assets’ shrinks I imagine with a goal of matching the structured appreciation of the Yuan in turn.

          So that’s a gradual, schemed process on their part. Or a horrible weapons should they choose.

          But its like the old adage that if you owe the bank a $1000 bucks you’re in trouble, but if you owe the bank a $1 x 10^12 then the bank’s in trouble…lol.

          But you’re right overall, its Helicopter Ben mostly these days getting quantitative so-to-speak. Especially in keeping the rate down.

          1. “The Japanese recently loaded up in desperate attempt to keep their currency cheap.”

            Mission not accomplished then. At 76-77 yen to the dollar, it’s trading at an all time high (i.e. strong yen weak dollar)

            1. Yes, it is kind of suckarific for those of us who periodically order stuff from Japan.

              1. Hawt Teenage Japanese Schoolgirls: “Doing the hentai that Hawt Teenage American Schoolgirls won’t do.”

    2. So basically, unless Rick Perry gets elected or Obama gets reelected, the president from 2013-16 will be in a position of having made a promise not to agree to a tax increase unless it’s part of a package with more than 10 times as much in spending cuts, which the Dems in Congress will agree to about as quickly as they’ll eat broken glass laced with Ebola virus.

      Yeah, this is gonna go just great.

      So, in your world, unless a politician agrees to steal even MORE money from us without our consent, because their balance sheet is a mess because they are fiscally incontinent and can’t find a way to steal even more without the serfs refusing to work, disaster ensues?

      Talk about having bought into statist ideology.

      Fuck the federal government and their liberty-grabbing agenda.

      1. Oh, and P.S.

        Just because a politician promised something to get elected doesn’t mean they will actually keep that promise once they get in office.

        See Bush Sr. “Read. My. Lips.”

        1. Do you recall what happened to Bush I?

          I can assure you that all eight of the GOP candidates do. If one of them gets elected and then raises taxes the right will be out with pitchforks for them.

      2. There are plenty of things wrong with our government but you will never be able to address any of them because you are hung up on this government-is-illegitimate bullshit. It’s not helpful. Dogmatism is bad in any form, and you’d think it was bad if a lineup of Democratic presidential candidates all expressed total support for communism. If you’re not dealing with political reality, you’re not dealing with reality. In other words, grow up and pay your bills. Freedom certainly does sound nice when it’s the kind teenagers have, all bills paid by mom and dad.

        1. “If”?

          1. Beat me to it.

        2. Grow up and pay your bills? Yeah, that’s what the D’s are all about.

        3. Argument ad-seriousum. You lose, Tony.

          1. Our parents and grandparents built this country largely with government projects, and because you guys didn’t have to lift a finger you assume it’s all there as god’s bounty for you to exploit at no cost to you. You define freedom exactly like a teenager does–always wanting more, but without paying rent.

            1. You know nothing about me, but feel free to continue making yourself look stupid.

            2. “Our parents and grandparents built this country largely with government projects…”

              And there’s yet another thing you aren’t the least bit capable of proving.

          2. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out that the other side is ignoring reality, even if it’s Tony.

            How would you frame an argument against communism, which if implemented correctly guarantees equal opportunity in a way that capitalism never can?

        4. and all the presidential candidates in 1860 lining up in dogmatic opposition to slavery would also be a bad thing?

          1. That you think the comparison is apt is why you’re scary.

  13. Looking at that picture, holy shit Michele Bachman is a midget! Even in heels she looks almost fake so out of scale with all those suits.

    It also looks like the beginning of a porn (there’s even a black guy!), the first three minutes anyways, when folks still have their threads on.

    It’s title? Submission

    1. I wonder if it will ever eclipse all those Obama/Palin porno’s they made.

    2. What comes after DVDA? Is that even physically possible? I mean Bachman, by virtue of being a politician, can fit 37 dicks in her at once…but physically, its impossible for even 5-9 men to mount her at once.

      1. DVDA and DO. You’re forgetting a hole.

      2. Two hands, three holes, and footjobs — I’m counting 5-7 men at once, even more if the double up on some of those appendages or holes.

        If she was a big girl, there would be titjobs and other folds to exploit, but we gotta work with the material we’re given.

        1. Yeah my initial assessment was based on the “regular” fucking holes (i.e. 2) so you can look her in her demon eyes.

  14. republicans pissed at republicans, fax pissed at republicans, republicans pissed at Fox, Fox commentary break guests pissed at fox, fox host pissed at everyone, Sudderman pissed at republicans, hit and run commentors pissed at Sudderman.

    I do have to admit this is the best debate so far.

    Feel the hate flow through you.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_JyoK8RVPE

  15. Romney is correct about forcing people to pay for insurance being a lot like forcing children to attend schools. Massachusetts pioneered both, and the quality of both medicine and education have dropped as a result.

    1. How the fuck would you judge the quality of education, Dave? You sound like a moron to me.

        1. Unsurprising that our lowest ranking is in Problem Solving…

        2. That comparison says nothing about how US education compares to itself. Even if the US’s relative ranking fell, it is possible that the US’s education improved, but at a slower rate than peers. Or it could be due to the US having a higher proportion of recent immigrants from countries with poor education systems.

          In the last 15 years, history scores have been slowly improving, especially in 4th and 8th grade.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

      1. You sound like a moron to me.

        Kettle, meet pot.

    2. You know who else is from Massachusetts…

      1. New Kids on the Block?

        1. My ex bitch’s in laws?

          1. Johnny Tremain?

    1. Whoa.

      Never seen so many ostensible “Libertarians” weeping so disconsolately over the thought that the government might not be getting nearly enough of their money.

      Need long, hot shower. NOW.

    2. To be fair, a lot of those people are only marginally libertarian.

      1. At least one of them, Tulpa, is a maxarchist posing as a minarchist.

        Just because someone posts here doesn’t mean they are even marginally libertarian, as reading MNG / Tony posts ought to have taught you.

        1. Just because someone posts here doesn’t mean they are even marginally libertarian

          How about people cited under in a Reason actually subtitled, “Catching up with libertarians who voted for the president,” then? DERP!

        2. Dude, I don’t want tax increases for their own sake. I want a balanced budget, something that stamping your feet and holding your breath and refusing to accept any tax increase is going to prevent.

          We need spending cuts to form the lion’s share of deficit elimination but tax increases have to be there too. It’s political reality. Oh yeah, RCD and ProL are going on about how we can change political reality. True, in theory. Good fucking luck with that. We can’t even get a big enough coalition together to allow cancer patients to use MJ to control their symptoms without federal harrassment, but we’re going to change the landscape so that people will accept slashed entitlements, lost federal jobs, and cuts to programs to help the poor, while the rich continue to enjoy their tax cuts that were intended to be temporary back in 2001.

          I’m not trying to demagogue here — all those cuts are going to be necessary. But if you think those are going to be accepted with NO tax increases, you’re in lala-land.

          1. … and, in the meantime, elsewhere: brute economic reality (as always) has the final say in all matters such as these.

            Emergency decree: Italy delivers tough austerity measures

  16. >”America’s got to learn how to take a joke.” A lot of Republicans,
    >at least, will probably need to: They’ll be voting for one
    >of these candidates.

    Are you one of the Libertarians who voted for Obama? If so, you have no right to throw stones. If you voted for Barr, I guess you’re off the hook. But, how could you argue that any one of the people on stage tonight would be worse by half than Obama?

    1. Gingrich could definitely be worse.

      I think Bachmann, Romney, Cain, and absolutely Ron Paul would be better.

      Not sure about the others.

      1. Gingrich said he would repeal Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, and ObamaCare. For all of his faults, this alone makes him far better than Obama.

        1. Gingrich has said a lot of shit he turned out not to actually believe in. You really believe a politician’s words over their actions?

          1. That’s not going to happen, anyway. If it did, sure, I’d vote for him before I’d vote for a known disaster like Obama. Assuming for argument’s sake that the LP didn’t run a candidate.

          2. Let me tell you about loyalty oaths!

        2. Because the problem with this country is that Wall Street is policed too much…

          1. I’m laughing at the part where you think the “policing” is effective and worth the costs.

            1. How would we know?

      2. How do you know what belief Romney will have on any issue for more than a week? Weather vanes make fun of him for changing positions so quickly.

    2. I voted for Obama. Hate to admit but there it is.

      Bob Barr was a sellout, gasping his last publicity as politicians seek, a sad-sack act in a tiny venue…like Milli Vanilli playing the state fair. Pathetic.

      McCain technically had my vote, but after cancel-debate-for-TARP and goofy-but-scary ‘We’re all Georgians now’ shit gave me pause. A cloaked liberaltard still seeking confrontation with…the Russians? Next.

      With Obama, I assumed him to be a lefty bowl of corny flakes for sure, but I really did think with his legal background he’d be suited to figuring out the thorny legal ambiguities regarding the War on Terror, ‘enemy combatants,’ Gitmo, etc. Maybe not even do things and get processes I agreed with, but at least define these ambiguities in legal process to give the political debate somewhere to start.

      Boy was I wrong… Feel like the Democrat who voted for Nixon (when he shoulda just wrote-in Cheech…or Chong). I would’ve much rather wasted my vote on some absurdity like that, or not voted not at all in retrospect.

      1. In your defense, I’m not sure there were really any ‘good’ choices.

        As hard as it is to admit, I also voted that way.

      2. I went with Chuck Baldwin. He’s crazy, but endearingly so.

      3. Bob Barr. I felt okay with that until he started trying to get Duvalier back the money he stole from Haiti. Fuck you, Bob.

        1. Although to be fair, I was voting for (LP candidate). I mean, I voted for Bednarik.

          1. I voted for Barr and still feel OK about that, because Obama or McCain would have meant voting for a shit sandwich versus a turd sandwich, and voting LP sends a message even if the candidate is far from perfect.

            1. voting LP sends a message

              Same here. Plus, depending on your state, it can help with ballot access down the road.

        2. Babar.

    3. I’d go as far to say that a vote for the libertarian presidential nominee this election is too risky unless the Republican candidate is Jon Huntsman or Rick Santorum. I have no idea how any self respecting human being could vote for either of those two.

      Getting Obama out of office really is a necessity. We can’t survive what a “mandate” will allow him to do via regulation.

      1. I think Huntsman is by far the better Mormon running for the Republican nomination. Did I miss something where he signed HuntsmanCare into law or something equally vile?

        1. I mean, a Mormon defending civil unions for same-sex couples versus Mr. RomneyCare, and you pick the latter?

          1. No doubt. I am not a fan but he was the least obnoxiously authoritarian person on that stage not surnamed Paul.

      2. Strategic voting is silly. It doesn’t matter who you vote for. Sorry to burst your bubble.

        1. The more I learn about public choice theory, the more comfortable I feel voting my conscience.

      3. I’ll still be voting LP, but I have the good sense to live in Texas. The republican nominee will carry this state no matter what I do.

        1. Exactly the reason I didn’t feel bad voting for Barr, and why I’ll probably vote LP when it’s going to be Perry v Obama.

  17. but I really did think with his legal background he’d be suited to figuring out the thorny legal ambiguities regarding the War on Terror, ‘enemy combatants,’ Gitmo, etc.

    Yeah. Hate to say “we told you so,” but…

    1. I really did think with his legal background

      To be perfectly honest, his legal backgound is quite, quite minimal.

      1. Sure, totally is. But compared to what in the Presidential field of 2008?

        And in a sense I think Uncle Sugar fancied himself a solution there as well. Remember his first day in office? Signing the ‘Close Gitmo in a year?’ I remember being like ‘Cool’ when he did that.

        Two-and-half years later….ugh.

        But it was the last time I think you saw the vacuum tubes glow in that tiny mind all by them little selves. In retrospect, its obvious the moron didn’t know what he was up against in his opponents, whether institutional or political.

        Consistently undermining his opponents is truly a fatal conceit. The left collectively makes that mistake. Always goes like this…

        1. Laugh at how ignorant Tea Partiers are for instance.
        2. Said Tea Partiers hand left their political ass on a plate.
        3. Left blames the scoreboard for losing, pines if only they could be the scorer, then the game would be fun again.
        4. Repeat.

  18. All you guys who break down and vote for someone “electable” at election time, instead of going with the Libertarian candidate, are like Charlie Brown. Every time, you keep your eye on the football, and it’s usually a different football, so you think that “maybe this time” you’ll kick it through the goalposts. But it’s always Lucy HOLDING the football, and so you always end up flat on your back after an anguished AUUUGGGHH!

    Sad to say, you need to punch out the bitch and take the football. That is to say, you have to deal a significant (dare I hope, mortal) blow to the two-faced monoparty by refusing to endorse ANY of their sockpuppets. Whether Lucy Monoparty has her “Doctor” face on (Demos) or shows her grouchy, greedy face (GOP), the consequences will be the same for you, Charlie Brown. I’ve watched that happen, over and over again for over 30 years, and I am simply embarrassed for you, Chuck.

    1. ^ THIS. ^ Every last bit of this.

      +1,000,000,000.

    2. You’re just bitter that neither party will let you marry Marcie.

      1. I can’t disagree. Voting for Badnarik was somewhat damaging to me as a first-time voter in ’04.

        Voting for someone “electable” in ’08 was even more damaging to me.

        1. I’ve always replied to the “electable” theme by pointing out to Democrats that that would have meant voting for Reagan and Nixon during their reelection landslide victories, because no one else would have stood a chance.

          I’m hard pressed to come up with a similar example for a Republican, because Democrats rarely even get 50% of the vote when they get elected president.

    3. This presupposes that the selected Libertarian candidate is also legitimate, sincere, and acceptable. A good many of us decided in 2008 that Barr was not.

      1. How’s that working out for you, so far?

        1. President Barr would have been much, much better than President Obama. Trillion plus deficits with no end in sight sets the barr really low.

          1. Plus, I’m fairly certain we wouldn’t currently be struggling versus a naked federal uber-power grab named “BarrCare,” or despairing over “Barr’s war in Libya,” either.

    4. If Libertarians are serious, they better do better than Bob Barr this time.

      If you are really serious, ‘go Galt’ and vote ‘NO’. Do not sanction the Statists with your production.

    5. I have little problem as a libertarian voting for Johnson or Paul. If either of them were nominated, I’d vote for him rather than the LP.

    6. Sadly, a great metaphor.

      Next time I get a chance to kick, Lucy’s the ball.

  19. Should be interesting to see how that all works out.

    http://www.anon-vpn.it.tc

  20. I’ll admit that I did not torture myself and watch the debate.

    Either way, we’re screwed financially.

    I can only hope for a ‘pub to win who is marginally better than Bam-Bam. At best that would mean an Obamacare repeal and some business deregulation. But it would still take a strong political will (and majority) for them to touch entitlements. I’ve got this bad feeling that the USA will go into a budget/money spiral first and only then will cuts be forced upon us.

    1. I think it’s gonna be like New Zealand, where the effing socialists were in power and had to chop back the state because they were headed for a cliff.

    2. I’ve got this bad feeling that the USA will go into a budget/money spiral first and only then will cuts be forced upon us.

      In that scenario it ain’t gonna be just cuts. It’s gonna be massive tax increases too. We’re talking, drop your pants and bend over while the govt puts on a sandpaper condom, type of tax increases, not the gentle stuff like letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

  21. I didn’t watch the debate but I heard some soundbites on the radio from it this morning.

    By far the silliest thing I heard was Pawlenty claiming that Bachmann had never accomplished anything in Congress and offering up “proof” that she wasn’t able to prevent Obamacare from getting passed by the Democrats.

    Just how exactly did Pawlenty think she could stop it witht Democrats controlling the House, Senate and Presidency?

    1. super powers!

      1. I hear she can shoot crazy rays from her eyes, kinda like Cyclops.

        1. All females have that power.

          1. Not just out of our eyes, either.

    2. Just how exactly did Pawlenty think she could stop it

      Channeling Jesus of course. Using the dead talisman of Oral Robert’s skull, which is still on great terms with Big Man I hear.

      All while hiding behind shrubbery.

    3. That was Tim’s point. She didn’t accomplish jack shit. She claims she “led the fight against obamacare blahblahblah” (a blatant lie, for starters), yet “she” didn’t even come close to winning, stalemating, or even improving “her” position.

      If Bachmann was a man, he’d be: a) virtually unknown, b) a laughing stock for anybody who was aware of his existence.

      TEAM RED is so desperate to have their token woman/black guy that they hero worship these fucking idiot noobs for no other reason that they aren’t the “old, white, male” trope. See: Sarah Palin and Allen West.

      1. TEAM RED is so desperate to have their token woman/black guy that they hero worship these fucking idiot noobs

        Just following TEAM BLUE’s lead, Zuo.

        Hey, hero worshipping a fucking idiot noob black guy was the winning formula last time, once he beat out the token woman with no discernable experience for the job in the primaries.

        1. For the fucking WIN!

        2. Yes, but playing identity politics is huge part of TEAM BLUE. Not so much for TEAM RED – until very recently. And its more desperate in TEAM RED’s case, since everybody knows BLUE has 95% of blacks and 65% of women firmly in their camp. They at least have an excuse for coming up with their inept shit-for-brains token candidates – they are major shares of their party, the party of identity politics. RED really has no excuse for promoting these stupid unqualified mofos, on the other hand.

  22. There were no divisions amongst the Republicans about tax hikes, though: Every single one raised their hand to signal they’d turn down a deal that cut 10 dollars of spending in exchange for one dollar of tax increases. Even if it balanced the budget, and the new tax revenues came entirely from closing targeted tax giveaways and loopholes? Apparently.

    …shocked I say!

  23. Snore.. The only one up there with a personality is Cain. Ron Paul has the right ideas but is not the right guy for President. VP, Ok, Tres Secy, OK, President, no.

    I’ve never been so politically depressed, and I’ve been a member of the LP since 1996…

    1. Cain doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but he sounds good doing it.

      1. O, bitter irony!

        1. No,jugears, don’t flatter yourself. You don’t know what you’re talking about either – thats for damn sure. But your tone sounds like a spoiled teenage girl on the rag. Doesn’t sound good, at all.

    2. While I consider his views on Islam to be abhorrent, I do like him otherwise. His religious bigotry is probably due to remediable ignorance, as he’s walked back some of his statements from the previous debate, and it’s not like the bigoted stuff he was proposing to do was really that damaging.

  24. I’d totally take the 10 to 1 deal if it were closing tax breaks. Our corporate tax rate is absurd, but it’s equally absurd that one of the largest corporations in the country paid zero. Lower the corporate tax, but make everybody pay it.

    1. What corporation was that?

    2. Agreed. Eliminating loopholes isn’t the same as lowering rates. Especially loopholes that require overhead greater than a single tax accountant (as per that used by GE.)

  25. Meh. I’m still reregistering republican to vote for Ron Paul. He’s no libertarian messiah, and he’s not gonna win, but he is much of the reason things like “the constitution” are actually being talked (other than as a vehicle to ban married gay immigrant’s abortions)

    and I don’t think you have to be a raving Paulite to see Suderman’s positively struggling to find something wrong with everything the guy says or does. At least he managed not to wrap it up with Paul daring to question our need to fund a qaurter of Israel’s economy time.

    I don’t think we need a peace maker or bipartisan deal broker. We need a 4 year veto machine to throw a wrench in any and every attempt to expand government. Even if Hell freezes over and someone of a fairly libertarian bent gets into executive office, they’re not going to be loved. I think we should get over that now.

    I don’t think libertarians have any more to be depressed about than usual, except for Gary Johnson’s exclusion. But then again, that’s business as usual.

    1. Assuming Johnson stays invisible, I don’t know why everyone here wouldn’t vote for Paul. There’s not even a second choice.

      Come general election time, voting LP is always an option, though I’d be shocked if libertarians didn’t all vote for Paul if he got nominated.

      1. Seriously? You think ALL libertarians would vote for Paul instead of the Libertarian Party candidate or blank balloting or not voting or even voting for Obama?

        Lot more diversity among libertarians than that.

        1. Okay, mostly. But if Paul were the candidate, and we had a chance of getting someone in office who would actually try to carve up leviathan, I’d be appalled at any so-called libertarians who voted against him.

          Anyone who calls himself a libertarian who votes for Obama in 2012 isn’t a very good libertarian or hasn’t been paying much attention. Even the divided government argument doesn’t work with a president who is so willing to operate extralegally.

    2. Not just a veto machine. The President can eliminate entire sections of the government and fire all the employees, such as the Department of Education, without Congress’ approval, because the Executive branch is duty bound to not acquiesce to unconstitutional laws and programs.

      It would be hilarious watching Congress trying to impeach a president for KEEPING his or her oath of office to uphold the constitution.

      1. The President can eliminate entire sections of the government and fire all the employees, such as the Department of Education, without Congress’ approval, because the Executive branch is duty bound to not acquiesce to unconstitutional laws and programs.

        What a fascinating SCOTUS fight that would be. We’re long overdue for a genuine Constitutional crisis anyway.

        1. The President is also duty bound to ignore SCOTUS when they act unconstitutionally, unless I missed the part of the Constitution where it says, “Notwithstanding the plain meaning of the preceding language, the Constitution shall be interpreted to mean whatever the hell any majority of the Supreme Court says it means, even if it directly contradicts that plain language.”

          It would be entertaining as hell to watch a libertarian president tell both Congress and SCOTUS to fuck off and quit violating their oaths of office, and dare them to try and remove him or her from office.

          1. You really think the president should have that kind of power? Even a Democrat?

            Of course what you really want is your personal interpretation of the constitution to trump all 3 branches of government, because you’re special.

            1. The president should have that power when it’s blatantly clear something is un-Constitutional.

              Like Obamacare.

              1. Seriously, though… you’d cum in your own mouth if Obama had the kind of power to create the socialist utopia you and your ilk want, Tony.

                1. I would donkey punch myself if Obama could only bring about the final, apocalyptic onset of the all-powerful federal MommyState.

              2. You know, it really takes all three branches to think something is constitutional to make it so. If just one strongly believes and is willing to act on the belief that a law is unconstitutional, that “veto” is enough to stop the law in its tracks.

              3. That hasn’t been settled yet, and it’s highly unlikely that the entire law will be struck down even by this supreme court.

                Again, you think it’s blatantly unconstitutional because self-interested partisans deem it so and you lap it up. This is why unilateral power is dangerous. I don’t want your guys to have it and you don’t want mine to.

              4. The president should have that power when it’s blatantly clear something is un-Constitutional.

                Blatantly clear to whom?

                There are plenty of things that would be blatantly clear to, say, Obama that wouldn’t be blatantly clear to you or I. Such as the mistakenness of Citizens United and Heller.

            2. You really think the president should have that kind of power? Even a Democrat?

              Ahem, MY special interpretation paid off the national debt!

              SCOTUS can make their decision; they can then also enforce it!

              1. Forcing the Cherokees to move 1000 miles west paid off the debt?

                1. It didn’t prevent me from doing so!

          2. It’s pretty clear that each branch has an independent right to judge whether something is constitutional or not. While the judicial branch has the power to strike down or interpret laws, the other branches have power to push their interpretations, too. Congress can repeal laws or even start the amendment process, the president can veto laws or refuse to enforce them.

            1. This is why, in principle, I have no problem with the executive declining to defend a law in court that it genuinely believes is unconstitutional.

              1. Who determines if it’s genuine belief?

                There’s more awareness of the lack of superhuman oversight in government at a Catholic Marxist convention.

  26. The big takeaway from all this: we’re screwed.

    Much as I admire and respect Ron Paul, I just don’t see him winning next year. Ultimately I think history will treat him very well, as a lone voice of reason that the country should’ve listened to more. But I don’t think that’ll translate into 2012 electoral success. Most likely, it’ll be either President Perry or President Obama again next year.

    Meanwhile, the twin disasters known as our fiscal and monetary policies are already upon us, and neither Perry nor Obama has any intention of taking them seriously.

  27. neither Perry nor Obama has any intention of taking them seriously.

    At least it’s possible to beat some sense into Perry and dissuade him from his worst impulses.

  28. I think this tweet about Ron Paul is just funny.
    “Ron Paul = Doc Brown from Back to the Future… Ideas are there, just can’t figure them out without getting blown up by Libyans!”

  29. It’s nauseating to know that Rick Santorum has higher polling numbers than Gary Johnson…

    1. Santorum has higher name recognition. But not in a good way.

      1. Santorum can’t even occur without a Johnson.

  30. As anyone who has seen Fargo knows, true Minnesota Mean requires a woodchipper.

    1. Fargo is in North Dakota.

  31. Biggest douche of the night: Santorum

    Greatest line of the night: “We just plain don’t mind out own business”

  32. Here you can choose more new products, enjoy more discounts, so you get favorite products while saving money.

  33. Greetings Now i’m for that reason happy I stubled onto any site,Nike Dunk High Prefer came across you will just by error, at the same time Document was first Nike Dunk 2008 Gold Black browsing relating to Bing just for something.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.