Election 2012

Watch Matt Welch and Michael C. Moynihan Talk About 'What's wrong with the Republican Party'


On Friday, Nov. 9, I sat down with former Reasoner and current Daily Beaster Michael C. Moynihan to talk about the Republican Party in the wake of last week's election loss. Six and a half minutes of hand gestures, immigration discussion, and more:

NEXT: Reason TV Replay: Honor Flight Brings World War II Vets to See Their Memorial

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. Fake link (VVattsupwiththat instead of Wattsupwiththat).

  1. What’s wrong? It’s filled with people who aren’t satisfied w/ just being pro-life (a defensible position a big chunk of the population at least sympathizes with), but have to prove their manliness by saying rape related pregnancies are the will of the Baby Jeebus despite the rousing condemnation of decent people, refusing to leave the race for comments like that.

    What’s also wrong? A party establishment based on whose turn it is, and being in favor of “limited govt” only in the sense that they’ll, from time to time, underbid Dems when trying to buy votes w/ my tax money.

    The establishment doesn’t want to rock the boat, and the party activists want to outdo each other in being all Jeasusy.

    1. I can tell you what’s wrong with the Republican Party here in the Bronx. In their grass roots, large numbers of Republicans have moved out and/or died off. In their leadership, after Guy Velella’s conviction, his protege J. Savino came out like he was going to reinvigorate the party, but appears to have basically given up.

  2. “What’s wrong with the Republican Party?” More like “What’s wrong with TJ Yeldon’s hands in clutch situations?!” Amirite?!

    1. freshman make freshmen mistakes. He’s still pretty good.

      1. Probably true. Just gets me that he’s had crucial fumbles in two consecutive, critical games.

  3. Losing?!? To the fucking Bengals? FIX THIS RIGHT NOW ELI.

    1. Eli Manning is trying to become the first QB admitted to the Pro Hall of Fame with more INTs than TDs since Joe Namath…If only Victor Cruz would stop coming down with those clutch catches.

      1. Or at least stop drawing phantom personal fouls against the Stillers D.

    2. You can’t spell delicious without Eli.

      1. I turn on the Giants at the smallest prompting, and I’m turning on them right now. You want to suck, Eli? THEN I CHEER YOUR LOSS. Go Bengals!

        1. I’m rooting for the Bengals just because NYG is a potential WC competitor for Da Bearss.

          1. Another interception?!? I FORSAKE YOU ELI. You are dead to me!

          2. Bears will be getting exposed by Texans today. After getting their asses kicked by the Packers you knew they weren’t the best team in that division, especially when they’ve had an easy schedule.

            Only thing that could stop the Packers today was their bye week.

            1. The Texans haven’t exactly played a tough schedule either. And they got blown out at home by the Packers!

            2. You mean their only loss, way back in Week Two? (yawn)
              Let’s see how the MudPackers do in Soldier Field on Dec 16.

              I am more worried about how the Bears will do against the 49ers in SF next week than Houston at home tonight. For some reason, the Bears always stink it up in Candlestick.

          3. You’re a Bears guy. Fuck you, man. That’s worse than supporting the Redskins (RACIST).

        2. You think that is bad. Charles Johnson forces a fumble on Peyton Manning, only to have Cam Newton throw a pick that carried for a touchdown on the very next play. There are two teams on the Panthers. A suck ass quarterback ruining it for a decent line up on offense, and a first rate defense that has the added pressure of scoring in the offensive drive and special teams to add against their own stands.

    3. You’re just a Hater. With a fat, italic H.

    4. LOL Eli right now.

      1. OH MY FUCKING GOD. Fuck you Giants, I’m a Bengals fan now. Thank Jeebus I have a Seahawks game later.

        1. Eli is so competitive he wants to even outsuck Romo when it comes to completely falling apart in games.

          1. Eli is the best at being the worst.

            1. au contraire. Best clutch play quarterback in the history of the NFL.

      2. If I were the Bengals, I wouldn’t even try to sack him. Just get near enough that he panics and throws an INT.


    5. Awwwww. Ewi’s awm is tiyud.

    6. At least Peyton is getting things done.

  4. I’m a Jeffersonian republican, and I’m kind of hoping the RINOs find themselves replaced by people more agreeable to the governance of a free republic.


    1. But in 2016 they’ll purge the RINOs and likely coalesce around Santorum….or does Santorum coalesce around you?

      1. Well played, good sir. Well-fucking played. Have an Internet soaked in the purest of children’s tears.

        And as fucking retarded as the RNC and their branches are, I doubt they’ll allow themselves another sure failure by choosing someone like Santorum. The guy’s openly authoritarian. That he had any support at all is a sad reflection upon the state of the electorate.

        1. Well the thing is Herman Cain pretty muched summed up their mentality: they want their own Obama-like movement to excite a new generation of Republicans, but they fucking hate the Pauls even though they could give it to them.

          So my guess is 2016 will be a three man race between Santorum, Paul, and Christie. The so-con vs the libertarian vs the moderate.

          1. Fuck Cain. He had his shot, and he blew it big-time.

            I honestly think Rand’s the one with the best chance to try out an invigorating restoration of the Republican Party with a libertarian lean in the next cycle, but he can only do that if the RNC doesn’t fuck him. How do we convince them to lay off?

            1. How do we convince them to lay off?

              Process of elimination. The thing that really haunted Ron Paul’s primary run was the fact that people never thought he was a serious candidate because he was only a congressman and was 77.

              In 2016 Rand will have served a full Senate term, will be young at 54, and will have all his dad’s connections in the state GOP apparatuses that they won this year. No one will be able to dispute that he’s electable.

              1. That’s the ticket, I think. Rand’s a capable politician. He plays the game. And if he can hook enough of the establishment, he has a real chance in 2016.

                1. What legislative accomplishments does Rand have? I’m willing to accept preventing legislation as an accomplishment.

                  I don’t know of anything he’s accomplished other than making some noise.

                  1. It doesn’t matter if he can’t pass a bill, if he’s like his dad he can build a record of voting NO consistently on shitty legislation. Who knows what kind of horrible laws the Obama administration and the Democrats will try to pass in four years.

                    1. Building a record of “no” votes that pass lopsidedly “yes” is no accomplishment. All it gets you is a cult following. More important are the things we hardly ever hear about, that consist of subtly deflecting things in committee, getting amendments that may look like minor details, derailing votes so they never occur, etc.

                  2. Well, start with this:


                    1. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po…..-agencies/

                      Then that.

                    2. And this is a great Lone Warrior token:

                      “In February, Paul was one of two Republicans to vote against extending three key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (roving wiretaps, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance of “lone wolves” ? individuals not linked to terrorist groups). In May, he remained the last senator opposing the PATRIOT Act, and was ultimately defeated on May 26.”

                    3. And then this:


                      And this:


                    4. None of those items points to being a capable politician.

                      He wrote up a budget that no one in Congress gave a shit about, even within his own party. And he failed to stop a bunch of bad legislation.

                      I agree with him on most stuff, but a capable politician? He’s not shown that yet.

            2. Remember all those legislative accomplishments Obama had in the Senate…?

              I think RPA meant he’s a capable politician in pleasing a wide enough base, or at least not alienating them (as Ron’s foreign or monetary policy might). He didn’t say he was a capable legislator/statesman.

              1. BO isn’t a capable politician either.

                1. By politician he means “playing the game.” Is he passing legislation? No. One man can’t do that. But he has been walking that line of appealing to the party and appealing to HIS base of support, which often don’t align.

                  1. And I’d say he’s a better politician today than he was 4 years ago.

                    It’s a skill that gets better with practice, for some.

          2. Christie is toast in the GOP after what he did for Obama three days before the election. If he knows what’s good for him, he’ll switch parties.

            1. Jerseycrats would eat him alive if he did so. They have no use for him, beyond a rubber stamp for the remainder of his term.

            2. I hope he switches parties, too, because he’s at the top of my list of “Republicans who could beat Hillary in 2016”

              1. Christie would make McCain’s RED turnout look monstrous.

                We’d be talking for years about the vanishing conservative voters of 2016.

                1. “Where’d Christie’s voters go?”
                  “He ate them”

                  1. Christie has a better chance of winning the Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Championship than the GOP primary.

                    1. Then the GOP primary winner has no chance of beating Hillary in 2016.

            3. I watched him on TV after the storm explaining to reporters why he wasn’t going to give away free gas like NY did, and with the way he got that crowd in the palm of his hand even while giving the correct answer, I got to thinking why isn’t this guy running instead of Romney. Then I remembered he’s fat and he talks like a dock worker.

              1. Got a link to the video?

                1. Nah, it was live news.

            4. The Northeast used to produce a lot of Republican presidential nominees y serious contenders, but not so many lately. This Romney broke thru, but he may turn out to be just an outlier rather than starting a new trend for people like Christie, Giuliani, etc.

              Would it be very surprising to see Romney get the nomination again? Consider that he lost by only a little against an incumbent for whom racial dynamics were IMO the decisive factor, which won’t be the case in 2016. Why wouldn’t he want to run again, and why wouldn’t they nominate him again? Nixon lost for president, then lost for governor, but 6 yrs. later won the presidency after the GOP had what they saw as a disastrous experience with Goldwater.

          3. What about Ryan? Did the fact he couldn’t even pull his home state over to Romney sink his national chances in 2016?

            1. Kerry/Edwards lost North Carolina and John Edwards was still a candidate 4 years later.

            2. Ryan was a horrible choice for VP.The GOP could have done better with Sarah Palin.

              1. Choosing Ryan was a sop to the Tea Party. As it turns out he became a vulnerability because people loves their medicare the way it is.

                1. Nothing says “tea party” like supporting the auto bailouts (in addition to TARP).

                  1. I didn’t say Ryan was in the Tea Party; he was a guy who the TP liked for the most part.

                    1. If Ryan wasn’t representing a Blue state he would have been targeted in the primary as a RINO.

              2. Do you think Romney picked Ryan to look more moderate?

                That’s not how moderates viewed the choice.

          4. Mr 9-9-9 calling Paul unserious. That’s just a — how do you even?

            1. A pizza in every pot, and a car in every garage.

              Cain 4 prosperity!

          5. “So my guess is 2016 will be a three man race between Santorum, Paul, and Christie. ”

            Jeb Bush just wrote a book on immigration. If you don’t think he’s going to be in that race, you’re nuts.

      2. A lot can happen in four years, but right now I’d guess it’s going to be a socialist social conservative like Huckabee.

        1. If Huckabee is a socialist, 95% of America are socialists, and therefore you’re never going to win on an anti-socialism platform.

  5. Let me guess: What’s wrong with the Republicans is that they don’t agree with Matt Welch.

    Just like the Tigers lost the World Series because Jim Leyland didn’t make all the same decisions I would have.

    1. If it makes you feel any better, I would have gone with your “the Republican candidate may suck, but he’d be better than Obama” if the Republican candidate were a little better. I just couldn’t bring myself to vote for Romney.

      1. Which one of the bozos running for the Republican nomination this year would have been more electable?

        1. Huntsman or Pawlenty, maybe. Which from a libertarian POV would actually be worse than Romney.

          Also, Rick Perry would have had a shot if he could avoid looking stupid for a few weeks.

          Huckabee, on the other hand, would have mopped the floor with Obama.

          1. I agree that Huntsman might have had a chance. Obama was pretty brilliant in making him ambassador to China, knowing that it would make him too poisonous to the right to challenge him in 2012.

            I’m not sure more so-con juice from Huckabee would have wiped the floor with Obama.

            1. Shut the fuck up you cunt. Go die in a fire.

            2. Despite what Reason is trying to peddle, Romney didn’t lose because of social conservatism. He lost because there was a perception that he was an uncaring arrogant rich guy who didn’t care about the middle class and would take away their govt goodies.

              I fucking wish it were social conservatism that cooked his goose, but it wasn’t.

              1. “Despite what Reason is trying to peddle, Romney didn’t lose because of social conservatism. He lost because there was a perception that he was an uncaring arrogant rich guy who didn’t care about the middle class and would take away their govt goodies.”

                I’d agree with that.

            3. the ideal candidate (i guess) would be one that motivates the so-cons and the religious right (realizing they intersect) but does so without turning off the independent/libertarian minded.

              not an easy task.

              not convinced that huckabee would have wiped the floor, either

              regardless, the fact is its clear that people were very dissatisfied with obama to the extent that this was NOT an obama WIN, it was a repub/Romney LOSS.

              big distinction. this case was the republican’s to win or flub. they flubbed.

              1. How the hell were the Republicans supposed to have won?

                I mean, it seems obvious that they should have won with an unpopular incumbent in the midst of a terrible economy. But if you look at how things actually unfolded, what could they have done differently that would have netted more votes?

                1. I think that Romney was put at an extreme disadvantage in the general election because of the positions he took to win the Republican primary, particularly on immigration.

                2. i think romney could have done a much better job at avoiding the appearance of an elitist horse’s ass. that’s the IMPRESSION people were getting … that he was “one of the 1%” that he didn’t care about the common man, etc.etc

                  it’s ABSOLUTELY untrue, but i am talking perception, not reality

                  and he failed to market himself well, to put it mildly

                  1. But how was he supposed to do that? How was he supposed to prove a negative?

                    It’s not like he ever did anything on the campaign trail that gave that impression. It was ALL Dem propaganda.

                    1. Umm… except for the video where he said he didn’t care about 47% of Americans too poor to pay taxes.

                    2. That wasn’t a video, it was an audio recording of a private meeting. And, he didn’t say that, he just said he didn’t think he could get their votes.

                    3. No, there was video. He said he couldn’t get their votes because they are “dependent on government, who believe they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it”

                      Why would poor people think Romney didn’t care about them? It must be the Dem propaganda.

                3. Attacked Obama.

                  Mittens played the whole campaign as prevent defense when he never held a real lead

                  1. Romney might have had a chance to win if he had been able to run against Obamacare.

                    He was in no position to constantly hammer home how terrible that law was. Any other R would have pointed to the inability of Mass to keep their costs down as our country’s future.

                    1. Running against obamacare wouldn’t help Republicans with women and minorities, who support the law.

                      And more importantly, many of the components of Obamacare are popular with everybody, white males included, so Republicans had to run with “repeal and replace”, which to most people sounds like a waste of time.

                    2. If Romney had been able to run against Obamacare, he’d’ve never been governor of Mass., and hence not been considered seriously for the nomination. Romneycare was the best compromise he could get with a “left”-leaning electorate that seriously wanted single payer. Someone who couldn’t make that compromise couldn’t’ve been elected.

                      See, the trouble with being a politician is that you’re not really the boss. You can get away with a lot when the actual boss, the voters, or their spies the newspeople, aren’t looking, but not when they are.

              2. Sorry, Dunphy, you’ve got it exactly backward. This election was all about Obama. Nobody was going to vote based on anything whoever the Republicans nominated. Cain might’ve altered that but only because of his skin color, not anything he might’ve said — no matter how stupid!

        2. Cain or Gingrich, for starters. Gingrich would have skullfucked Obama in the debates without so much as breaking a sweat.

          That aside, I was talking about my personal inclination, not anybody else’s.

          1. Independents HATE Gingrich. BO would have won by 20 points.

            1. I think that’s been exaggerated, but even so, I would have taken him instead of Romney just to watch Obama drop at the debates.

              1. yea, gingrich is clearly much wonkier than obama and a much better speaker when speaking off the cuff.

                the problem is a substantial # of people loathe him. his likability #’s have mass suckitude

                he aint quite cheney’esque, but he’s pretty bad in that respect.

                also, claims are made with some validity that he’s a loathsome PERSON. whatever one thinks of obama and romney they are both likable people and when it comes to their personal life, apparently above (most) reproach

                1. Does anyone even know anything about BO’s personal life? He’s never done anything outside of politics. He supposedly likes the White Sox but can’t name any of their players, past or present.

                  1. Dunphy, Obama’s family background is one of militant communists and slime. If anybody looked deeply enough and droned about it on national TV enough, he’d drop like a motherfucker, especially with moderates.

                  2. my point is he doesn’t have clinton’esque (apparently) “personal issues”

                    iow, i see no reason to suspect he’s schtupping everything with a pulse or using state police to cover up his shenanigans type stuff. dats all

                    1. Uh, Clinton was probably the most-liked president in recent history.

                    2. His popularity was low when the Lewinsky scandal broke, but it bounced back when Gingrich failed to convict him during impeachment.

                    3. Huh? Gingrich wasn’t in the House leadership anymore at that point. Denny Hastert was speaker and Gingrich was not one of the House managers pursuing the conviction.

                    4. He was in the leadership when impeachment proceedings started– He thought they would result in the GOP picking up dozens of seats. Instead, when democrats picked up seats and the public turned on the GOP’s impeachment prosecution, Gingrich announced he would retire.

                      It was Gingrich’s baby.

              2. I can’t say that I paid close attention to the republican debates, but didn’t most people think that Romney beat Gingrich in both the Florida debates?

                I think Gingrich’s debate performance against Obama would have been similar to Romney’s.

                1. Who cares? Nobody paid att’n to Obama’s opponent in the debates. How the debates affected the polls was based entirely on Obama’s performance — and oh, yeah, there was that other guy on stage too. I bet if someone did one of those tests where they measure the amount of att’n to a video at different points, it would confirm that while not-Obama was speaking, people more or less took a mental break so they could focus on Obama.

                  1. People payed plenty of attention to Romney when he won the first debate. It made him competitive again. Had he won the second and third debates, he might have won. The margin of victory wasn’t that big.

                    1. No, they didn’t pay att’n to Romney in debate 1. He didn’t do great, but nobody cared anyway. What people noticed, however, was that Obama was awful. That’s why Romney was competitive again.

          2. Fair enough, I don’t see either one of those guys doing better than Romney did.

            1. I think Cain could have picked up significant “minority” blocks and tipped the scale, simply put.

              1. I think that’s wishful thinking. What, other than his blackness, did he bring that would attract minority votes?

                1. Oh joe, why are you so short? You’re worse than Eli, you fucking loser.

                  1. Is he really Joe? Whoever he is, he has a raging hard-on for Hussein I.

                2. 1) Blackness would probably have been sufficient if he’d lay off some of his more Huckster-esque bullshit.

                  That was enough for people that voted for Obama in 2008, and it would have been a great enough point in Cain’s favor that it may have meant a Republican victory.

                  “Proud, self-made African-American millionaire” sounds exceptionally palatable. “Arrogant, Mormon, white country club asshole”, which is how lots of people perceived Willard, isn’t.

                  1. Blacks vote for Obama because he’s a Democrat, not because he’s black.

                    Al Gore got more of the black vote in 2000 than Obama did last week.

                3. Derider is right. Most blacks aren’t racist, they’re just moochers.

                  1. Voting for a black guy for president because he’s the same race as you is racist, Tulpa. Maybe not consciously so, at least in relation to their limited concept of racism, but it’s true nevertheless.

                    1. The Dem candidate for prez usually gets 90% of the black vote anyway, so it’s not like you can attribute it *just* to his race.

                    2. JUST to his race? Of course not. But it’s certainly a factor with many people, and not just blacks.

                    3. It isn’t just about what percentage of blacks who bother to show up vote Democrat. It’s also about the fact that a lot of blacks who neither know nor care anything about the issues show up to vote for Obama simply because of his skin color. Blacks are the single most predictable voting bloc in the country, sure, but they aren’t very reliable about actually showing up to vote. But in 2012 the percentage of the electorate that was black outstripped the percentage of the population that was black in a lot of places. No way in hell that would have happened if President Hillary had been running for reelection.

                    4. Ok, but that’s not specific to blacks.

                      If there were an atheist libertarian running for president, a lot of “principled nonvoters” at H+R would probably get to the polls to be part of history.

                    5. I guess I just don’t see voting for someone because they believe similar things as you do to be on the same level as voting for someone because they have a skin tone that’s similar to yours. If you’re enthused by the former, that’s as it should be. If you’re enthused by the latter… wow, fuck you.

                    6. If you’re enthused by the latter… wow, fuck you.

                      I’m about as far from an identity-polticking leftist as they get, but I can totally understand a black person wanting a black president. There is racism and discrimination left in this society and there is definitely not equality of outcome for blacks vs. whites. Now, the reasons for that inequality are various and diverse, and mostly NOT a result of actual racism, but it’s still there. White people simply don’t have the same outlook.

                    7. If conservatives want to win black votes, they need to start talking like Tulpa here.

                  2. That’s a step in the right direction, but I’m not sure calling all black people parasites is a good strategy to gain their votes.

                    1. I’m not running for office.

              2. I don’t see Cain getting much of the black vote, which is ironic since he’s more black than BO. I also can barely imagine how nasty the “luminaries” in the civil rights movement outrage industry would get towards Cain.

                1. He might not have gotten much of the black vote, but he’d’ve reduced black voter turnout from the extraordinary 2008 numbers, because they wouldn’t’ve cared so much at the margin to come out to pick between two black candidates. More importantly, others would’ve been unafraid to vote for the Republican, or to not vote at all, secure in the knowledge that as long as the country was electing one or the other black, they couldn’t say the country was bigoted.

                  However, Obama would still have had a prove-blacks-are-competent factor going, because failure to be re-elected would show the country had disvalued the black president’s performance.

                  1. Did white males have a similar strategy? Do you think they would have changed their voting habits if the democrats had run Elliot Spitzer?

                    1. No, because white candidates are a dime a dozen, and practically nobody votes for anybody because they’re white, because the country is not bigoted, and some of them are always eager to prove that by voting for a black candidate who’s at all competitive.

          3. “Gingrich would have skullfucked Obama in the debates without so much as breaking a sweat.”

            This is true, and would have been fun to see.

            1. But it wouldn’t be surprising. Apparently Newt would fuck anything.

              1. But that is his genius…don’t you see?

      2. in the continuing series of showing examples of freedom being EXPANDED (4th, 5th, 1st , 2nd amendment) in various court cases, citizen initiatives etc. to counter the meme that it’s only being contracted (which is ridiculous). some are WA state cases, other are circuit appeals court or nationwide.

        Huge (relatively) recent case…due to our state privacy provision we (LEO’s in WA state) can no longer search vehicle interior’s “incident to arrest” which has long been a legalized fishing expedition. huge victory for privacy)

        1. Oh, I know shit’s improving (it’s about 10 states, mostly Washington, Texas, Missouri, and New Hampshire), but yeah. It’s not all awful. But the fact of the matter is it’s getting much worse on the federal front, as well as on the east coast, and in California.

          As optimistic as I’d like to be, Dunphy, if the federal government becomes any more tyrannical, WA is going to bend over, take it up the ass, and do as it’s told, state doctrine be damned, and you know it. How many people do you know that are willing to stand up to DC?

          1. i would agree to a LARGE extent, exxcept on the federal front it’s gettting better on RKBA undeniably. would you agree?

            i do think WA will stand up to the feds on recreational mj. i think i will either be proven right or wrong, and i am 100% willign to say “my bad” if it turns out i was wrong. i would HOPE (but i realize it’s ridiculous to assume same from the negative nancy trolls here… a small %age of posters) that those who keep claiming WA LEO’s will roll over for the feds will admit THEIR error when and if they are proven wrong in the future, but again i don’t expect honesty from trolls

            regardless, i respect your reasoned post here.

            and it’s politeness

            when it comes to the national front, i will post some scotus cases as well (i’ve posted several appeals court later on) that evidence an expansion of liberty, but i’m the first to admit they are also making plenty of decisions that run contrary to liberty


            oh, and do you concede that on RKBA we are seeing nationwide expansion of liberty?

            1. RKBA is a mixed bag. The Supreme Scrotum of the United States has (for the near future, at least) solidified keeping and bearing arms as an individual right, but their concession that “reasonable restrictions” are acceptable renders it almost moot. “Reasonable restrictions” are whatever a particular government thinks they are. Take note of DC, where it’s so hellishly difficult to go through the process that guns are practically banned.

            2. Even on the federal front re drugs, some things are getting better. In recent years more researchers than ever have gotten permission to test hallucinogens on humans. And the drug testing in humans of whole cannabis extracts via sublingual spray is proceeding.

  6. What’s wrong with the Republican Party? Christers.

    1. Needz moar christfag!!!11!1!!

      /Shrike (AKA Obama’s Jockstrap)

  7. Which one of the bozos running for the Republican nomination this year would have been more electable?


    1. I totally agree. The fact that he could never win more than 5% in the primary was very comforting to me 10 months ago.

    2. Huntsman was totally unelectable.

    3. I doubt he was electable. Go back to that debate where he showed off his twerpy mandarin skills. He was essentially saying, “I am smart therefore vote for me.” Not, “Here is why you should vote for me. Here are my policies. This is how they’ll affect you.”

      He’s a bad politician.

      1. This has more to do with the anti-intellectualism in the GOP than any fault in Huntsman.

        He’s a bad politician because he didn’t realize that a moderate had zero chance to win the GOP nomination, not because he couldn’t have won a national election.

        1. A moderate WON the GOP nomination, you dumbass. The election is over. You can stop pretending you’re the heroine of A Handmaid’s Tale.

          1. He won only by describing himself as a “severe conservative” and taking far right positions on immigration, and other issues.

            Huntsman was always the candidate at the far left of the field, and that’s why he lost.

        2. Both comments are wrong. The man himself was the problem, not his policies. Romney, a moderate, won, after all.

      2. No, actually Ron Paul had it right: “Any of us can beat Obama.” Note that he said “can”, not “will”. It was a close election with Romney, and I’m sure it would’ve been as close with any not-Obama vs. Obama. The only candidate I now think might’ve been more electable would’ve been Cain, just by neutralizing part of the race factor. It’s just that a bunch of other contenders would’ve had to die for him to get the nomination.

  8. At least he didn’t have the millstone of protoBamaCare around his neck.

    1. it’s *a* millstone, but i think his argument that it was a STATE level program and that is distinguishable does “fly” so to speak, although it may be a bit too technical for some voters who just draw a 1:1 analogy

      1. No it’s not. RomneyCare goes to Romney’s character and his beliefs about government. He thinks it’s fine for the government to force people to buy a product. The fact it was a state government instead of the feds doesn’t change that.

        If Romney was elected in ’08, he’d have probably brought RomneyCare to America.

  9. in the continuing series of showing examples of freedom being EXPANDED (4th, 5th, 1st , 2nd amendment) in various court cases, citizen initiatives etc. to counter the meme that it’s only being contracted (which is ridiculous). some are WA state cases, other are circuit appeals court or nationwide.

    Huge (relatively) recent case…due to our state privacy provision we (LEO’s in WA state) can no longer search vehicle interior’s “incident to arrest” which has long been a legalized fishing expedition. huge victory for privacy)

    1. WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT HOLDS: (1) WASHINGTON CONSTITUTION’S SEARCH INCIDENT RULE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE SEARCH OF VEHICLE AFTER ARRESTEE-OCCUPANT HAS BEEN SECURED DESPITE PROBABLE CAUSE AS TO EVIDENCE OF CRIME OF ARREST BEING IN THE VEHICLE; (2) DEFENDANT WRIGHT WAS LAWFULLY STOPPED ON REASONABLE SUSPICION OF TRAFFIC INFRACTION; AND (3) THE STOP OF WRIGHT WAS NOT PRETEXTUAL ? In the consolidated cases of State v. Snapp, and State v. Wright, ___Wn.2d ___, 2012 WL 1134130 (April 5, 2012), the Washington Supreme Court reverses Court of Appeals decisions and rules 8-1 that searches of vehicle passenger areas in the two cases were not lawful searches under the rule of article I, section 7 of the Washington constitution for searches of vehicle passenger areas incident to arrest. The Court also addresses two alternative arguments of defendant Wright, rejecting his arguments that the initial vehicle stop was not justified by sufficient cause or was pretextual.

      (note: WA also rejects pretext stops which are accepted as valid in most states!)

        State v. Stenson, ___ Wn.2d ___, 2012 WL 1638035 (May 10, 2012) 8

        State v. Nysta, ___Wn. App. ___, 275 P.3d 162 (Div. I, May 7, 2012) 9

        State v. Young, ___Wn. App. ___, 275 P.3d 1150 (Div. II, May 1, 2012) 12

        1. Dare I ask what the fuck the Dunphinator is gambolingrambling on about?

          1. just presenting some court cases where police search/seizures were overturned to counter the repeated false claims that courts just accept police actions without question

            also showing how in some areas (like search and seizure and use of force) how in some (state) or all jurisdictions, liberty has expanded substantially (like in WA)

            the meme here is that all is woe and horrible and that the courts just rubber stamp police searches and seizures and stuff

            that’s just utter rubbish

            full texts available upon request for these case cites

    2. Seriously dunphy? You’re knocking on the door of White Indian territory here. Give links to supporting material, don’t copy and paste it into the comments, especially when you’re doing the same thing in multiple threads.

      1. these are COURT CASES.

        the links are the names of the court cases themselves.

        jesus christ

        and this hardly gambol material. i am simply presenting some court cases that evidence an EXPANSION of liberty and/.or a ruling against the state in search/seizure matters

        a metric assload of posters/posts claim t hat the courts roll over backwards for the police and that police search/seizure claims are routinely upheld when questionable which is utter hogwash

        furthermore, we have had massive expansion of liberty both nationwide (rkba among others) and statewide. people ignore those

        if there is any particular court case you WANT the text for and cannot find on your own, i am happy to print here, but i can’t always provide a link because it’s not always linkable without certain database accounts you may not have

        are you interested in the text or rundown of any particular case?

        just ask
        and most are referencable in LED, which i have given the link for at least 3 or 4 times

  10. What’s wrong with the Republican Party?

    Answer: They’ve allowed TEAM Blue to shoehorn them into being the Party of Jesus and Anti-Abortion. Had they run as the Party of Small Government (death to all cabinet departments that are not State, War, Treasury, and Justice), Freedom (including freedom to take drugs, drink, gamble, run a business, and cohabitate with the adults of one’s choosing) and Peace (end to the drone and American military presence around the globe).

    You will never beat TEAM Blue at their game, which is pandering and groupthink.

    1. But how many Republicans fit your profile? 20 percent? Less? that’s not enough to make the national GOP give a fuck. As sad as that is, it’s the way things are.

      1. It’s probably less than 20%, but that is enough to make them give a fuck. The GOP became that way in the late 1970s due to a concerted effort by that group to influence and/or take over Republican parties. They had a ready-made organizing tool in the form of evangelic Protestant churches. Libertarians don’t have that advantage, but there’s no reason they can’t do the same, other than possibly their own pig-headedness. What you have to do is come in as friends, not come in as opposition to the Jesusians who are already in there; when they came in, they came in friendly and quickly became regulars rather than insurgents. They came in as eager volunteers for election work, and they worked their way into leadership positions especially where the former leadership was old y tired.

    2. “cohabitate with the adults of one’s choosing”

      When has the Republican party (or any mainstream party) been against that? Gay marriage != cohabitation.

  11. BeastTV needs an intern with better video capability on his phone.

  12. Not to take the thread away from Eli Manning, but SF is ‘going green’ again:
    There’s this lake (pond to those who know what lakes are). It’s in the Presidio. It’s gotten treated like every commons; a dumping ground or a free resource.
    Now, we’re spending $Xmil to return it to what it was like before the Euros arrived, because… uh… Well, it makes someone feel good:

    1. At least the story was written by an old friend, thanks for the link. Good to see he is still working, I didn’t think many people were still employed in old media like the SF Chronicle.

      1. “I didn’t think many people were still employed in old media like the SF Chronicle.”

        Mostly columnists who can draw some readership; very few ‘reporters’. The Chron has been known to offer up a portion of its front page to some interest group or other and you have to look at the byline to realize it’s propaganda.

  13. Why aren’t y’all watching the Falcons-Saints game?

    1. They just switched over a few minutes ago.

    2. The Saints? We finished our 5-4 season yesterday by beating the Javelins 7-6. http://www.eteamz.com/bronxwar…..te=5597884

      You did mean the Giordano’s Funeral Home Saints, didn’t you?

  14. Norv Turner just has to get sacked after this week.

  15. Does the news media industry bigwigs pay an extra premium for concern trolling* on ‘what’s the matter with the GOP’ articles for the first two weeks after a losing election? The saturation in supply for this stuff is tulip bust level ridiculous.

    *if you are not GOP there is no reason to care if the party lives or dies, and I suspect most of these articles are written by people who would like to see the latter.

    1. And here I thought Reason’s “balance” of criticizing BO’s rank statism only to the same degree they nitpick Romney’s choice of socks would end once the election was over. Looks like I was wrong.

      BO came out and blatantly said he wants to raise taxes because America obviously gave him that mandate, and most articles are STILL about criticizing Romney and the GOP for minutia.

      1. I take it as a sign of affection. Reason knows Obama’s Democratic party is not just bad on liberty, its flat out against it. If libertarians are going to find political power it will be with the GOP. And any criticism that makes the party more libertarian is welcome.

    2. “Does the news media industry bigwigs pay an extra premium for concern trolling* on ‘what’s the matter with the GOP’ articles for the first two weeks after a losing election?”

      Hey, it keeps the focus off the guy who won and his troubles.

      1. the guy who won

        What was his name again?

        1. Nate Silver?

          1. Interesting story,

            Nate Silver got interested in politics because the government was going to ban online poker, his source of income.

            1. The Derider| 11.11.12 @ 7:40PM |#
              “Interesting story,
              Nate Silver got interested in politics because the government was going to ban online poker, his source of income.”

              Yeah, I’d oppose government thugs, too.

              1. It’s interesting that he got interested in politics because of government thugs, and then became a partisan Democrat.

                Why didn’t the libertarian party get him?

                1. The Derider| 11.11.12 @ 8:09PM |#
                  “:It’s interesting that he got interested in politics because of government thugs, and then became a partisan Democrat.”

                  And decided to become one?
                  Stuff it, bozo

            2. Yeah, Obama’s going to get right on that.

              1. What I’m saying is that the Democratic party must have offered a position that Nate Silver found more important than legal online poker.

                (Hint: He’s gay)

                1. The Derider| 11.11.12 @ 10:58PM |#
                  “What I’m saying is that the Democratic party must have offered a position that Nate Silver found more important than legal online poker.”

                  Hint: If you’re going to offer conspiracies, offer proof, deidiot.

    3. Anyone serious about figuring how the Republicans can win should automatically reject anything coming out of Democrats, the media, and establishment Republicans

      1. Yeah, it would be like me worrying about how New Orleans is adjusting without Sean Peyton when I was hoping the city would lose its franchise over the hit contracts.

        1. The inclusion of “establishment Republicans” in SIV’s list indicates that’s not his reasoning. Pretty sure they don’t want the party to go away.

          1. They don’t necessarily want to win either. The ones that do are too susceptible to “conventional wisdom” arguments from the other 2 groups.

          2. It’s totally to the advantage of the establishment if London picked up the franchise.

      2. Just like everyone serious about predicting the outcome of the election should have ignored any facts and numbers coming from Democrats and the mainstream media.

    4. Maybe if people are arguing about what the GOP did wrong, they aren’t thinking about the impact of fraud on the outcome, what with that being a different question altogether?

  16. Huntsman was totally unelectable.

    In a republitard primary.

    1. Huntsman would’ve had an insurmountable “base problem” in the General. What was he going to do, tack hard right?

    2. You would have voted for Huntsman in the general, Boroksie?

      1. Shit, I would have voted for Huntsman in the general had he run against Edwards, or plenty of other liberal democrats.

        1. But not against Obama? Why, because Obama is so competent?

          1. Because Obama’s policy positions are more moderate than Edwards’, and those of many liberal democrats.

            1. All my partisan Democrat friends say this.

              1. They’re right.

                Edwards was a protectionist.

                Obama campaigned on violating Pakistan’s safety to kill Osama and eradicate Al Qaeda.

                He’s not the most liberal democrat by a longshot.

                1. Yeah, the liberals really raked BO over the coals for having OBL killed. Remember the antiwar protests in every city the next day?

  17. OK, the replay officials are supposed to review every score — how the hell did they miss the fact that that Denver guy let go of the ball before getting into the end zone on the kickoff return? Bradshaw keeps saying no one challenged it — of course no one challenged it! If you challenge a scoring play it’s an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty!

  18. And here I thought Reason’s “balance” of criticizing BO’s rank statism only to the same degree they nitpick Romney’s choice of socks would end once the election was over. Looks like I was wrong.

    You’re going to get a terrible infection if you don’t wash the sand out of your vagina.

    1. Hey man, griefer’s gonna grief.

      Just more salty-ham tears for the rest of us. Drink deep, Brooks. Drink deep.

      1. Oh, the supply of libertarian tears is going to ramp up in the coming years by quite a bit.

        Not mine, though; I did everything I could to prevent this eventuality.

        1. Could you repeat that, I couldn’t hear you over the hammy sobs.

          1. He’s precious, isn’t he? Isn’t it cute how he’s seemingly placing himself in a position where he won’t be affected by the authoritarian wave that’s sure to come hurtling at us from the District in the near future?

            1. No doubt I’ll be affected, but I won’t have any regrets.

            2. The interesting thing is that the Republican Party takes a message from guys like Tulpa… “as long as we brand ourselves differently, we can support Obamaesque government take-overs of whole industries and libertarians will still vote for us”.

              He votes for big government and then pats himself on the back for striking a blow for freedom.

              1. Haha, look who’s talking about people instead of ideas again.

                Back here in the world of facts, I didn’t vote for anyone supporting takeovers of industries, and hadn’t voted Republican for president since 2000, not that it matters to a guy such as yourself who makes up facts at will.

  19. It’s been a long, painful time coming, but I’m glad there is discussion about the Republican party’s disconnection from a factual universe. Of course you’ll still find people sure there was a conspiracy to defraud the election such that it would accord almost exactly with the fraudulent preelection polls.

    1. T o n y| 11.11.12 @ 4:35PM |#
      “It’s been a long, painful time coming, but I’m glad there is discussion about the Republican party’s disconnection from a factual universe.”

      Shithead, it would be helpful if the Dems and their abysmally ignorant supporters (yes, shithead, that’s YOU) examined reality. And the gross failures of the policies in that regard.

  20. Jason Avant is wondering why people throw footballs at his head when he’s just trying to run around on the field.

  21. The Republicans need to figure out how to crack into the 50% of the people who don’t vote. They need to figure out how to legitimately speak to the reasonably fiscally conservative Dems who cling to the party based on social issues. They need capitalize on the inevitable economic shrink due to increases in taxes. They need to stop trying to woo the entitlement crowd and speak to the laboring and investing crowd. There is going to be very clear reckoning of the economic misallocations of the last century and it a lot of clarification is on the near horizon. If they insist on concentrating on abortion and gays, two things not going ANYWHERE, they will simply chase those people, even if they are hearing the call of fiscal conservatism, back into the arms of the Dems. It really doesn’t seem all that hard to move, in combination, votes from the Dems of the fiscally conservative bent, and give the millions who don’t think it matters a squirt a reason to punch a chad. Of course they likely have to overcome a shrink of moving the socially conservative/fiscally liberal crowd to the Dems, but the parties have crossed over and exchanged blocks before throughout history. If the blue hairs decide a little too much silence on gays and abortion is reason to vote Dem so their handouts at least continue, they are going to die off eventually. Attracting the 65+ vote at the expense of the 25-64 is a problem.

    1. In the end, the only way this country has a shot is if it comes to grips with economic reality. In a sense a revolution in thought is necessary, and the Repubs might as well move in that direction. It can’t be any worse to legitimately try and capture the youth who are going to be learning some real economic lessons in all practicality very, very soon. There’s no future in the Korean Vet Rubber Chicken Circuit.

    2. If they insist on concentrating on abortion and gays, two things not going ANYWHERE, they will simply chase those people, even if they are hearing the call of fiscal conservatism, back into the arms of the Dems.

      Which is precisely why the media focus on abortion and gays more than the economy.

  22. 5 minutes to Firefly reunion special.

    1. Kaylee looks old.

      1. The guys are fat. Bit I think Inara actually looks better.

        1. Actually I don’t have cable so I can’t see it. I was just projecting.

  23. Sometimes you jsut have to roll with it man.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.