Democratic Party

The Democratic Shift to the Left

The Democratic Party is torn between a liberal establishment that wants more government, and an even more liberal wing that wants the same thing squared.

|

Rachel librarian

It would take a heart of stone, as the fellow said, not to laugh out loud at President Barack Obama's recent comparison between the two major political parties.

"Ideological extremism," he told The New York Times, "is much more prominent right now in the Republican Party than the Democrats. Democrats have problems, but overall if you look at the Democratic consensus, it's a pretty commonsense, mainstream consensus. It's not a lot of wacky ideological nonsense, the way it is generally fact-based and reason-based."

Spoken like a true partisan: My Side is calm and reasonable, and Your Side is full of raving lunatics.

It's true that many Republicans let their hearts overrule their heads on issues such as climate change—where conceding the facts would require admitting the other team might, possibly, have a point. Moreover, the tea party movement has indeed created a rift on the right between a somewhat conservative establishment and a viscerally conservative insurgency. The struggle between those two factions has provided the grist for roughly 2.3 gajillion news stories over the past few years.

But as Commentary magazine's Seth Mandel put it so nicely a few months ago, "complaints over the last few years about the GOP being pulled to the right by conservatives were not about liberals' desire to meet in the middle and compromise, no matter how much they might decry the supposed extremist drift of the right. What they wanted was their very own Tea Party."

The judgment is, as the president would say, fact-based. You can see that in the fawning adulation that greeted the Occupy protests, which amounted to one long primal scream against capitalism. Whatever the protests lacked in coherence (which was a lot), they made up for in passion. And for a while, the most dangerous place to stand in America was between a microphone and the cadre of Democratic politicians racing to express their proud solidarity with that inspiring movement of starry-eyed young dreamers.

You can see the desire for a Democratic tea party in the cheers that greet Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Tribune of the Proletariat, whose angry tirades against the moneyed interests draw standing ovations and chants of "Run, Liz, run!"

And you can see it in the polls: Two decades ago, 35 percent of active Democrats said their views were mostly or always liberal. Now 70 percent say so. The Democratic Party's mainstream consensus, as the president calls it, has moved decidedly to the left. (Granted, Democrats do not all think alike, any more than Republicans do; generalizations are vexing. But if the president employs them, so can we.)

Just as the Republican Party now has many big-government conservatives—those who think Washington should export democracy abroad and impose virtue here at home—the Democratic Party once had what might be called small-government liberals: those who thought government could make some things better, yet still leave other things alone.

Where is the small-government liberal today? He or she is not to be found in the economic realm, where the mainstream Democratic consensus supports a higher minimum wage, more regulation of business, systemic government control of certain sectors (e.g., education and health care) and massive government intervention in the rest.

Likewise, there is scant dispute on the left regarding the welfare state.

The biggest fight over social programs in the past few years dealt with health care, and it concerned whether to settle for Obamacare or push for single-payer. Liberals who argue that the country might have too many social-welfare programs and spend too much on them are mostly unheard from. To paraphrase conservative author William Voegeli: Democrats do not want the social-welfare state to grow indefinitely—they just want it to be bigger than it is right now.

One might think the small-government liberal shows up in the realm of personal choice. And it is true that on one very narrow band of issues—sex and abortion—liberals agree government should butt out. Yet this is where the butting-out largely ends.

For while liberals largely support, say, the legalization of marijuana, that is not owing to any broader sense that people own their bodies and should be free to do as they like with them—such as ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or engage in sex for profit, or drink a 64-ounce sugary soft drink, or forgo health insurance.

Rather, the contemporary mainstream liberal view of such things holds that individual choices affect the collective good. And since government's job is to safeguard the collective good, government should therefore regulate individual choices. If it allows people to smoke marijuana, that is because it has decided a little reefer now and then causes less collective harm than the harm caused by prohibition.

In other words, the mainstream Democratic view asks how much personal freedom smart public policy should permit. It has little room for the notion that some personal freedom should lie beyond the reach of public policy in the first place.

Does that seem too strong? Then consider the campaign to eviscerate the First Amendment. Democratic leaders such as John Kerry, Sen. Patrick Leahy, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and many others—including countless grass-roots activists—want to amend the Constitution to nullify the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, so the government can once again dictate what people can and cannot say about politicians in the weeks leading up to an election. Tellingly, the proposals include provisions stipulating that the press would still be allowed to speak freely about political candidates.

This is a tacit concession that everyone else would not. In that event, rights are no longer trumps; they are simply one more consideration to be balanced against all the rest. Which means they are not really rights at all.

In short, the Democratic Party is torn between a liberal establishment that wants more government, and an even more liberal wing that wants the same thing squared. At bottom, both wings believe the formula for perfection is simple: Put the government in charge of everything, and put the right people in charge of the government. Then just sit back and wait for Shangri-La.

History has falsified that premise time after time. But to the president, it's just plain common sense. Now who's peddling wacky ideological nonsense?

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.

199 responses to “The Democratic Shift to the Left

  1. Sorry for posting this link twice in one day, but if there is anymore indicting of an example of the Democratic party’s move towards insanity, I don’t know where to find it:

    New face of the Democratic party = Batshit Crazy

    1. Did she actually get elected?

      1. Hasn’t happened, yet. She’s behind in the polls to Steve Daines.

    2. Yes, and this is someone from the raging blue state of Montana…

    3. An anarchist at hear who wants socialized health care.

      1. An anarchist at hear who wants socialized health care.


        Marx and Lenin claimed to be anarchists too. The “withering away of the state” anyone? Isn’t Chomsky an “anarchist” that wants more government as well? So “anarchists” calling for more government is nothing new.

        1. Well not all brands of anarchism are created equal. Anarcho-capitalists and their sub-schools are the only real anarchists and they’re a relatively young school of philosophy.

          You’ve got your outrightly pro-statism “anarchists” who will tell you that they’re “abolishing the state and erecting this new institution that will monopolize all legal aggression and taxation… will magically (without coercion) redistribute everyone’s wealth, but it’s like totally not a state and stuff.”

          The most hopeless “anarchists” of all think their ideological enemy is hierarchy itself, which is an indictment against nature if you take their position to it’s logically inconsistent conclusions.

      2. That stood out to me as well.

        But then a lot of hardcore Socialists claim to be Anarchists, seemingly without understanding the implications.

    4. “as an anarchist at heart”

      She demands full government healthcare.

      Anarchy, it ain’t what it used to be.

      1. Anarchy never really was what it should be. Anarcho-capitalism is a very new philosophy wearing the mantle of anarcho- and it’s the only one that actually promotes real statelessness and as much liberty as is conceivably possible in human interaction.

    5. OK, let me understand…So she mocks the fact that 3 gun bills were discussed, again more of the holy triad of wedge issues on the right, gays guns and abortion, NONE of which are political issues, and she’s batsh-t crazy? Or are you calling her crazy because she isn’t a pussy that needs a gun to walk a mile in the dark?

      THEN she addresses that the Politicians on the right were discussing God Almighty and God’s law and she’s the one that is Batsh-t crazy?

      As for observations on Medicaid expansion, amazing how many Red States are jumping onto that wagon. Understand you folks want Healthcare to be for profit, just like prison’s, but a lot of reasonable people think healthcare should be about improving health.

      1. You must be new here.

        1. Your username is fantastic.

    6. I’d do her. She says she’s an anarchist at heart.

      Another one of those anarchists that think government should be really, really big. Love it.

  2. Very persuasive, except for this:

    “One might think the small-government liberal shows up in the realm of personal choice. And it is true that on one very narrow band of issues?sex and abortion?liberals agree government should butt out.”

    No, the “liberals” want government subsidies for abortion, and punishment of private businesses whose attitudes toward sex are unapproved by the liberal consensus.

    1. You are free to choose — as long as you make the correct choice.

    2. Yep. At some point along the way, the very reasonable position of “birth control should be legal and available to purchase” morphed into “pay for my birth control, you taxpaying schmuck.”

      1. The left has pursued a strategy of “compromise” for decades. They’ve been very successful in moving the “moderate” position systematically leftwards.

    3. How far is the leap from subsidizing an activity to mandating it? Or, conversely, from taxing an activity to banning it? I don’t say it’s a short leap, but I do think it’s always worth keeping in mind.

    4. Yes, pretty good line to call BS.

      Sex, what about ‘sex is violence’ and the move toward affirmative voiced and on-going consent standards/regulations?

      What about portraying sex workers as victims needing the state to protect them from themselves? One might say the war on sex work is far more of a Democratic cause the Republican.

      And the euphemism of abortion as choice is as ridiculous today as it was when it was coined, but the right to life of an unborn person aside, one only needs look at the Hobby Lobby case to see that Democrats want their choices paid for by others.

      I’d really be hard pressed to see anywhere liberals want government to ‘butt out’; anyone have a clue where that would be?

  3. Under a state monopoly of health-care, the state *will* be choosing who gets abortions and when…. which is ironic given the legal doctrine that makes it’s legalization untouchable.

  4. Yeah, this would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

    Well, it’s funny anyway. Like making-Casey-Anthony-jokes funny, or something.

    I debated for the longest time whether or not Obama “believes” this, or if he thinks Americans are so stupid, and his TEAM so TEAMY that they won’t care.

    I’ve decided on the latter. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing, saying, knows he’s a lying sack of shit, and just doesn’t give a fuck, cause it’s exactly what he wants. His entire presidency has been, and will continue to be, one big middle finger to Americans. Fuck every single person who voted for this piece of shit.

    TEAM RED sucks. For my money, TEAM BLUE sucks even more – especially when it comes to foaming-at-the-mouth partisanship and ideology. TEAM BLUE is the definition of that these days.

    1. Each TEAM goes extra retarded when their guy is in power, because there is some weird mass delusion among partisans that once they get the Presidency or control the House or the Senate that they’re now going to have that forever. It’s insanely dumb, but partisans are basically retarded, so it’s not surprising. TEAM BLUE has the Presidency now, and they are going off-the-charts insane (and have been for years).

      1. yeah, yer prolly right. When I think back to BOOOOOOOOOOOSH (it’s been so long it’s kind of hard to remember)….yeah, I mean, they all suck.

        Bot the Bamster’s taken it to a new level in my estimation.

        Let’s see what TEAM RED can do in ’16 to shift the dumbass meter back to their side more!

      2. The Republicans went retarded while in power last time – not by going ultra-conservative, but by betraying their base and going Democrat-lite.

        1. Politicians always think they have a ‘mandate’ if they happen to win by more than three votes.

        2. +1000 compassionate conservative points

          1. =1000 points of slightly less darkness!

        3. by betraying their base and going Democrat-lite.

          Two endless wars and their batshit insane justifications for them did not help either.

          1. Just out of curiosity, you don’t think we were justified in attacking Afghanistan?

            1. He said endless. Could have gone in, maybe killed Osama right away, killed most of Taliban and left and not got into this “Nation building” b.s.

              1. Basically, this.

                Even a ‘punitive strike’ against OBL’s base would have been better than the attempt at ‘nation building.’

                As it is, the Taliban will be back in power within a decade and pumped up even higher because of their ‘victory’ over the ‘infidels’.

                The only good part will be if they capture Karzai before he can make it across the border.

                1. If you’ve got a nation that harbors and supports international terrorists, what good does it do to bomb one base? How does that solve the issue of a lawless nation harboring terrorists?

              2. He said “batshit insane justifications for them..”. I’m just wondering how much justification he thinks a nation needs to attack another nation.

          2. And really ramping up the Executive Signing Statement “I-can-do- whatever-I-want-because-I’m-the-President” card.

            I always asked my liberal friends why they railed against Karl Rove instead of John Yoo. I usually just got blank looks, but I think the real reason is because they didn’t care if the President has too much power — they were just mad that their guy wasn’t the one wielding it.

    2. I don’t think that’s true with Obama. There’s a special breed of lunatic who knows himself to be a Steward of Truth to the world, a vessel of received wisdom, who is here to lead others to the light. In another time, he’d’ve made a fine high priest or fundamentalist minister.

      Like Shlaes said about Wilson, Obama is the sort of person who can’t conceive that he could possibly be wrong about anything, so saying transparently crazy shit to prop up his own ego is just in a day’s work for President Common Sense.

      1. I suppose if you can’t by definition be wrong, then you are free to say anything since anything you say will be right.

        1. That’s the norm for almost every politician. Lesser political animals like Wasserman-Schultz, Biden, or W are constantly revealing themselves to be idiots (W’s “abandoning the free market to save the free market” speech is the pinnacle of political stupidity this century, which is saying something), but none of them seem to know or be capable of knowing that they’re self-satisfied idiots.

          Must be nice to spend your whole life in a bubble of narcissism. When you meet people like that, you can see the social benefit of parents beating introspective values and the fear of hell into their children to avoid creating another Obama or Biden.

      2. Obama is so in-tune with the volont? g?n?rale that he in fact defines the general will. It is impossible for any utterance of the President to be wrong.

        1. +1 Social Contract

      3. If Obama thought about it, he’d probably wish that instead of going into politics he had just started a cult instead. He’s charismatic – a natural cult leader. It would probably be more money, less stress, lots of side benefits. Too bad for him, and us, that he went the way he did.

        1. Obama saw himself as nothing less than a world ruler. The fact that other nations never bowed to his superior vision, intellect, and charisma probably still baffles him.

    3. another fox news viewer heard from

  5. My general thoughts are that the left has gotten farther left on policy, with roughly the same variance. The right has experienced a wholesale collapse in variance. They are about the same things but really really mean it this time.

    1. We can trust Team Red to be for small government in the same way Charlie Brown could trust Lucy to hold the football.

      1. No, no, this time it’s different!

      2. +1 AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUGHH!

  6. “Ideological extremism,” he told The New York Times, “is much more prominent right now in the Republican Party than the Democrats. Democrats have problems, but overall if you look at the Democratic consensus, it’s a pretty commonsense, mainstream consensus. It’s not a lot of wacky ideological nonsense, the way it is generally fact-based and reason-based

    How many “gaffs” and outright lies has Obama been called on by the corporate media? None. It’s easy to lie and lie boldly when no one around you will dare tell you otherwise. Barry could probably say that TEAM Red bakes infant blood into their matzo and the New York Times would run it on the front page as unalloyed truth.

    1. TEAM Red bakes infant blood into their matzo

      The Baby Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells would like to know where the Team Red bake shop is.

      1. One thing the bishop should know, they have neither fires nor pokers to heat in the fires at the bake shop.

        1. Have you ever considered a career in the Church?

          1. No, I could never get used to the underwear.

            1. It’s not so bad, once you get past altar boy, and stop getting your underwear tucked in for you.

      2. +1 Blackadder

    2. The epic projection in that statement is also pretty fantastic. I will say this: when it comes to being delusional about what they actually are, TEAM BLUE blows TEAM RED away in terms of being utterly, ridiculously self-deceived.

      1. If we’ve been telling lies, you’ve been telling half-lies. A TEAM who tells lies, like us, merely hides the truth. But a TEAM who tells half-lies has forgotten where they put it.

      2. Even if they have a consensus, so what? It’s just more of the “If we can all come together we will come up with the correct answers” crap.

        Richard Hofstadter should have been banished into outer darkness for dumping that idea into the mainstream.

      3. wow, you must be a total fox news fanatic

  7. This is one of Hinkle’s better articles.

  8. If there is anywhere in America an actual no shit Radical Republican hell bent on doing anything but perhaps gently delaying national bankruptcy by a few years, I would like to know who that is because I haven’t seen him or her.

    1. Question regarding Airplane Repo from the other thread….If you have a judgment granting reposession of an airplane, wouldn’t you bring a deputy, go to the airport management and say, I have authority to reposess this plane….do not interfere. It does seem like the show is staged for drama.

      1. You could if your judgement was from the same jurisdiction. The problem is that airplanes are so mobile that by the time you file the judgement, serve the owner and bring the sheriff out to serve it, the guy will have moved the plane.

        It is the same problem with car repos. Sheriffs generally are not interested in serving process and helping creditors get back their things. So you are left to self help. Without a judgmeent in that jurisdiction, however, your self help rights are a bit sketchy, which is why those guys get arrested sometimes. But, if you get the plane and get it back in possession of the lender, the debtor is basically screwed since he has no right to self help or anyway to get a legal judgement. I suppose he could try and prosecute the repo guy for theft and trespassing but I can’t imagine the police or DA would be too interested in the case.

        1. Well, that makes some kind of sense. It strikes me that, to a degree, they do have the law on their side, yet are always sneaking onto airports, busting into hangars, and essentially stealing the plane….I would still guess that some of that is staged and played up for effect.

          1. It has to be staged. But I would imagine some of that really does go on. Most of the time it is the airport rentacops they are running from. I seriously doubt they care if the people who store their planes there are making payments. They get paid to secure the plane not check the paper work.

        2. Pretty much. I rent equipment out for a living. Repos can get interesting, particularly when the government has laid claim to your stuff because your customer is an utter fuck-up.

          1. The great thing about a lease is that the person doesn’t have any equity or claim of owner ship to it. That means that even the government can’t get their filthy paws on it when the deadbeat owes taxes. Also, since the guy doesn’t have any ownership interest, you can just go and take your shit back when he doesn’t pay, no court order needed. Leases are great like that.

            1. That means that even the government can’t get their filthy paws on it when the deadbeat owes taxes.

              Legally, however practically is another matter. We had a contractor customer who fouled up a job for the Army. The base shut his job down and locked up everything on the jobsite, including our equipment. Then the contracting officer took an extended vacation. One midnight run later, at least I had my stuff back.

            2. Except when you’re leasing a house…

              but at least then you can get support from the Sherriff, in most places.

        3. The FBOs are supposed to be secure. It’s not good for business if people can sneak on to your runway and snatch planes.

          1. No it is not. And that is why they don’t let the repo people on even when they do have a legitimate claim to the property.

            1. Ever watch Repo Games? Some people are really stupid. I mean, wow.

              1. No. But yes people are really stupid.

                1. It’s a pretty fun show. Here’s a quick description with some of the questions and stupid answers that people give.
                  http://television.answers.com/…..n-humanity

      2. oh, come on, step back from the TV screen, there’s a film crew, a sound crew, a lighting crew, no one gets on camera without signing a release, and they get paid, your dealing with a union, you don’t get on camera unless you get paid
        only law shows like “cops” are the exception

    2. Actually, you saw him many times. His name is Ron Paul.

      He’s old now and finally gave up. Americans are too hell-bent on having their social welfare/warfare State.

      1. Ron Paul wasn’t particularly radical. He was basically a Goldwater conservative with a dash of leftist “why do they hate us so much?” self loathing added in.

        1. You should corner Ron and call him a Goldwater conservative and see how he responds.

          Ron’s a crypto-anarchist. You don’t spend your life hanging around with Rothbard and Rockwell because you’re some mainstream Goldwater-Reagan type in disguise.

          1. I always figured Paul was a lot smarter than either of those two. Maybe I gave him too much credit.

            1. Keep figuring, John. It’s why we enjoy having you around.

          2. After he denounced the whole idea of a monopoly on force in his farewell speech to Congress, i’m not so sure about the “crypto” part.

      2. ron’s always been a nutjob, just like his son

        1. is this a Tulpa sighting? just asking!

  9. “It’s not a lot of wacky ideological nonsense”,
    So, why, Mr. President, are you always claiming you are ready to compromise with such nuts on a bi-partisan basis? Because OGL is not president of all the people, but only of those who aren’t insane Kochsucking teabagging devils, racists, monocle-polishers and non-golfers.

  10. He’s like a 4-year-old making a horrible mess in the kitchen that when you ask what he’s doing, he says “I’M HELPING!”

    1. ^THIS

      There is a strong thread of petulant self-importance in the politics of Democrats

      Their ‘activism’ is so much less about specific policy than it is fulfillment of their narcissistic beliefs in their moral superiority.

      I have often wondered why the most hardcore lefties i know (and i know plenty) have all this energy to rail about the epic awfulness of ‘Corporations’, fracking, Wall St Greed, how anti-unionists are just about exploiting the poor, etc…
      ..
      …and when I ask them, ‘OK, fine = *granted*. What then is the policy you advocate?’

      all i get in return is a blank stare and silence. This has happened REPEATEDLY.

      Seriously.

      Last year I was at a gathering of (mostly) public school teachers who were sitting around smoking weed and complaining about the awful republicans and i just asked them, “OK – you run the world. What are the most urgently needed policies to Solve these Problems?”

      After a few grumbles, one or two confessed to ‘not know enough’, others said, ‘uh, localize…’, others said, “Do Studies!”

      Before i began my Evil Laugh, I then said to them, “This is the difference between you and the Tea Party: They Know What They Want

      Then I Evil Laughed, long and hearty

      1. I really have a hard time finding much Tea Party disgust. I’m around few liberals, but around many Tea Party Republicans. The liberals I have met (perhaps because they are hardened for living in a Red State) are deep and abiding Progressives with Tony like arguments at the ready. You can corner them, but you have to work at it.

        I find the Tea Party types single minded about lower taxes, less spending, and less regulation. I can even get them into policy discussion about less military, less police, privatized schools, and a variety of other direct spending policies.

        Tea Party are statists, but there is a spectrum and I’ve found most of them are closer to me than the progressives.

  11. It’s true that many Republicans let their hearts overrule their heads on issues such as climate change?where conceding the facts would require admitting the other team might, possibly, have a point

    Because, consensus, amirite?

    1. Thank you!

      I thought that bit was stupid.

      1. Their evil has spread to every city. Two or three years ago it was just another snake cult, now… they’re everywhere. It is said that they are deceivers.

        1. We must defeat them, drive them before us, and listen to the lamentations of the women.

    2. I think that’s the other way around.

      I believe Global Warming is real.

      I also believe (as per evidence suggests) its 1/10 the ‘big fucking deal’ that Progs want it to be

      I also believe that all the policies proposed by Greens are insane and horrible, and just Ethanol-X10000 worse for the environment, economy, everyone.

      I believe that science, the market, will address these ‘problems’ the way they always have.

      I don’t see how this is my head and heart not working in complete harmony

      1. This has always been my philosophy. Whether or not climate change is as big of a deal as progressives claim is irrelevant. Their ideas are bad for everyone, not just ‘evil corporations’ and the technology to alleviate pollution is constantly being developed. It doesn’t need government patronage and the problem isn’t so serious that we have to settle for less.

  12. OT: Egyptian Feminist poos and menstruates on ISIS flag
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-P…..-ISIS-Flag

    ***GRAPHIC***

    1. I never know what ‘feminist’ means, but in these Muslim countries the struggle for basic human rights generally makes me sympathetic. I just hope she survives, many of the ‘moderates’ would gladly hand her over for a stoning.

  13. “Run, Liz, run!” is a very fitting slogan because I’ve always found Elizabeth Warren to be severely mentally deficient. She’s no war hero, though…

    1. I’m sure she had an ancestor who personally shot Gen. George Custer’s horse at Little Big Horn, though.

    2. Well, that and Forrest was at least a good sort of person.

  14. Hinkle exposes politician for saying good things about his own party! Incredible!

  15. Barack Obama really said that?!

    “Our” president!

    You wonder why there’s so much division in this country? Start with a president that sees himself as only working for half of the nation–against the other half.

    What a profoundly incompetent president we have.

    1. I can’t remember the last time we had a competent President. Most likely it was before any of us were alive.

      1. Well, there w…no…well….

        Hmm.

        Hmm.

      2. I don’t think we ever had really competent Presidents, its just that when earlier Presidents did not know what to do they were more likely not to do anything.

        It helped that Washington DC wasn’t air-conditioned back then so they and most of the other politicians/ bureaucrats just left town for much of the year

        1. It helped that Washington DC wasn’t air-conditioned back then so they and most of the other politicians/ bureaucrats just left town for much of the year

          So pass a law, remove the air conditioners from public property in DC, and send all the politicians and bureaucrats home for 11 months out of the year to preserve their health.

          Let’s just have the entire federal government telecommute and conference call for a few decades and see how that goes.

      3. I considered Reagan fairly competent. For one thing, he never really insulted his Congressional opposition in public for one thing.

        Before him, Ike was fairly competent, then Coolidge…

      4. Just because I don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean they’re incompetent.

        At its most basic, the job of the president is to keep the country unified.

        George H. W. Bush saw himself as the whole country’s president. He thought he was representing Democrats, too.

        Ronald Reagan had Democrats in his cabinet.

        It’s one thing to not give a shit about all the Republicans in this country–but what sort of idiot president would say that out loud?

        He’s completely undermining his own office. That’s what I mean by incompetent. He has no idea what he’s doing, and he’s so incompetent, he doesn’t even realize when he’s hurting himself.

        When you’re the president, there’s no reason why it wouldn’t be in you advantage to present yourself as being above the fray. Let your vice-president and others do the partisan attack dog stuff. Engaging in that kind of behavior if you’re the president is stupid. There’s no advantage to doing it, and there’s all kinds of downside.

        1. You know, basic things like the administration of justice, foreign policy, etc. Those things aren’t supposed to be partisan issues. The accusation that a president was being partisan on those issues used to be a serious charge.

          When Pat Buchanan opposed the war–right up until the moment the war was declared–he wasn’t flip flopping. To a lot of people, you support the president in war time. …or you’re your partisanship isn’t the issue–your patriotism is.

          There are still significant chunks of the swing vote that think that way. Why you would want to convince those people that each and every decision you make is partisan–rather than for the good of the whole country–and you’re going to lose them.

          Does that matter to a lame duck president? Ahead of a midterm election, it should. And even after that, the support the president gets in Congress will be a function of how congress perceives his support among voters in the next congressional election.

          What he said was a stupid thing to say. He went off script again! It’s a “You didn’t build that” moment.

        2. Neither Bush nor Clinton before him did a very good job of keeping the country unified. Maybe they tried, but they failed. Hard to call that competent.

          1. Bush Sr. actively did so–especially in his response to the LA riots in ’92.

            Even Clinton backed off his rhetoric after the Oklahoma City bombing. Clinton managed to not screw up NAFTA and GATT, which pissed off the unions, and he signed off on welfare reform, too.

            Neither of them completely disregarded their own interests in trying to keep above the fray–by carelessly saying stupid things that didn’t need saying–like Obama apparently did, here.

        3. “Ronald Reagan had Democrats in his cabinet.”

          Hey ken, is chuck Hagel a Republican or Democrat?

          1. Are you trying to suggest that Reagan didn’t project himself as the president of all Americans–like Obama isn’t doing–because Obama named a Republican to his cabinet, too?

            You understand I’m not putting any words in Obama’s mouth, right? Read what Obama said about Republicans. Those are Americans he’s talking about. He’s supposed to be their president too–and look what he said!

            1. I don’t know exactly what you are talking about so maybe you can be more specific. Obama isn’t my boyfriend so do I really have to defend everything he does or says? Want to see some of the things Republicans have said about Obama or the fact that Republicans have gone so off the deep end that they now have people that scream at him during the State of the Union address.

              I don ‘t know why Obama’s obvious contempt for business as usual in Washington should be something that libertarians should count against him. Isn ‘t that a good thing, my fellow miniarchists? Why should libertarians celebrate a president like Reagan who deficit spent up to his eyeballs and, together with his messianic staff, ran a gun running operation for Islamic radicals that was financed by death squads in Central America? Libertarian contemporaries hated Reagan with a passion. I say they were right to despise him.

              1. “I don’t know exactly what you are talking about so maybe you can be more specific.”

                Really, I’m not going to quote the post of the thread for you.

                You’re expected to read the fucking post yourself.

              2. Maybe it’s because his “contempt for business as usual in Washington” is mostly due to the fact that they aren’t passing enough laws for him?

        4. At its most basic, the job of the president is to keep the country unified.

          No. The job of the president is to faithfully execute the laws and serve as commander in chief if Congress declares war.

          1. Part of what I’m talking about is the president faithfully executing the laws.

            Obama is undermining the American people’s belief in his ability to do that without indulging his partisan grudge.

    2. the other is working against themselves
      thanks to things like fox news

      1. Parrot says, “Squawk!”

        If it isn’t Faux News, it must be the Koch brothers, right?

        Because the American people would all be thrilled that Obama squandered $350 billion out of our future paychecks on Wall Street and the UAW–if only Fox News and the Koch Brothers hadn’t told them to be mad?

        Because if it weren’t for Fox News and the Koch brothers, we’d all be perfectly fine with Obama siccing the IRS on the working poor who decide to do something else with their money rather than buy health insurance with 40% higher deductibles than they had before ObamaCare kicked in?

  16. Former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer might be able to pull the party in a different direction. His views appear to be more ‘liberal’ than ‘progressive,’ at least on many of the issues I have heard him discuss.

  17. “OWS = one long primal scream against capitalism”

    The sound like Plaintive Whine now

    They would have better luck promoting an “ice bucket challenge” to End Capitalism.

    1. I think he meant “primal” as in just crawling out of the ocean.

    2. To be fair, it was one very short primal scream.

  18. “It’s true that many Republicans let their hearts overrule their heads on issues such as climate change?where conceding the facts would require admitting the other team might, possibly, have a point.”

    WTF? I don’t know about Republicans per se, but the CAGW skeptics I know, about twenty-five engineers and hard-science PhDs, have examined the facts and remain skeptical, while CAGW alarmists I know just believe what they hear and feel with their hearts. I know one physicist that believes in CAGW, but he’s actually more of a lukewarmist. When I pose factual criticisms of CAGW, his responses read like a NYT editorial — 97% consensus, settled science, the debate is over. That is the sort of response one makes when the heart overrules the head.

    I’m sure that Republicans say boneheaded things about AGW, but for the really demented, batshit-crazy responses you ought to listen to the CAGW alarmists.

    1. “It’s true that many Republicans let their hearts overrule their heads on issues such as climate change?where conceding the facts would require admitting the other team might, possibly, have a point.”

      Why would an environmentalist want to make the environment a partisan issue?

      There is no disservice Obama could do to people concerned about AGW than to make it a partisan issue.

      People strongly disagree about partisan issues: pro-life vs. pro-choice, gun control vs. gun rights, etc.

      There are other issues for which there is a broad consensus. We generally agree that people are entitled to a trial, an attorney, a jury, etc.

      If you’re an environmentalist, you want protection for the environment to be a consensus.

      Not a partisan issue.

      If you are genuinely concerned about climate change, the worst thing that could happen would be for someone like Barack Obama to turn it into a partisan issue. Surely, there are SOME people now who oppose doing anything about climate change–whose opposition isn’t about science or ideology. They just oppose doing anything about climate change because Barack Obama and others have made it a partisan cause–and they’re a partisan for the other side.

      1. “If you are genuinely concerned about climate change, the worst thing that could happen would be for someone like Barack Obama to turn it into a partisan issue.”

        About 25 years ago I worked with a radical environmentalist who said pretty much exactly this – he deeply dreaded the government getting involved in any sort of environmental issues as that, in his view, would be the death-knell of any serious movement to address environmental issues in a meaningful way.

        He predicted that the government would choose some random issue, loudly claim to take charge of it, blame everything on it, and then proclaim itself the Public Protector who has Defeated the Evil. Half the people will then satisfy themselves with the faux solutions to non-existent problems, while the other half will oppose them out of knee-jerk partisan loyalty.

      2. AGW was always a partisan issue.

        It was invented by pro government statists and solutions (stop burning oil and coal) for it were more developed then the actual proof.

        Hell the proof today involves heat teleporting from the air without actually heating the air into the deep oceans…that shit explanation did not exist in 1986 or when ever they came up with AGW. Also there is the hide the decline hockeystick graph which came well after they first proposed AGW as a problem that needed radical policies to address. Ditto computer models.

        1. ^This.

          Why is it that Hinkle says that AGW skeptics maybe thinking emotionally?

          Has he ever talked to a global warming person? They are nothing but emotionally charged religious nutters.

          And yeah, the whole AGW thing was just a way to nationalize all of Earth’s natural resources, Soviet style.

          1. Yes, it’s the people on the side of actual science who are emotional. Truly rational people are setting their hair on fire over global conspiracy theories.

            1. AGW is not science, it is old-fashioned rationalism.

              1. WTF does that even mean?

      3. I agree with the thrust of your point that Obama’s partisanship of environmental issues serves to hurt the cause. I’d disagree that environmentalist = someone who cares about the health of environment. Just really isn’t true today, the label is so polluted as to be useless to anyone observing the issues.

        Environmentalism is primarily cronyism now, it’s about how to transfer money from the taxpayer to elitist allies.

        I recall when the data was presented how easily the consensus was against fluorocarbons. Why was that so different?

  19. Put the government in charge of everything, and put the right people in charge of the government.

    History has falsified that premise time after time. But to the president, it’s just plain common sense.

    Not deductively though. Sure, every time it’s been tried it has failed but that means that we just haven’t found the right people yet.

    The problem is their belief in govt isn’t falsifiable.

    1. Perhaps voting for someone that isn’t the big government Republican or big government Democratic representative would change things…

      1. That’s just crazy!

        This is where the Progs call you racist and the GOP establishment call you out for hating ‘Merica.

    2. Actually, Hayek does a pretty good job in deductively proving this in Road to Serfdom chapter titled “Why the Worst Get on Top.”

      1. Maybe we should change our strategy then: The candidate who gets the least amount of votes wins.

        1. Fuck you all very much for not voting for me and making me your next president!

          It’s a campaign strategy and an acceptance speech all rolled into one!

    3. “The problem is their belief in govt isn’t falsifiable.”

      I may not always remember where I got this from in the future, but when I use, and let’s face it, that’s what I’m going to do, I want to give you credit for it here and now–in case I forget later.

      1. Pretty sure I didn’t come up with it. I’ve unknowingly re-invented the wheel so many times in philosophical/political discussions that I sort of refuse to take credit even if I did come up with it first.

        But if you would like to give me credit, I wouldn’t complain.

    4. Rationalism is laughably falsifiable. Reality exists independently of anyone’s deductive rationalizations.

      1. Deduction is quite cute as well. Though useful in simple Logic puzzles, it assumes you know everything and then you work from there.

        I always laugh when watching Sherlock and his talking about “deduction”. No, it’s induction. He’s just assuming he knows every possible outcome and that leads him into all of his errors. Of course, a protagonist who was actually perfect might be somewhat boring.

    5. “The problem is their belief in govt isn’t falsifiable.”

      Which is exactly the reason THEY should be required to prove it works rather than the opposition continually proving it doesn’t.

      1. Sevo – Depends on who you explain it to. The misinformed may listen. The rest are religious fanatics or power hungry wannabe-despots. Hate to sound dismissive, but for most of them, it’s just arguing for the sake of arguing.

        Making them look silly, on the other hand, may work well. Especially when they get all yell-y.

    6. Ace – Exactly! You see, Marx said all that was necessary for the world to find peace and happiness is to have the intellectual vanguard assume the dictatorship and arm the proletariat against the brainwashed serfs.

      So very, very true that once we get rid of the bad politicians (like, the ones that are businessmen and doctors) and replace them with puffy academics like Edward Said, Terry Eagleton, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Gloria Steinem, Naomi Klein, the Adbusters guys, Rage Against the Machine, and, uh, Marx- then the world will be utopia. Of course Elizabeth Warren, Obama, Elena Kagan can stay. They have academic pedigrees and therefore know all knowledge to be known on earth. Like Comrade Lysenko did!

  20. Where is shrike to tell us Obama is the most libertarian president ever ever ever and more libertarian then everyone here.

    1. That wasn’t Shriek that was Welch.

    2. Don’t forget to include an article saying that’s why the millenials all support him.

  21. I cannot praise this article enough. It hits the nail right on the head.

    Liz Warren will be the nominee! U heard it here first. She will say that her opponent hates women (even Hillary) and all the leftists will vote for her. Her divisiveness knows no bounds – a true leftist.

    The left looks at Europe, which has little or no military and wonders why the US can’t be like that. All one needs to do is look at the state of its economy and realize “Who would want to be like that?”. Imagine what would happen if the US did draw down and they had to pay their own way on military.

    The left has truly gone Communist.

    1. Liz Warren will be the nominee!

      No. No way in hell MSM would allow that to happen. They know Warren would lose against pretty much any Republican. They will praise Hilary’s war mongering before that.

      1. Crazy vs. Grumpy.

    2. I don’t think it will be Warren – she’s too far to the left.
      It could be Clinton, but I kind of think people will be so tired of hearing about her by 2016.

      I think the Democrats best bet to win again will probably to find another black man. Or a Hispanic. A mixed race black/Hispanic man would close the deal with both blacks and Hispanics – and enough white liberals to make over 50%.
      That’s Obama’s current ruling coalition.

  22. Well, wanting to handle my own health-care is a pretty radical notion.

    1. It certainly is. So is self responsibly and self reliance.

      It’s curious that most of our founding fathers would be considered extremists these days. Just like Martin Luther King would. They have been replaced by cradle to grave “entitlements” and Al Sharpton…

      LOL

  23. the fawning adulation that greeted the Occupy protests, which amounted to one long primal scream against capitalism.

    I don’t know about that. Occupy was pretty scatterbrain and tons of bullshit spewed from their mouths. But at the heart it was an impulse against what big banks and the FED were doing.

    US voters for a good 100+ years opposed a centralized bank. One could hardly call that opposition left wing or anti-capitilism and one can not call the FED, the bail outs, and quantitative easing capitalist with a straight face.

    1. ^ This. That was the greatest tragedy about the Occupy protests – they had no idea they were in favor of free markets and protesting government cronyism. They thought what they were protesting could accurately be described as “free market capitalism.”

      1. Square – Yeah, OWS was half-right. But their solution was wrong: “Government! We need more of you to save us from you!”

        And blame their propagandist instructors and Adbusters whose notion was that the Soviet Union collapsed because of too much capitalism left in the country. Those Russians and their dang gardens and books! Ruining utopia!

    2. If this is true then you will agree that the occupy movement should have occupied capital hill instead, since the FED is located there, and the bailouts and quantitative easing come from Washington. Not Wall Street.

      To me trying to get rid of those who solicit D.C. is like trying to end the sale of drugs by going after the drug buyers instead of the drug dealer, which in this case, is D.C.

      1. Not Wall Street.

        Both actually. The distance between big wallstreet banks and DC when it comes to manipulation of our economy is less then the width of a cunt’s hair.

        Hell just look at our post financial crisis regulation climate and economy. Everything about it is artificially manipulated to benefit wall street banks AND benefit big government spending at the expense of individual savings and employment.

        You are latching on to the myth that Wallstreet is even remotely capitalist…let go. It is no more separate from government that Fanny May and Freddy mac were.

        1. Unless you can convince me that Congress is forced, at the point of a gun, to pass legislation that favors Wall Street then I don’t see how protesting Wall Street solves anything.

          Since Congress gives out goodies that it is not permitted to do there will always be someone soliciting favors from them. You have to reign in Congress. Not the solicitors. If Congress didn’t give your tax money to entities that they declare are too big to fail, as well as stopped picking winners and loser in our economy, lobbying would go away.

          Lastly, I never indicated in any way that I believe that Wall Street is capitalist. Nothing the government is involved in can be considered capitalism.

      2. As a libertarian ending “the sale of drugs” cannot occur, even by law. (As is the case now.) Yet your claim is to go after the drug dealer!? If demand remains the same (by not going after the drug user- “Just Say No”) and supply is lowered (by eradicating a dealer’s distribution chain) price goes up. Basic S&D. When price crosses some cost/benefit level, why, someone who really just wants to sell cars made of aluminum might be tempted to make just one drug transaction to fund his other (legit) business. Going after drug dealers increases the demand for more drug dealers.

  24. The Democratic Shift to the Left

    “Shift”? Really? How can one notice?

    It’s true that many Republicans let their hearts overrule their heads on issues such as climate change ? where conceding the facts would require admitting the other team might, possibly, have a point.

    Depends on what facts you think one requires to “concede”. That the earth could be getting a bit warmer? Maybe. That so-called “climate change” can be averted by destroying economic development for all individuals by massive government interference in productive efforts? Uh-uh.

    Besides, “what “facts” are there to trust anymore, Mr. Hinkle?

  25. “Democratic Party once had what might be called small-government liberals”

    When? 1896?

    1. Compared to FDR and Wilson Kennedy was pretty small government.

      Hell Kennedy was more small government then Bush.

      1. JFK was the guy with the $99 Billion dollar budget. Also campaigned on the “missile gap” and created Apollo program.

        1. He also cut the top tax rates by like 1000%.

          These days, both big government parties are so socialist it’s hard for a non-partisan to see much of a difference between them.

  26. My suspicion is that a significant swath of the Democratic party really does suffer from a certain epistemic closure. They really can go through life without encountering someone who disagrees with them (or at least argues with their worldview). And most probably do. As a result, they’re ignorant of their own biases and presumptions. Viewed from this perspective, the President’s statement makes ample sense. Of course, the Republicans are ideological extremists divorced from fact based arguments. Every reasonable person he knows puts little if any credence in the arguments.

    1. This, in my experience, seems correct. It explains why, upon the presentation of any ideas that conflict with their (and for them, every else they know’s) worldview, they react with derision, scorn, or disbelief. I’ve been hit with “How can you, as an educated person, possibly believe that?” more times than I care to remember.

      I haven’t been subject to much of this from conservatives with whom I very frequently disagree, however. I wonder if those conservatives, who grew up before there were alternative media outlets, and were consistently handed their news from almost all liberal sources, are just more accustomed to hearing alternative viewpoints?

  27. “where conceding the facts would require admitting the other team might, possibly, have a point”

    Please tell me what facts have not been conceded that should have been conceded.

    1. and that doesn’t even support his original statement of following their hearts over their minds. When facts are contestable they will be contested- esp. in rhetorical debate if their inevitable conclusion is logically sound. That’s still using the ol’ noggin.

  28. It strikes me that there’s a difference between a policy idea and the economic reality of having the resources to accomplish these goals in the complexity of a social and economic system.

    Political collective/socialists seem to fail to grasp that all the resources of societal productivity can not be given to their program goals – even if there were enough resources over time to support them. Collectivist/big government policies of both sub-classes of politicians are slowly degrading our economic productivity on a per capita basis.

    Talk about disconnects.

  29. Wasn’t OWS organized by Adbusters, a Canadian company that publishes an expensive magazine with tons of ads? That then set up shop and sold a bunch of stuff in multiple cities? The so-called “socialists” who make tons of money off of selling stuff?

    I still joke that if you want to become rich, sell yourself as socialist (i.e., Naomi Klein, Michael Moore, Chomsky, Terry Eagleton, Rage Against the Machine, countless other writers and dictators).

    Granted, if you can live with the crushing, gnawing reality of having caused tons of misinformation and lots of starvation and death.

    If you can…you’re a socialist!

  30. rights are no longer trumps; they are simply one more consideration to be balanced against all the rest.

    Mort Sahl noticed this a long time ago when he said there are no liberals any more, only social democrats.

  31. False equivalence is the most pernicious political fallacy of our time. It would be rather a coincidence if the parties had gone exactly equally extreme in either direction. It would require an extraordinary explanation. On the contrary, Democrats are still in the process of shuffling off the Clinton-era lurch toward the Reagan consensus. They’re nowhere near being their old selves again. Meanwhile, the Republicans’ radicalization should be evident for anyone whose head is somewhere other than his ass. Elizabeth Warren is not a radical. Almost every Republican is. You may think that’s a totally subjective judgment, but it’s not. You just have to not be a rightwing radical yourself to see it.

    The Democrats have sought painful compromises throughout Obama’s tenure, ones liberals were frankly relieved to see die at the hands of Republican extremism. They offered up cuts to entitlements. These plans failed because Republicans refused to raise a cent in taxes. This is not equivalence. False equivalence only serves to give Republicans a pass on their nonsense.

    1. The “Clinton-era lurch towards the Reagan consensus” is what allows Democrats to claim that deficits have gone down under Democratic presidents, and claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism.

      If Clinton hadn’t been a “triangulator” he would never have lasted two terms in office, and would hardly have been fondly remembered.

    2. Are we talking about Elizabeth Warren the Native American here? Not a kook? Well, that’s a shocking position to take. Good luck with that in the Primary!

    3. When were they “their old selves?” During FDR’s terms? Kennedy’s? Carter’s?

      And “almost every Republican” is a radical? Like (zzzzz) McCain? Or Romney? Or big-spender Bush? Or Paul-I-can-balance-the-budget-by-2063-Ryan? John Boehner? Perhaps that firebrand Mitch McConell?

      Maybe you’re just trolling.

  32. I would vote Democrat if they put forward any solutions that aren’t full-blown or poorly implemented socialism. I’m a conservative but not a republican, and it seems like there isn’t a home for people like me outside of Libertarianism which has it’s own share of kooks.

    I can only think Obama and the Democrats are fully aware of the fact that as soon as anyone gets rid of their economic life support America is going to tank. My guess is they hope a Republican gets elected so they can take the blame for 8 years of credit card spending and rampant money printing.

    This is why I highly suspect that Hillary simply won’t run or if she does she won’t do anything to right the ship. If Warren, by some random alignment of the stars, gets the nomination you’ll know why.

    As for the global warming bit of the article I’m curious if the author meant the man made kind or the kind that’s been happening since the dawn of time? Those are, after all, two completely different things. One definitely exists and has been scientifically proven; the other is a theory that so far hasn’t been proven one way or the other outside of politics. (And one could say the theory has even been proven wrong as none of it’s prognostications have come to pass.)

  33. To say Occupy Wall Street was an irrational movement makes YOU the extremist. Finances share of corporate profits have gone from 13% to 34 % and for that we got $100 trillion dollars of leveraged fraudulent toxic securities that blew up the economy and destroyed massive amounts of middle class wealth. Nope the left is as Obama said the reasoned position here.People who make a living as Vassals propagandizing a narrative to help the entrenched powers are in no position to speak of ideological extremism. Libertarianism exist no where in the real world, is illogical buffoonery and is a form a cultism and extremism.

    1. Spoken like a true believer statist scumbag….(golf clap)

      1. Nope spoken like a rational person who understands history. We had 50 years of shared prosperity after FDR and with good banking regulations there were n major financial collapses. I am not a communist but anyone who endorses this sort of financialization of the economy is an unthinking simple-minded dolt.

        1. Nope.
          Spoken like a true believer statist scumbag.
          And an unthinking simple-minded dolt besides.

        2. You’re right about one thing. As Nock noted at the time, FDR’s death was the biggest public improvement that America experienced since the passage of the Bill of Rights and marked the merciful conclusion of America’s Great Depression.

          In an economically literate world, the anniversary of his death would be a national holiday.

          1. And say hi to Don and the boys for me, George.

      2. Nope spoken like a rational person who understands history. We had 50 years of shared prosperity after FDR and with good banking regulations there were n major financial collapses. I am not a communist but anyone who endorses this sort of financialization of the economy is an unthinking simple-minded dolt.

        1. So the 1930’s were a period of prosperity due to the policies of FDR?

          You are fucking retarded.

        2. muirgeo|8.25.14 @ 10:11PM|#
          “Nope spoken like a rational person who understands history.”

          Nope, spoken like a statist asshole and a simple-minded dolt.

          1. FDR was an evil motherfucker.

    2. I take it you’re opposed to the existence of nationalized corporations like FNMA and FHLMC, Federal Reserve banking cronyism and the theft of laborers’ purchasing power via counterfeiting, and Greenspan’s inflation of an asset bubble via manipulation of interest rates (aka the price of money, which is just as sensitive to price controls as gasoline or bread) that led directly to a price bubble in real estate and the massive bust of 2008?

      OWS was a gathering of useful idiots who would continue the same central banking cronyism that caused both the Great Depression and the Great Recession. The country is fortunate that OWSers’ political staying power was equal to their understanding of monetary policy and the effect of interest rate manipulation on high-order capital goods.

  34. It’s true that many Republicans let their hearts overrule their heads on issues such as climate change?where conceding the facts would require admitting the other team might, possibly, have a point.

    Co2 is rising and for 14 or 17 years (depending on how you count) there has been no change. What point does the other side have?

    Models?

    1. When you see lots of equations and graphs, that’s how you know something’s scientific.

  35. One of the most incoherent statements ever offered on these pages:

    muirgeo|8.25.14 @ 8:44PM|#
    “To say Occupy Wall Street was an irrational movement makes YOU the extremist. Finances share of corporate profits have gone from 13% to 34 % and for that we got $100 trillion dollars of leveraged fraudulent toxic securities that blew up the economy and destroyed massive amounts of middle class wealth.”

    Dipshit, you’re entirely too stupid to waste time correcting imbecilic statements like “…finances share of corporate profits…”.

  36. Well, yeah, but those were old-timey guys. Today’s liberals are different, because not only are they smarter, but they REALLY mean to do good. And everybody knows that intentions are what drives results! THIS TIME IT WILL WORK!

    (if you clap hard enough, than Tinker Bell will live!)

    1. hmmm, pretty sure I quoted part of the article before I wrote my opinion… oh well, here is what I was replying to:

      “Put the government in charge of everything, and put the right people in charge of the government. Then just sit back and wait for Shangri-La.

      History has falsified that premise time after time.”

  37. “Ideological extremism,” he told The New York Times, “is much more prominent right now in the Republican Party than the Democrats. That’s why sent the IRS to kick their asses. Oh, whoops, shut off the mic.”

  38. So he uses that least defensible example as a place where Team Red needs to adjust…

    climate change?where conceding the facts would require admitting the other team might, possibly, have a point.

    Give me a break. Has he not been paying attention? Deep ocean cooling, bogus measurements out of Oz, massive Antarctic ice increase, 17th year of no warming, the absolute destruction of the 97% paper, etc.?

  39. my best friend’s mother makes $66 /hr on the computer . She has been without work for 7 months but last month her payment was $13283 just working on the computer for a few hours. go…..

    ?????? http://WWW.JOBSAA.COM

  40. “And it is true that on one very narrow band of issues?sex and abortion?liberals agree government should butt out.”

    In what world has the author been living? Liberals want government to force the rest of us to pay for everything they want regarding abortion.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.