Election 2014

Kansas Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Democrats—By Kicking the Democrat Off the Ballot

|

Orman for Senate

The Kansas Supreme Court just ruled that Chad Taylor, who had been running for Senate in Kansas as a Democrat, should not appear on ballots this November. As it turns out, that's good for Democrats hoping to defeat Taylor's incumbent Republican opponent.

The ruling also has the potential to have a major impact on the battle for control of the Senate in this November's midterm election. 

Until recently, the Kansas Senate race was thought to be a relatively safe bet: Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, who has served the state since 1997, would win reelection against Democrat Chad Taylor, independent Greg Orman, and Libertarian Randall Batson. 

Then things got weird. At the beginning of the month, Taylor, the Democratic candidate decided to withdraw—and in doing so, threatened to make the race competitive again. With Taylor gone, most obervers agreed, Orman, an independent who had already raised far more money than Taylor, presented a clear threat to the incumbent Republican Pat Roberts. 

Republicans accused Democrats of dirty tricks. "Chad Taylor's withdrawal from the U.S. Senate race reveals a corrupt bargain between Greg Orman and national Democrats, including Sen. Harry Reid, that disenfranchises Kansas Democrats," Leroy Towns, the campaign manager for Roberts, told The Wall Street Journal

But GOP officials in the state had a few tricks of their own. Kris Kobach, the Kansas Secretary of State, attempted to prohibit Taylor from withdrawing. He argued that because Taylor did not use certain required language in his withdrawal letter, his name still had to appear on the ballot. 

The question was put to the state Supreme Court on Tuesday, and this afternoon, the court ruled in Taylor's favor, saying the candidate's name had to be struck from the ballot. 

This obviously shakes up the Kansas race, turning the GOP's once-safe seat into a close contest—a Public Policy Polling survey released earlier this week showed Orman leading Roberts by seven points.

But because control of the Senate is up for grabs, and because the contest for a Senate majority is so close, this could have an even larger impact is well. Orman is an independent, and it's not known which party he will end up caucusing with. But it's possible that if he wins, whichever party he chooses to side with will end up with control. 

In other words, it could be up to Orman, who six weeks ago was assumed to have no chance, to decide which party runs the Senate for the next two years. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Australia Arrests 15 in Alleged ISIS Plot

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. Orman is an independent, and it’s not known which party he will end up caucusing with.

    Uh-huh, guy is a self-described “fiscal centrist” and “pragmatist” so that means he is just another Dem.

    1. I posted his issues page when they brought him up last time. He’s a generally horrible statist on everything. Basically the worst impulses of the Democrats and Republicans rolled into one person.

      1. We just need a TOP. MAN. to get rid of partisan bickering and Get Things Done.

        And you know who else said that?

      2. On September 3, 2014, Orman was endorsed by a group of former Republican elected officials called Traditional Republicans for Common Sense. Jim Yonally, chairman of the group, stated, “We believe Greg Orman is the best qualified candidate for the office of United States senator from Kansas.”[5]

        Republicans with common sense support him.

        (Wikipedia)

        1. Traditional Republicans for Common Sense

          So he’s a statist shithead then?

        2. Traditional Republicans for Common Sense is a bunch of fiscal liberals who were bitter that the state GOP moved away from tax-and-spend and fought tooth-and-nail to stop Kansas from reducing spending or cutting its top tax rate by 2%. Their ideas are neither traditionally Republican, nor common-sense, so who gives a shit whether fucktards like you agree with them?

          Actually, the fact that fucktards like you agree with them tells me they’re even more stupid than I’d assumed.

          1. Brownback has thrown the state into huge debtor/deficit status.

            BTW, I had never heard of this group until today. But if they don’t buy into stupid conservative myths like “tax cuts always increase revenue” then they are OK with me.

            Tax cuts have one purpose – to let the earner keep more of his income. You don’t need to lie about the effect of tax cuts to justify them.

            1. So you must really hate it when Dems talk about tax cuts as “expenditures”, amirite?

            2. But if they don’t buy into stupid conservative myths like “tax cuts always increase revenue”

              You’re not even intelligent enough to know that the Laffer curve didn’t make that claim because it was talking about optimal tax rate.

              Not that your inability to read for comprehension should come as a surprise.

        3. I think that says Republicans For Common Sense, not With Common Sense. One group is significantly rarer than the other.

        4. One thing we can be sure of, if butthead endorses him, he’s bad in all the worst ways.

      3. Aforementioned issues page for all those who wish to point and laugh.

        Sample: THE SECOND AMENDMENT
        I own two handguns. I believe in Second Amendment rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.

        Both times that I bought a handgun,I was required to go through a mandatory background check to ensure that I was a U.S. citizen who hadn’t been convicted of domestic violence,subject to a restraining order for harassing,stalking,or threatening behavior,incarcerated for longer than a year,dishonorably discharged from the military,or determined to be mentally defective. Over 700,000 people who met the description above have been prevented from buying firearms at licensed dealers since the background check requirements went into effect.

        The idea that those 700,000 people could simply head to a gun show and buy a firearm without the same background scrutiny doesn’t make sense to me. While there are likely other illegal ways for criminals to get firearms,we shouldn’t make it easy for a violent offender or a mentally ill individual to get a gun. The process for me took a few minutes and ultimately resulted in me being able to buy my handguns without delay.

        1. Thanks for the link. I’m starting to skim. Looks very good on item #1, Job Creation – Innovation. Item #2, similarly named, a little skimpy but looks good too. How far do I have to get before bad outweighs good? Or is he just bad on your own personal make-or-break item?

          1. He thinks we need an amendment to overturn CU. That’s all I needed to see to know he’s actually a democrat.

            1. Probably a slight majority of people in this country, if asked, would want to overturn Citizens United. So you’re not convincing me this candidate’s worse than avg. Also, although Democrats break worse than Republicans on the question, there’s still a large fraction of Republicans who are on the wrong side of this too. It’s only among sitting members of Congress that the division is stark. But this guy’s not a pol yet, he’s been a businessman, so I don’t think this marks him as agreeing with Democrats much more than Republicans on most things.

              1. Probably a slight majority of people in this country, if asked, would want to overturn Citizens United.

                Yeah, based solely on what they’ve been told by Democrat-leaning media which is all the major TV network news organizations plus the NYT. (Fox doesn’t have a network news operation, they have a news channel which is a different thing; I don’t lump MSNBC in with NBC News.)

          2. Now I’ve skimmed a few more. Guy looks significantly better than the avg. person or the avg. candidate for pretty much anything. I’m tired of reading, though (late at night), and am going to chalk up the negative evalu’ns here to pie-in-the-sky standards. And besides, I should work on my Vote Smart page for my own candidacy for NY assembly, AD 80.

            1. pie-in-the-sky standards

              OK…

        2. So on top of being a statist he’s also a fucking moron.

          Gun show loophole my ass.

        3. The truth is this is a false choice, and I know it because as a businessman I did both. The first company I ever started, Environmental Lighting Concepts, designed and installed energy efficient lighting systems for commercial and industrial buildings.

          Our company created jobs, helped the environment, protected natural resources, and made money for our customers.

          Green jobs in every pot!

          With that said,if one party is clearly in the majority,he will seek to caucus with the party that was in the majority as that would be in the best interest for the state of Kansas.

          Show me the money!

          Just a slightly modernized version of a Blue Dog.

          1. Just a slightly modernized version of a Blue Dog

            That was exactly my thought after reading his positions. He could certainly be worse, but “could be worse” is not the standard I think people should settle for.

            The election and influence of people like Paul and Amash shows that we can set the bar a little higher.

    2. No nominal independent has ever caucused with the Repubs. He’ll be a functional Dem once he gets to Washington.

      1. Especially since they are supporting him.

    3. Oh and if I recall correctly he doesn’t know which party he’ll caucus with because he said he’d caucus with whoever has the majority.

      1. Wouldn’t it be fun if he were the person who decides which side that will be?

  2. Looks like he is ineligible for the GOP since he is a “baby killer”:

    According to the Wall Street Journal, Orman supports reproductive rights.[7] On his campaign website Orman states, “I know the women of Kansas are smart, and I trust them to make their own decisions about their reproductive health.”

    Wikipedia

    1. I VOTED FOR REAGAN IN ’84 BUT TODAY’S GOP IS WAY TOO EXTREME FOR ME!!!!!11111

    2. Does he trust the women of Kansas to make their own decisions about things other than their reproductive health?

      Like their health insurance coverage or lack thereof?

      1. *standing ovation*

  3. Can we forget that the Democrats now support repealing the first amendment?

  4. The Democrats spent a lot of jack taking this to the (state) SC so orman would a chance to win. That investment signals which way the wind blows.

  5. “Chad Taylor’s withdrawal from the U.S. Senate race reveals a corrupt bargain between Greg Orman and national Democrats, including Sen. Harry Reid, that disenfranchises Kansas Democrats,” Leroy Towns, the campaign manager for Roberts, told The Wall Street Journal.

    Occasionally campaign managers learn to imitate human speech to the point that it almost seems like they understand what the sounds they are making mean.

  6. Third way no-labels types tend to be bigger advocates for a centralized state than their conventionally Democratic counterparts.

    My guess is that he is popular because he has made a bunch of folksy statements about common sense governance and representing true Kansans. Now that he is the de facto Democrat in the race, it will be easier to define him.

    1. Third way no-labels types tend to be bigger advocates for a centralized state than their conventionally Democratic counterparts.

      Yes, since by definition hate dissent and want TOP. MEN. to Get Things Done.

    2. You Know Who Else proposed a third way in opposition to the existing party system and advocated for a centralized state?

      1. Commander Susan Ivanova in The Geometry of Shadows?

      2. Alden Pyle?

    3. Roberts is a Big Gov Bush Republican who voted for Medicare Prescription Welfare, NCLB, and harsher drug sentences.

      Vote Libertarian.

      1. Medicare Prescription Welfare,

        If a majority of Dems didn’t vote for Part D, it ahd to be close.

        NCLB

        A majority of Dems voted for this one.

        harsher drug sentences

        Without anything more specific, I can’t say if a majority of Dems voted for this. But a majority did support the ’80s era WOD legislation. The 1986 Act passed by voice vote, which means it had overwhelming bipartisan support.

        Prog projection: the gift that just never stops.

        1. I am opposed to Medicare Part D, NCLB, McCain-Feingold, the Iraq War, the PATRIOT Act, and other Big Gov Bush programs.

          That makes me a prog?

          You Peanuts cannot stand it when a classic liberal escapes the GOP Plantation.

          1. Nah. You’re a prog because are a poorly sock-puppeted TEAM BLUE partisan faking libertarian sympathies.

            1. Which is why people think it is Weigel.

              1. I don’t believe he’s Weigel. Weigel actually seems to understand the Laffer Curve. That’s beyond the cognitive ability of buttplug.

              2. I think it’s a turd.

                1. I estimate about 85 Courics.

          2. You Peanuts cannot stand it when a classic neo-liberal escapes the GOP Plantation shits up your threads.

            What can I say, the red pen was handy.

  7. The guy supports “reproductive rights”, “common sense” gun control, “affordable” college education, ag supports, and just about every shithole program coming out of the Potomac. When he ran for Senate in ’08, it was as a Democrat. His donations include donating to Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, and Harry Reid in ’08 and ’10, respectively.

    He’s about as “independent” as Barney Frank and Joe Lieberman, which ain’t much to write home about.

    1. Libertarian moment!

    2. “common sense” gun control = gun centralization, not gun control

      Don’t want to keep guns out of the hands of public employees!

  8. What’s amazing is that after 6 years of perhaps the most scandal-plagued administration in the history of the US, Republicans are still as likely as not to take the Senate from the dems, who have largely been complicit in perpetuating the corruption. This is how out of touch the Republican party is. A majority of Americans would rather vote for the Satan Party since at least the Satan Party is not engaging a war on women.

    1. What war on women?

      1. Im voting lp this fall, but its because mcconnell is a statist shithead, not because of some mythical war on women.

        If anyone is fighting a war on women, its progressives.

        1. Sorry, I should have used “scare quotes”. The dems and seemingly most left-leaners believe in a non-existent war on women perpetrated by the Republicans. Not that I’m defending the Republican Party, it’s just one tiny nudge away from being as bad as the dems.

    2. BENGHAZI!!!!! BENGGGHHAAZZIII!!!! DERPLE BLUB BENGHAZI!!!!

      1. You mean the coverup that the bitter skag who used to fuck Bill Clinton orchestrated to hide her own incompetence because she thinks she’s qualified to be President some day?

        Your imitation of liberals’ understanding of that scandal is pretty much spot on.

        1. See, above, re ” poorly sock-puppeted TEAM BLUE partisan”.

          Anyone with the slightest libertarian sympathies sees Benghazi as a major scandal shamefully handled by the DemOp media and the incompetents in Congress.

          Only a TEAM BLUE partisan sees it as a fake scandal.

          1. That’s because people from that group are stupid.

            They think genitalia or skin color should trump competence when it comes to selecting their politicians.

            1. They think genitalia or skin color should trump competence when it comes to selecting their politicians.

              So long as there’s a (D) after their name, anyway. If they have an (R), then even if they have the “right” genitalia or skin color, they’re the worst. Perhaps even worse than people who have the “wrong” genitalia or skin color.

              1. Yup.

                Superficial people have superficial ideas about how the world works and elect superficial politicians to implement them.

              2. I read “genitalia” as “reptilia”

                Still works.

        2. You mean the coverup that the bitter skag who used to fuck Bill Clinton

          Can you be a little more specific?

      2. Don’t ever change demfag.

    3. Not sure if serious.

      The Republican party is horribly inept, but “war on women” is not a serious reason as to why this is the case. There is no war on women outside the propaganda of the DNC on the part of either party; Republican policies on the subject are what they have always been, which is a mix of policies which satiate various parts of their base (the religious as well as small government types) and which also appeal to their donors. In this area of public policy, most of these are things that libertarians agree with them on (no contraceptives/abortifacient mandates vis a vis insurance, no federal subsidies for domestic or international abortions, over-the-counter contraceptives, etc).

      The problem is that Republicans are the K-mart of politics. They are poorly-branded and marketed, and negative perceptions of Rs is reinforced by a largely hostile media and entertainment culture. If the Ls ever became the second party in the US, they’d run into the same problem because libertarians are just as reviled in those circles as conservatives are.

      1. See my mea culpa to robc just above. Seems everyone’s sarcasm meter is set to kill and mine went slid under the threshold.

      2. If the Ls ever became the second party in the US, they’d run into the same problem because libertarians are just as reviled in those circles as conservatives are.

        Yeah, many libertarians forget that the Dems love to attack the Republicans as anti-government libertarians when it suits them.

        1. Right. I’m not even sure the actual narratives would change; they would just switch gears and argue that religious conservatism is merely one of the many forms that capitalist-driven hatred of women and the poors takes. That is to say, some of the court scribes would do that. Most would just use the same exact talking points without missing a beat; witness how the Kochs are so often blamed for the Iraq War and traditional conservatism despite being opposed to both.

          To a prog, there is no R or L — only Goldstein.

    4. the Satan Party is not engaging a war on women.

      No, but the Dems are.

      They are underbussing Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and there are some nasty attacks on Hillary coming from the proggie/Fauxcahontas wing of the party.

  9. So we have a choice between statist fucks and people who think the statist fucks are too anti-government. The libertarian moment is upon us!

    I suppose in a hundred years the US will end like the libertarian utopias of China or Russia. Replace the current two party duopoly with a one-party monopoly!

    1. Plus a libertarian who will get half a percent of the vote.

      1. The illusion of choice.

  10. Orman is an independent, and it’s not known which party he will end up caucusing with. But it’s possible that if he wins, whichever party he chooses to side with will end up with control.

    This is why I say that it just takes a couple Libertarians in the House and Senate to control both.

    1. That’s not really how it works in multiparty democracies in Europe and other parts of the world. Most of the time, what happens is that the small party with 2-3 seats is bought off with at best a couple of issues in exchange for their supporting the majority coalition.

      1. Fighting over what issues to sell-out to the Democrats/Republicans will certainly help the LP, right?

      2. Plus the Public hates “obstructionists”.

    2. I don’t think so. Outside of a few kultur war issues the Rs and Ds are a lot closer to each other than they are to libertarians. If there was some kind of 48-48-4 senate split I think you would just end up seeing a handful of one team or the other crossing the lines to obviate the interference.

      1. True, party discipline in the US is quite weak when compared to parliamentary countries.

        1. Except in NJ & NY legislatures.

  11. Pat Roberts sold his soul to the Devil; or maybe to the Kochs. It’s hard to tell them apart.

    1. I believe that the Devil is a Koch subsidiary.

  12. Why does he look like he’s just beginning to shit his pants?

    It’s almost as if they snapped that pick as his smile was fading from the initial stench.

  13. This is actually a good strategy template for the Dems in red states, and maybe for the GOP in blue states: run a “centrist” who’s really from your own party as an independent, then have your party’s more extremist official candidate drop out in September.

    1. maybe for the GOP in blue states

      Of course “centrist” Republicans in Blue States are going to be pretty terrible you know?

      And You Know Who Else created phony “independents” in their elections?

    2. Believe it or not, the USSR used this tactic to good effect to gain control of the official “democratic” organs of post-war Eastern Europe in a semi-legitimate fashion.

      1. Vietnam has 42 “independents” in their legislature.

        And China and North Korea officially have governing coalitions.

      2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G…..ember_1933

        All opposition parties had been banned by this time, and voters were presented with a single list containing Nazis and 22 non-party “guests” of the Nazi party.

        1. You know who else had a list containing Nazis…

  14. Why you should take women’s studies classes.

    Most people are familiar with the statistics: one in five women experience an attempted or a completed sexual assault in college, and women earn 77 percent of what their male counterparts do for the same work. But there are other issues not so obvious to the untrained eye: These include sexual objectification of women and girls in the media, everyday examples of rape culture like street harassment and the lack of female representation across the political spectrum.

    You should take women’s studies courses because it will teach you statistics that have already been disproven.

    1. Things progs hail you for taking in college:
      Women’s Studies
      Black Studies
      Latin American Studies

      Things progs revile you for taking in college:
      Statistics
      Economics
      Accounting

      Do note the relative willingness of people to pay you for your knowledge in these fields, and get back to me on how “reality based” progressives really are.

      1. Economics? That dismal discipline that snickers at Austrians and labels them “heterodox”?

        I’d say there are far too many Proglodytes in Economics to begin with.

        1. Sure, from an an-cap, Rothbardite, or Austrian point of view. However, economics (even the version you get from saltwater schools) shatters too many myths, kills too many sacred cows to be anything that progs are comfortable with. Liberals, sure. Progs? Not so much; not until someone like Joseph Stiglitz represents the mainstream rather than the kooky, mercilessly-mocked left fringe of the profession.

          (As a side note, when I searched “List of left wing economists” on Google to get Stiglitz’ name right, the fourth search result is a thread titled “why are most top economists right-wing?”, with a thread complaining/arguing about that very question.)

          http://www.econjobrumors.com/t…..right-wing

          1. I agree from a North American perspective. Indeed, from the quick scan of the discussion on the thread you linked to seemed focused mostly on American economists. However, once you cross the pond, you’ll find that Piketty is just one of thousands of grandes ?coles trained Euro-pinkos that clog up the bureaucracies of both the UN and NGOs everywhere.

            1. I generally discount post-war Continental sociology unless I have good reason to do otherwise (e.g., German archaeology which is quite good). This might be ignorance and chauvinism on my part, but if you haven’t gotten past Marxist analysis (which is the default in many fields of study in Europe, especially Economics) in your study of humanity, you’re as good to me as a doctor who still embraces Humorism as a valid tool of diagnosis.

              1. “a doctor who still embraces Humorism”

                Like Patch Adams?

              2. Hear, hear!

                And it all stems back to Continental Philosophy.

        2. 3 of my econ professors at Berkeley worked in the Obama administration.

    2. Is that an oxford comma issue, or is “lack of female representation” an example of rape culture?

    3. A few years ago, weren’t progs arguing men should be banned from women’s studies because their male gaze would prevent women from openly discussing the subject?

      1. – If you attend university, you should take at least a few classes in Women’s Studies.
        – Men should be banned from Women’s Studies.

        These statements are not contradictory, as long as men are banned from universities.

      2. Men should take Women’s Studies as long as burlap bags are placed over everyone’s heads. Except when the topic is “male gaze”, then the bags can be taken off the men’s heads; if the male gaze still cannot be identified, then the women will have to huddle to decide which 2 women will have their heads exposed to the men’s gazes.

        (The conversation the women had in the huddle will then be denied having ever taken place.)

  15. I don’t understand what everyone’s worried about. I have been assured that third party candidates have zero chance of winning, are totally unelectable candidates anyway, so why bother throwing your vote away on them?

    1. Brian,
      I know you’re just being witty, but the validity of your sarcastic assertion is demonstrated by this case. When it was a true 3-way contest, the 3rd party candidate had no chance ? the election was a sure thing for the GOP. That’s why the Dems went to the SC ? to make it a 2-way race in which the “independent” candidate can defeat the Republican. 3rd party candidates are vanishingly unlikely to succeed in multiparty contests, but an independent can often beat a progressive or a conservative heads up.

      1. Unfortunately the challenger here is a progservative.

      2. The article seems to indicate that it started as a four-way race (R, D, I, L) and now the D is gone. So the Republicans will commence telling everyone not to throw their vote away on the Libertarian who has no chance to win, blah blah blah.

        1. no, there are more candidates but only n3rds get hung up on it

  16. OT – my family has been pressuring me to watch Ken Burns hagiography of Roosevelts I and II. Now we’re hearing the Fireside Chats and they’re doing dramatic readings of Ordinary People writing the President about how they’ve been Inspired by his Leadership.

    Will Burns get to the National Recovery Administration, and if so, how will he spin it?

    1. Better you than me. 🙂

      1. Sometimes they have George Will to remind the viewers of FDR’s authoritarian overtones, and the narrator even took *a full sentence* to acknowledge that some of the “100 days” legislation was bad (details unspecified).

        But the important point is he was *doing something!* And sailing on his yacht!

        And the National Recovery Administration sponsored a massive parade in New York City! Which totally wasn’t creepy at all!

        1. And the Secret Service confiscated the camera of any citizen who photographed FDR in a situation where his physical disability was obvious. But that’s OK, because back in the 1930s and 40s The People didn’t want to know that sort of thing.

        2. I’m surprised they noticed that FDR was a rich son of privilege.

          Always amuses me to see him ranked as one of the top three Presidents.

          Lessee here, you have the guy who kicked the ass of the British and had his hands in practically every institution of the country, and who was even pivotal in ensuring that the country was a republic instead of a monarchy. OK, he’s obviously getting #1 spot for best Presidents.

          Then you have a guy who started his term with half the nation (including most of the veterans and top military brass) in open revolt and his own party (which hadn’t even had its tires kicked in yet) in anemic support. He ended his term with the situation completely resolved and his party in charge (despite presiding over the bloodiest war in US history), essentially setting the terms of US prosperity going forward for the next 70 years and resolving the slavery issue which had vexed the early republic, as well as being dealt with ineffectively by his predecessors. Sure, some people disagree with some of what he did and I might disagree with the ranking, but I can buy him being #2.

          Then you have a guy who spent tons of money imitating Mussolini while watching unemployment go up and the US go down for 10 years. Oh, also he jailed a bunch of chinks for no reason. Or maybe it was gooks. I dunno, one of those Asian ethnic groups no one gives a damn about. Definitely #3 ranking, well over Jefferson or Polk or someone who was actually effective.

          1. 1. Lincoln, simply because no president ever had to deal with a crisis like the Civil War.

            And fuck the Lost Causers and revisionists, slavery was the most abominable institution ever conceived and I don’t gave two shits what motivation Lincoln and the North had in eradicating it from our country. The fact that they got rid of it in one fell swoop was the best thing any president did for our country.

            2. Washington for the reasons you stated.

            3. Grover Cleveland for being a true classical liberal and resisting the corruption endemic of that time period.

            1. Cleveland was the shit, same with Harding. It’s simply unbelievable that Harding is often ranked worst US President (even worse than fucking James Buchanan). Because leasing a petroleum reserve sans competitive bidding thanks to a corrupt Secretary without your knowledge is much worse than sitting on your ass while the country falls into civil war. Of course, such things were unseen before Harding, and haven’t been heard of since so maybe the rating is justified given the extraordinary rarity of corruption on the part of any given President’s flunkies.

              1. First Sitting President to Mention Civil Rights in the South

                (History Engine)

                bit.ly/1wKe2rB

              2. Because leasing a petroleum reserve sans competitive bidding thanks to a corrupt Secretary without your knowledge is much worse than sitting on your ass while the country falls into civil war.

                Without the South, the NE liberals would never get all the votes necessary for their socialism plans. Buchanan saw this, you can’t.

            2. You Know Who Else thought Lincoln was the Greatest President?

            3. And his hundreds of vetoes.

              Although I’d put William Henry Harrison up there for dying after only a month and not having the time to do any damage.

              1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…..er1912.jpg

                Yes there was a time when Dems wanted to get people off the dole and the Republicans were filled with sensible centrist moderates who wanted to keep people on it.

            4. Is Abraham Lincoln (and Grant perhaps) the true libertarian TOP. MAN.?

            5. Has no one read Amity Shlaes biography of Coolidge? The only President in the 20th Century to actually lower taxes & pay down some of the debt!

            6. Well Fuck You and Abe too.

          2. My theory is that presidential, best of lists are almost always progressively statist, by their very nature. The whole premise behind them is that one guy should make or break the course of national history. If that prospect delights you, it’s probably very easy to come up with your favorites. If it frightens you (as it well should), it’s easier to nitpick other people’s favorites.

  17. So shouldn’t Cameron have invaded Scotland to stop the secession vote in order to save the oil and sub bases? Would Ron Paul, Raimondo, Richman and Rockwell defend that action?

  18. I hate Gavin McInnes because he actually can write something funny from time to time, but generally decides to just troll instead.

    The 18th and 19th centuries were good to Scotland. Slowly, however, industrialization seeped out of factory towns such as Glasgow and Paisley, as it did for the rest of the Western world. By the time the baby boomers were born, there was just shipbuilding and whiskey. When India held up a sign that said “Will build ships for food,” the nation was left with just whiskey. That’s the last thing an unemployed Scot needs.

    The referendum will result in an overall no because this is all for show. Deep down, Scotland knows they are Zimbabwe, and kicking out all the white farmers is going to lead to a 50 billion dollar burger (?814,323). It’s true most people would rather fail with sovereignty than prosper under tyranny. I’m inclined to agree. Scotland is different, however. They have been steeped in unemployment so long, they’ve forgotten how to work. In England, methadone programs have done fairly well getting junkies clean. In Scotland, junkies just become methadone addicts.

    1. Jacob Sullum will be pissed.

    2. It’s true most people would rather fail with sovereignty than prosper under tyranny.

      This is first-rate trolling right there. Most people?? Outside of libertarians, nobody behaves that way.

  19. Speaking about secessionism how about the 1933 Western Australian referendum? Passed overwhelmingly yet the general election held on the same day saw an the anti-secessionists win.

  20. So is 9 PM Eastern the libertarian curfew?

    1. Libertarians have no curfew! We spit in your general direction, your mother smells of hamster berries!

  21. The New York Times bends reality to its will yet again

    “WASHINGTON ? The American air campaign to thwart the advance of fighters from the Islamic State has been the easy part of President Obama’s strategy in Iraq and Syria…”

    First off… this ‘strategy’? they mention?

    According to Obama, this ‘strategy’ did not exist 2 weeks ago, was articulated in a vague way 1 week ago, and apparently has now has ripened into a 3-move-checkmate because The NYT has declared the “ISIS advance” (where were they going, again?) “thwarted”…

    its not at all clear that ISIS attempted any territorial gains since August when they left the Mosul dam. The attribution to some ‘change in the status quo’…as though a fistful of airstrikes have done anything… is such a “narrative stretch*” I can hardly believe they’re actually trying to pull this one off.

    Later in the same piece they seem to contradict themselves:

    “In the past week, the offensive strikes that Mr. Obama promised have started slowly, targeting a few scattered Sunni militant positions ? a truck here, a small boat on the Euphrates there, an artillery position somewhere else ? in what is known in the military as “plinking.”

    Yet apparently this in no way informs the original assertion that US Efforts Have Thwarted Enemy Intentions. The piece just gets worse from there…

    1. The New York Times bends reality to its will yet again

      It’s the proglodyte way.

      1. I like also how they need to say that “plinking” is a military term…

        …because the idea that there’s a commonly used term for ‘fucking around with a gun/shooting tin cans w/ a .22’ is way too challenging for NYT readers to accept.

        Its like they live on fucking Jupiter.

        1. Its like they live on fucking Jupiter.

          We can only dream…

    2. Layer-2 of the Geological-grade-bullshit in that NYT piece is the extensive dancing they do around the touchy subject of “who these ‘boots on the ground‘” folks are supposed to be, why the Iraqi government apparently can’t organize their own military, why we’re ‘vetting and training them’, and why the fuck after a decade of occupation we still can’t identify anyone in Iraq who we can trust.

      They quote Gen Mattis at the end who states the obvious – which is that all of these ‘efforts’ are for naught if not in the context of a political end-state goal for the region that everyone understands and is on board with.

      The idea that people are going to ‘fight a war’ for reasons that will be explained to them later? Is not likely to work out as planned.

      1. Even the goofballs on NPR today (I was stuck in traffic again), were saying that Obama is wrong about even discussing boots on the ground and arming any group in Syria. Not one of these so called ‘liberals’ agreed with his plan.

        It’s getting to the point that our government know that no matter how bad they are, the sheeples will not vote them out of office, so of course, they just do as they want, the people’s opinions be damned.

        1. NPR aren’t against it because it’s fucking stupid, they’re against it only because American soldiers will die.

  22. Here’s what I see happening in Scotland.

    So Cameron got spooked and went running his mouth and promising Scotland stuff so that they might vote no. Now I don’t have any idea if that had any effect on the vote or not, but it could have, and I am sure after this is over and the NOs win, a lot of people are going to see it that way. And then Cameron is going to quickly back out of his deal and tell Scotland tough luck and bugger off. Now if the vote is close, as it looks like it could be 10% or so, let’s say it’s 55-45. That could be close enough that a lot of people might say, hey Cameron promised shit and caused us to lose and now he won’t deliver. This could get ugly.

    1. In Canada Quebeckers were promised repatriation of the constitution if they voted no in 1980 and Quebec didn’t even approve of the repatriated constitution!

      1. I’m really going to have a low opinion of Scotts if they deny me my opportunity to see Cameron and his merry band of limeytards crying in their tea.

        1. You Know Who Else had a low opinion of Scots?

          1. Irvine Welsh?

          2. ME?

            To be fair, I have a low opinion of everybody.

    2. Now if the vote is close, as it looks like it could be 10% or so, let’s say it’s 55-45.

      Funny you say that, as that was almost exactly what the split was.

      Now the separatists are talking about a federal government for the UK, except, of course, England won’t get it’s own parliament. The parasite states will get greater say over taxation and spending, but England, the economic engine, fuck those guys.

      Watching these leftist fuckheads twist in the wind should Cameron not make good on his offers will be orgasmically awesome. I genuinely hope he tells them to go fuck themselves. What are they going to do? Riot? Well whoopty-shit inbreds, go ahead and tear up your own country, nobody gives a shit.

      And the commentary from Gavin McInnes posted by Irish above is spot-fucking-on. Scots are scummy, usless parasites, and it looks like the only reason they stayed “loyal” was because they were offered more blood from the host.

  23. So in Scotland 16 year olds can vote in the referendum. You know that means more millennial polls!

  24. I know how ridiculous the term “moderate rebels” sound but there is truth to it as even rebel groups can have serious factionalism. For example the Zealots and Sicarii (and yes the “Splitters!” thing was no joke) or between American revolutionaries (see Button Gwinnett)or Afghan Communists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babrak_Karmal).

    1. Don’t they also have a tendency to switch sides in the middle of a battle, or at anytime at all? I remember this from when we were first in Afghanistan and the Taliban were battling the Northern Alliance, and we were arming the northern alliance, but some of our guys there were saying that fighters from various factions with their warlord leaders would switch sides all of the time.

  25. my best friend’s mother-in-law makes $84 an hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her check was $12556 just working on the internet for a few hours. have a peek at this site….

    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.