Republican Party

Republicans Warn of Dread Menaces of "National Socialism" and "Gender-Neutral Bathrooms"; Continue to See Hopes for Senate Takeover Decline.

|

Republican Pat Roberts has represented Kansas for so long in Washington as a congressman and a senator that he no longer feels a need to actually own a residence in the Sunflower State. And yet the three-term senator is trailing an independent challenger by double digits in a state that has only elected Republicans to the Senate since the 1930s. How can that be?

Here's a snippet of what Roberts told a crowd in Dodge City:

"There's a palpable fear among Kansans all across the state that the America that we love and cherish will not be the same America for our kids and grandkids, and that's wrong… One of the reasons that I'm running is to change that. There's an easy way to do it. I'll let you figure it out. But at any rate, we have to change course because our country is headed for national socialism. That's not right. It's changing our culture. It's changing what we're all about."

As Politico notes, Roberts didn't specifically reference Germany's Nazis (who were technically known as the National Socialists German Workers Party), so maybe the 78-year-old legislator was just free-associating or rambling incoherently. That might help explain part of his campaign strategy of appearing with 91-year-old former Sen. Bob Dole. As described by the GOP-friendly Washington Times, "Roberts' appearance with Mr. Dole is believed to be his way of casting himself as a more moderate candidate to the younger voters."

Roberts' record is classic big-government conservative stuff: He voted for the George W. Bush stimulus but not the Barack Obama version, is happy to wage war and buy military toys, is socially conservative, etc. That's probably not what is turning off voters in Kansas, which he's represented in Congress in one form or another since 1981. Coming across as out of touch—which the "national socialism" bit certainly suggests—and trying to cast himself as a brave opponent of the government that he's been part of for the past 30-plus years is more at play.

Being out of touch isn't just for wizened senators who prefer not to own homes or have serious residences in the state they claim to represent. D.C.'s Heritage Foundation recently hosted a panel on what liberals really want. According to the writeup of the event by MSNBC, that song goes something like this:

"Give up your economic freedom, give up your political freedom, and you will be rewarded with license," said Heritage's David Azerrad, describing the reigning philosophy of the left. "It's all sex all the time. It's not just the sex itself—it's the permission to indulge."…

Given liberals' fixation with pleasure, "I fear the next great frontier for the left will be trying to lower the age of consent," said Azerrad, head of Heritage's center for principles and politics.

Of course, having sex with minors is very, very important to libruls, but we all know what the real end game is:

When an audience member pointed out that Americans had elected Democrats in times of war, too, Azerrad replied that the priorities of modern-day liberals had changed. "Woodrow Wilson and FDR were not fighting for gender-neutral bathrooms," he said.

More here.

That positive invocation of Wilson and FDR by a conservative brings us back to Kansas actually. Back in 1976, Bob Dole was running for vice president on the GOP ticket with Gerald Ford. One of his talking points in a debate with Walter Mondale was something that seems light years away from today's bombs-away Republican Party. A propos of nothing (literally) Dole, a wounded World War II veteran, promised viewers that a Ford-Dole administration wouldn't be starting all those "Democrat wars" like Wilson, FDR, and LBJ had done.

Between candidacies such as Roberts' and comments such as those coming out of the Heritage Foundation's Azzerad, it's no wonder that Republican chances to take over the Senate have slid from a lock a few months ago to more of a toss-up these days. As godawful as the Democrats and liberals generally are, they've always been lucky enough to have Republicans and conservatives as their opponents.

Advertisement

NEXT: Judge to LASD Cops: 'None of You Have Shown Even the Slightest Remorse'

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. I fucking hate Republicans.

  2. Given liberals’ fixation with pleasure, “I fear the next great frontier for the left will be trying to lower the age of consent,” said Azerrad, head of Heritage’s center for principles and politics.

    He doesn’t know feminists very well, does he?

    1. Well, I’m not sure. The feminists would be ones to lower the age of consent and then require that everyone register with some type of national sex register and report every detail on all their sexual activities, and then randomly use it to punish people they don’t like.

      1. There will be no lowering the age of consent for women. At the most, they’d lower it for men, and raise it for women.

        1. There’s no such thing as consent. It’s either rape, rape-rape, institutionalized rape (marriage), or “God what was I thinking?” ex-post-facto rape.

          1. We still have consent. It’s called prostitution.

    2. The similarity between the anti-freedom so-con right and the anti-freedom P.C. left has been the worst kept secret in American political thought since at least the eighties. Neither side appreciates having it pointed out, but neither side has an argument more cogent than “How dare you notice that I said what I said!”

  3. Well, Nick, looks like you’ll soon be learning the difference between people who say stupid stuff and those who stomp on the Constitution and the rule of law.

    Have fun in school.

    1. Pretty much all of Team Purple are doing both of those things so it’s pretty difficult to tell the difference.

      1. There were plenty of people who felt the opponents of Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin and You Know Who were incompetent corrupt authoritarian hypocrites and they could not possible be as bad as what their opponents accused them of.

        1. And they may have been right.

          1. When the dictatorship comes the alternative is usually not very good.

      2. Which side proposed a Constitutional amendment that would cancel the First Amendment? That little episode hinted at a discernible difference between the two.

        1. The Entire Democrat Senate voted for it. Would Orman have voted against it?

  4. We already have National Socialism, AKA cronyism, AKA fascism. It’s too late to warn about that you fucktards, especially after you are equally guilty for bringing it about.

  5. Tell us how they hate brown people again, Nick. That was such a good rhetorical trick last time.

    1. Here’s the pot calling….er, never mind

      1. How’s not being on law review treating you, champ? Review those docs!

    2. The TEAM RED trolls are sensitive.

  6. “Woodrow Wilson and FDR were not fighting for gender-neutral bathrooms”

    becomes

    “positive invocation of Wilson and FDR by a conservative.”

    And, of course, it’s ridiculous to say the left wants to lower the age of consent. Just as it was ridiculous for opponents of the ERA in the 1970s to say that leftists were trying to bring about same-sex marriage and same-sex bathrooms.

    “It’s all sex all the time. It’s not just the sex itself?it’s the permission to indulge.”

    Ha ha, where did this weirdo get the idea that the left was focusing on sex? And by the way, be sure to vote Democrat to save your birth control from Republicans and the Hobby Lobby corporation!

    1. Point missed, but please, along your usual way!

      1. I’d love to along my usual way, but I don’t know how.

        Oh, wait, I assumed you were speaking English, not your native language:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtQLIU4ze0g

    2. “And, of course, it’s ridiculous to say the left wants to lower the age of consent. Just as it was ridiculous for opponents of the ERA in the 1970s to say that leftists were trying to bring about same-sex marriage and same-sex bathrooms.”

      Because same sex marriage and pedophilia are totally te same thing.

      1. No, they’re not. Would you be interested in addressing my actual point?

        1. I’m as skeptical of the left as anyone, but this idea that leftist are just waiting for a chance to give pedophiles the opportunity for legal sex is kinda dumb.

          1. If you were to go back to 1950 and ask people to think of the dumbest thing they could possibly imagine, well, they’d probably list the DNC platform for 2012.

  7. Let’s have a poll, Which Paul is the most coolest?

    1. Ron Paul
    2. Rand Paul
    3. The Apostle Paul
    4. RuPaul

    1. Paul Krugman, duh!

      What are you people doing with those pitchforks and torches?

      1. We ran out of tar and feathers.

    2. The Apostle could heal people, so he’s a close second to Ron.

    3. Paul Gross?

      Paul Jacob…is still (again) free! And Sheldon Richman’s bro-in-law. Or ex-bro-in-law, or something.

    4. 4. This can’t possibly be a controversy.

  8. Alt-text: “Prettay, prettay, prettay good!”

  9. How bad was the tea party Republican primary opponent to this guy?
    And watch the GOP lose McCain’s seat by running him until his corpse is cold. Aren’t there any adults who can pull these guys aside and tell them, “You’ve had a good run. Time to retire while you are still popular.”

  10. Pat Roberts losing would be nice it wasn’t for that this means Doug Orman winning since he represents all that is terrible about “Independents”.

    Also a bit rich for libertarians to complain about Republicans warning of “national socialism”.

    1. Don’t the Democrats want to gut the First Amendment?

  11. D.C.’s Heritage Foundation recently hosted a panel on what liberals really want. According to the writeup of the event by MSNBC, that song goes something like this:

    “Give up your economic freedom, give up your political freedom, and you will be rewarded with license,” said Heritage’s David Azerrad, describing the reigning philosophy of the left. “It’s all sex all the time. It’s not just the sex itself?it’s the permission to indulge.”…

    Given liberals’ fixation with pleasure, “I fear the next great frontier for the left will be trying to lower the age of consent,” said Azerrad, head of Heritage’s center for principles and politics.

    Does anyone else remember when The Heritage Foundation was one of the right’s premiere think tanks? What the hell happened to them?

    1. Don’t know what happened to them, but:

      1. I find it strange that a “writeup on MSNBC.com” is just passed along as something assumed to be trustworthy reporting. Isn’t it likely MSNBC would send a lefty drone to “report” on some rando event at Heritage?

      2. Don’t get all the dudgeon about the national socialism remark. He’s an old man. Probably trying to say we shouldn’t like all the socialism that’s going on, particularly the national sort.

      He’s the kind of moderate Republican Kansans have elected for 80 years, so if he loses his seat due to senility and “going native” in DC, that’s fine, but the GOP sure as hell doesn’t have a monopoly on those two defects.

      1. Don’t get all the dudgeon about the national socialism remark.

        Me neither, unless its a reaction to the truth hurts.

  12. Gillespie should change his name to Wilhelm Kulz.

  13. Is there any doubt that Nick’s main purpose these days is to serve as a proxy for attacks by the left?

    Roberts didn’t specifically reference Germany’s Nazis (who were technically known as the National Socialists German Workers Party), so maybe the 78-year-old legislator was just free-associating or rambling incoherently.

    No, the “national socialism” phrase was clearly referring to socialism on a national scale… something Reason used to oppose. But now that the Dems are in danger in an election, it’s time to circle the Beltway wagons.

    1. So you are saying that this is EXACTLY the kind of candidate the Repubs should be running? That sounds more like Dem concern trolling than Nick running down the persistence of beltway captives running on idiotic platforms instead of ideological ones.

    2. Maybe he’s just trying to prove that Libertarians are just Republican (Light)

  14. Nick loses his super-powers when he removes his jacket, and the mustache weighs down his brain, so I’m guessing now that the GOP will do much better running for both houses of Congress than he forecasts.

    Get back the old look, Nick! You may not have realized how much your insight depended on it.

  15. Well, it’s part of the reason the Republicans fare badly; the other part being there is always a media ready and willing to make a story out of any dumb thing some Great Old ‘Pub says, thus reinforcing the image.

    Follow around any of the Detroit area Dems who have similarly been in office since the days of Hamurabi and I’m sure you’d get some similar verbal gems. I personally can’t stand any of these lifelong legislators, but it’s pretty hard being down on Republicans specifically when you see John Dingell retire after about 2000 years in Congress, only to watch his now-tarnished trophy wife step in to take his seat; or see the vaguely sentient Dale Kildee retire after approaching four decades of House loitering, only to be replaced by his nephew; or Conyers, whose family has seemingly been in Congress since Jefferson was elected. The list is long for both sides, so why does Gillespie ape the mainstream media by only highlighting one of them?

  16. The War On The Undesirables Continues

    Maybe that was the National Socialism he was referring to. Oh. Wait. The Right champions that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.