Election 2014

The Petty, Empty Spectacle of the 2014 Election

The 2014 midterm election is campaign to portray the other side as worse.

|

Whitehouse.gov

With just two weeks until election day, the most striking thing about the 2014 midterm may be how petty and substance-free it is. No major policy issue has defined this election; no major legislation is immediately at stake. It is possible to find candidates talking about a variety of policy issues—Obamacare, the minimum wage, immigration, the Export-Import bank, and more—but the implications are described almost entirely in political terms. For the most part, the focus for both parties is not on what they would do, but what they wouldn't, not who they are, but who they aren't. It's an election about nothing, except, perhaps, who one hates the most.

The big problem for Democrats is that President Obama is unpopular, and voters dislike his handling of major policy areas. An ABC News/Washington Post poll earlier this month found his job approval at just 39 percent, with 57 percent saying they disapprove. On average, the public approves of Obama's handling of foreign policy and the economy even less than they approve of the job he's doing overall.

Indeed, Obama is so toxic that when he declared earlier this month that his "policies are on the ballot—every single one of them," it was widely considered a gaffe, an admission expected to hurt his party. That Republicans instantly rushed to highlight Obama's line was to be expected; that few if any Democrats attempted to defend the president was telling: Democrats in close races this year want nothing so much as to avoid any association with the president and his policies.

The most absurd example of a Democrat seeking distance from the president came when Alison Grimes, a Democratic Senate candidate running a tight race against the GOP's Senate Minority Leader in Kentucky, refused to even say whether she voted for the president in 2008 and 2012. Sen. Mark Udall's awkward attempts to qualify his independence from the president have only been slightly less ridiculous.

But there are other, less viral-video friendly indications as well, like the president's relative absence from the campaign trail, and the fact that only 36 percent of Democrats running this cycle have indicated clear support for Obamacare, the president's highest-profile policy achievement.

The president's sagging popularity means that Democrats can't easily campaign on his policies or his proposals. And it has given Republicans a blunt object with which to attack opponents. At this point, dissatisfaction with the president appears to be strong enough that this has given Republicans an edge.

Yet Republicans have a problem of their own. Despite their attacks Obama and his policies, they have almost nothing specific to say about what they would do instead—and much of what they are saying is either incoherent or opportunistic.

For years, the party has failed to rally around an alternative to Obamacare, even while repeating the mantra "repeal and replace." This election, the first following Obamacare's major coverage expansion, many Republican candidates have tip-toed carefully around the possible consequences of repealing Obamacare, including its Medicaid expansion, suggesting a continuing unwillingness to grapple with the reality of repeal.

Meanwhile, as concerns about Ebola have gripped the media and the public, Republicans have called for a hodgepodge of dubious policy responses, from imposing a travel ban to installing an Ebola czar to oversee the response. These ad hoc calls for more federal action are mostly symbolic efforts meant to show resolve in ways that conveniently magnify perceptions of the president's weakness, and they are predicated on the troublesome, unconservative assumption that the president and national politics should be central in the response to any problem.

Broader efforts to define the GOP's policy agenda are similarly underwhelming. The Republican National Committee's (RNC) 11-point "Principles for American Renewal" was intended as a launching pad for a GOP governing vision, and a set of ideas that everyone in the party could agree on. "People know what we're against," RNC Chair Reince Preibus said earlier this month, "I want to talk about the things we're for."

Mostly, though, what the 11 points illustrate is how vague the party's commitment is to anything in particular. It's almost entirely rhetorical fluff: On the economy, the party apparently supports "growing America's economy so that working Americans see better wages and more opportunity." On immigration, it favors "an immigration system that secures our borders, upholds the law and boosts our economy." There are items deal with "values" and "the Constitution," both of which amount to little more than assertions that values and the Constitution are, in fact, Good Things. Indeed, the sense one gets this election is that the Republican party has decided only that it is for Good Things, and that if Obama is for something, that makes it a Bad Thing, and this distinction is all that really matters.

The result is an election in which Democrats cannot run on what they have done, and Republicans cannot run on what they will do. So petty squabbles and Twitter-friendly soundbites dominate the news as each side attempts to drive turnout by campaigning the notion that the other party is worse—for women or for struggling workers, for the economy or for America's place in the world. It's not an election about which side to vote for. It's an election about which side to vote against.

The bipartisan emptiness of this midterm election, and the intense focus by both parties on turning out core voters rather than on broadening party appeal, suggests the deep exhaustion of both parties and their respective agendas. (One reason why Ebola has received so much attention is that it helps fill the void.) At this point, both Democrats and Republicans are running on policy fumes.

Members of the public see less and less to like from almost any politician, even the ones they voted for themselves. Obama's marks are low, but even still, they're stratospheric compared to Congress. In August, fewer than 20 percent said most members of Congress should be reelected. That same month, for the first time ever, a Washington Post poll found that a majority disapproved of their own representative. Recent polls have hinted that turnout could be unusually low, even for a midterm.

In other words, the public is exhausted too. There's no enthusiasm for any of the available options, no sense that either side has a vision worth pursuing or ideas worth trying. It's an election that's not about anything except which side is the worst—and tellingly, what voters really seem to want is to not have to decide.

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.

134 responses to “The Petty, Empty Spectacle of the 2014 Election

  1. It’s the hemorrhagic fever, stupid.

  2. As of right now, there is no one in government that I hate more than Harry Reid, so this is working for me.

    1. Not even Chucky “Man Tits” Schumer?

      1. He’s not up for vote this year.

        1. Neither is Reid. What’s your point?

  3. I await the ebola at the polls stories with glee.

  4. The political class needs to go.

  5. They are petty, empty people. What other kind of spectacle could they make?

    1. Exactly right, Drake.

      In fact their pettiness and emptiness is at least as a good a reason for limited and accountable government as their proclivity to confiscate wealth and power for themselves.

  6. Yet Republicans have a problem of their own. Despite their attacks Obama and his policies, they have almost nothing specific to say about what they would do instead?and much of what they are saying is either incoherent or opportunistic.

    This is the Kentucky race in a nutshell. McConnell is old and senile, but I legitimately fear that Lundercunt ate paint chips as a child. It boils down to touting party lines and mud slinging (candidates and voters). The ballot might as well read “would you prefer a red dildo or a blue dildo?*”

    * lube not included

    In related news, media cronies temporarily reveal their blatant “friends in high places” agenda against the Patterson (KY Lib. candidate):

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/…..cle/385420

    1. Just not ‘your’ dildo…amirite??

  7. One good thing is that several prominent stories have run about various LP candidates poised to play significant roles in key tight races. I’d like to hope this might be good publicity for the party as an option, though the stories are tending to focus on the ‘horse race’ aspects of the elections instead of what those LP candidates are offering that is pulling voters (socially liberal, economically conservative). Of course while most people dislike both parties many hate one more than the other and the Big Two will as usual use that sentiment to urge people to Stop the Other Party by Not Throwing Away Your Vote on 3rd parties.

    1. LP candidates have been getting 5% of the vote or more, statewide, for over a quarter century. Typically to gain ballot status.

      In 2000, the WA LP won major party status as an openly lesbian candidate for Lt Governor (even her campaign website!) got over 5%

      1. It gets more publicity when the elections are closer and control over legislative bodies are at stake

        1. Yes, but the “wasted vote syndrome” has (almost) always seen the votes be less than the polls, I ran in the same statewide election cited, polled between 6-7% but got something like 4%

          In that same election, the incumbent GOP Senator was forced into a runoff by the third party and other Republicans (WA has no primary). The incumbent easily won the (open) general election, but lost the runoff. The GOP lost control of the Senate. Guess who got blamed!

  8. You know, elections entail more than just federal offices. Just sayin’.

  9. (laughing) For most of last year, Nick Gillespie kept proclaiming a “libertarian moment” perhaps even a “libertarian era.”

    Then barely one week into THIS year, Nick said that LAST year was among the worst for libertarians, but THIS would be the year ….

    What will Reason claim NEXT January. And will anyone still believe them?

    Umm, it ain’t just Republicans. can anyone name ONE libertarian policy proposal? I didn’t think so. (“Git gummint out of it” is NOT a policy proposal … does not move a single inch toward a free society!)

    (The libertarian era began over 35 years ago. From the very first instance, the World’s Smallest Political Quiz has shown a solid majority in the libertarian quadrant. The same majority we’ve totally ignored for all this time.)

    1. Iirc the articles about a libertarian moment ended with question marks. They’re based on Rand Paul becoming a major national figure and the rise of the Tea Party which at the least has considerable libertarian rhetoric. I don’t think Reason is wrong to note some potential for hope there.

      1. the articles about a libertarian moment ended with question marks. They’re based on Rand Paul becoming a major national figure and the rise of the Tea Party which at the least has considerable libertarian rhetoric

        The title has a question mark but read the text

        “… there’s a strong case to be made that we’re smack dab in the “The Libertarian Moment” that Matt Welch and I – and others at Reason and beyond – have been trumpeting since at least 2008. As Welch’s and my December 2008 essay in Reason magazine prophesied, “Despite all leading indicators to the contrary, America is poised to enter a new age of freedom.”
        https://reason.com/archives/201…..-libertari

        Rand Paul is an EXTREME social conservative, like his Dad,

        They both say the major social issues of gay marriage and abortion should be at the state level — in open defiance of the 9th and 14th amendments.

        Rand’s Senate home page (for his own voters), says states should decide abortion, ALSO brags about SPONSORING a federal ban on all abortions, and states he will do everything possible to outlaw abortion .. obviously at any level he can. For THIS we need libertarians?

        Ron says states should decide abortion (despite the Constitution)but also says he’d have voted for DOMA had he been in office.

        So they’re both for individual liberty and the Constitution … except when they’re not.

        1. Saying abortion and SSM should be decided at the state level is not extreme, it’s quite moderate. Compare to pols calling for national amendments on both issues.

          1. Saying abortion and SSM should be decided at the state level is not extreme

            It SEVERELY violates the Constitution — 9th and 14th amendments — but they both claim to be constitutional conservatives!

            Compare to pols calling for national amendments on both issues.

            The pols who know the Constitution better than the so-called libertarians? They are correct on what’s required.

            1. As someone who buys the argument those are constitutionally correct I can see where it’s less than obvious and reasonable people might disagree. Can’t you?

              1. reasonable people might disagree.

                Not if they bother to actually read the Constitional text, which is quite explicit.

                Ninth Amendment
                The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

                What would a “reasonable person” conclude those “other rights” retained by the people? (Thus barring ALL levels of government from denying or disparaging fundamental human rights

                Here’s how Cornell Law School explains it. “The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed.”

                http://www.law.cornell.edu/con….._amendment

                How could any “reasonable person” conclude the Founders would allow states to violate fundamental human rights?

                The Fourteenth has very direct impact on gay marriage,

                No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

                The due process clause, as we learned in high school, was cited in Brown v Board of Education, which struck down any and all state laws violating equal rights. Right?

        2. What, no scare quotes? WTF?

        3. I haven’t heard the “Federalism is anti-Libertarian” argument articulated much. Can you elaborate?

          1. If you think the Feds do a better job of protecting liberty overall than leaving it to the states then there you go. Plenty of historical and contemporary examples of that too.

            1. If you think the Feds do a better job of protecting liberty overall than leaving it to the states then there you go. Plenty of historical and contemporary examples of that too.

              They both suck. The federal judiciary has explicit powers to declare state laws unconstitutional. States have no such power.

              And what does your question have to do with the Constitution?

          2. You asked for it.

          3. I haven’t heard the “Federalism is anti-Libertarian” argument articulated much. Can you elaborate?

            REAL federalism or the bullshit version invented by southern racists, aka States Rights.

            States Rights assumes that all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states — which also lies about the 10th Amendment text!

            It’s called “unenumerated powers” and it’s bullshit. The Ninth Amendment” protects unenumerated RIGHTS.

            “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

            Rights trump powers in a government of delegated powers. And until the past 10-15 years, the Ninth Amendment was the “libertarian amendment” (among libs), because Madison enshrined Jefferson’s “unalienable rights” into the Constitution. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, among others.

            States Rights is the attempt, by some, to evade Supreme Court rulings that defend fundamental human rights.

            Like a woman’s unalienable Right to Libery, which is constitutionally equal to the fetal child’s unalienable Right to Life. Rand Paul essentially states his intention to overrule the Court.

            The Ninth Amendment forbids ALL levels of government from denying or disparaging fundamental human rights. That’s why statists, bigots and their followers have always ignored the Ninth.

            Thanks for asking!

            1. Whilst lecturing on the exact and specific text of the 9th and 10th amendments (his interpretation of which has never been shared by a court in United States history, but that’s not even important), Michael Hihn references them back to the text of the declaration of independence rather than constitution.

              Never change, Mike. Never change.

              1. His comments read so bitter and angry that I want to give him a hug and ask where the bad libertarian touched him.

                1. His comments read so bitter and angry …

                  So … you assume that only angry and bitter people defend individual rights, citing the Constitution? Or only the 9th and 14th Amendments?

                  How bitter and angry were Jefferson, Madison and all the assembled Founders?

                  I want to give him a hug

                  Dr. Phil would be SO proud of you! Your high school US History teacher, no so much.

              2. his interpretation of which has never been shared by a court in United States history

                The due process clause was the basis for Brown v Board of Education, which struck down all state laws denying equal rights. You’ll learn about that in high school.

                Here are 10 major Supreme Court rulings which prove you wrong on the 14th Amendment.

                http://blog.constitutioncenter…..amendment/

                The Ninth Amendment was cited by the Court in Roe v Wade, precisely an issue I mentioned, and other major rulings since … 1947.

                http://civilliberty.about.com/…..-Cases.htm

                Michael Hihn references them back to the text of the declaration of independence rather than constitution.

                (lol) Umm, it was the Constitution that I cited. You should have looked first! It is a very common error to claim unalienable rights are not protected by the Constitution — ,bwhich real libertarians have known for nearly four decades. Here’s the text for ya.

                The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

                So tell us, what are those “other” rights retained by the people? Since you falsely attacked me, please be specific and provide a source as I have done.

            2. The right to Life comes before the right to Liberty, because without Life, one cannot have Liberty, likewise the right to Liberty is before the right to Pursue Happiness because one needs Liberty to do such.

              The woman’s right to Liberty is inconvenienced–not eliminated–if she is asked to accept responsibility for her actions by enabling the child she engendered to mature to the point where it can excersize it’s right to Life independently.

              Or should she be allowed to deprive someone of their right to Life simply because it inconveniences her?

              1. The right to Life comes before the right to Liberty, because without Life, one cannot have Liberty

                Find a dictionary. Look up “unalienable.” Then read the 9th Amendment.
                Where does government get the power to deny my liberty, if it would save somebody’s life in Trinidad?

                Or should she be allowed to deprive someone of their right to Life simply because it inconveniences her?

                Can you rephrase that as an adult?

                In school, we’re taught the principle competing/conflicting rights, per the Court ruling that “your right to swing your fist ends with the tip of my nose.”

                When rights conflict, the Court MUSY draw ae boundary (the tip of my nose) that best defends BOTH individual’s rights. NOBODY has any power to deny or reject EITHER right, in America.

                Extreme pro-choicers ignore the fetal child’s unalienable right to Life, just as extreme pro-lifers ignore the woman’s unalienable right to Liberty. And for those who see them as “God-Given Rights,” how can they defy the Will of God … in the name of God?

                The real tragedy is how (some) extreme pro-lifers are more interested in political power than in saving babies’ lives. Late-term abortions could have been banned rather easily, the day after Roe V Wade. If the fetus is viable, then why is an abortionist allowed in the operating room, instead of requiring an attempted live birth (allowing for any threats to the mother). Simple enough?

                1. Interesting.

                  I did not mention ‘government’ anywhere.

                  Rights have nothing to do with government. At best government can work to protect rights–at worst governments can use force to try to suppress rights–but they have no input into what rights are.

                  You, however focus on government. Very well, here is a quote, from you–

                  When rights conflict, the Court MUSY draw ae boundary (the tip of my nose) that best defends BOTH individual’s rights. NOBODY has any power to deny or reject EITHER right, in America.

                  And my point was that pregnancy inconveniences the woman’s right to liberty. Inconveniences. Abortion eliminates the fetus’ right to life.

                  Thus, by your criteria, that the Court MUST defend both individuals rights, we must consider whether eliminating a right is better or worse than inconveniencing a right.

                  The answer is obvious.

                  1. Rights have nothing to do with government.

                    (lol) Unalienable.

                    At best government can work to protect rights–at worst governments can use force to try to suppress rights–but they have no input into what rights are.

                    NOW you deny the Bill of Rights?

                    You, however focus on government.

                    Shame on you. Who enforces your police state, Kiwanis?

                    Very well, here is a quote, from you–

                    Why did you quote me, then run off in the opposite direction?

                    When rights conflict, the Court MUST draw a boundary (the tip of my nose) that best defends BOTH individual’s rights. NOBODY has any power to deny or reject EITHER right, in America.

                    Now pure bullshit:

                    Thus, by your criteria, that the Court MUST defend both individuals rights, we must consider whether eliminating a right is better or worse than inconveniencing a right.

                    (laughing) The court MUST defend both individual rights … BY DENYING ONE OF THEM!!!! Don’t attribute your mind games to ME. Shameful.

                    If I deny your property rights, is that an inconvenience or have I eliminated them? And since you DENY talking about government, who enforces your diktats?

                    Who do we believe, you or the Founders?
                    A single word: unalienable. You lose. Again.

    2. It’s too early to start drinking so shut the fuck up already.

      /takes a swig of absinthe, vomits

      1. Isn’t that what Pam likes to drink?

      2. It’s never too early to start drinking. Besides, that implies you’ve stopped drinking.

        1. Kahlua, Nothing better in the morning coffee.

          1. Not whiskey?

            1. Can’t face whiskey before noon.
              I’m weak.

              1. You’re dead to me.

    3. (“Git gummint out of it” is NOT a policy proposal … does not move a single inch toward a free society!)

      Spoken like a true fascist.

      Git gummint out of it is the one and only way to move toward a free society.

      Having gummint in it means asking permission and obeying orders, period, full stop, no exceptions. And that ain’t freedom.

      1. HIHN: “”Git gummint out of it” is NOT a policy proposal … does not move a single inch toward a free society!

        Spoken like a true fascist.

        (snicker)

        Git gummint out of it is the one and only way to move toward a free society.

        We can’t get elected with NO policy proposals duh

        Having gummint in it means asking permission and obeying orders, period, full stop, no exceptions. And that ain’t freedom.

        (yawn) How can we help create and govern a free society ….. never electing anybody? Are you suggesting an armed revolution?

    4. The WSPQ may have shown a solid libertarian majority 35 yrs. ago, but the more objective Maddox-Lillie study that same year showed 35% “populists” to 25% libertarians.

      1. the more objective Maddox-Lillie study that same year showed 35% “populists” to 25% libertarians

        My recollection is that Maddox-Lillie used a two-dimensional x,y scale similar to Nolan’s, but started at 0,0 for fiscal and social intervention.

        For political “loyalty” what’s more objective than asking people their views on specific policies and/or philosophies? How do they self-describe?

        The WSPQ was solidly confirmed in the 2005 CATO/Zogby Poll, where 59% self-identified as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

        To that, they then added “also known as “libertarian” and the label dropped it down to 44% — which is clearly rejection of the label

        When they asked “libertarian” on it’s own it fell to only 9%

        If we assume all the samples are equivalent, then 85% of “generic” libertarians reject the label.

        No surprise, since we were no longer even trying to communicate with our primary demographic. Instead we target “independents” 30% of which are collectivists … or millennial, who don’t vote.

      2. the more objective Maddox-Lillie study that same year showed 35% “populists” to 25% libertarians.

        They defined “populist” as what Nolan had already defined as authoritarian, and used Nolan’s premise that left and right are obsolete. But they defined libertarian as fiscally conservative and socially TOLERANT, where Nolan had used socially “liberal”. (16 years earlier).

        Why would CATO publish a book which said authoritarians are 40% more numerous than libertarians?

    5. *Umm, it ain’t just Republicans. can anyone name ONE libertarian policy proposal? I didn’t think so.*

      Let all the kiddie diddlers out of jail is the latest one, alongside let all the crackheads out of jail, hate all cops, never use the military for anything and completely open the borders.

      Did I miss any?

      1. Did I miss any?

        Thanks for illustrating my point!

        All we do is talk to each other, rarely to VOTERS. That’s how we racked up 40 years of losing.

        1. I see what it is I don’t like about you now.

          I understand what you’re saying, and I think you’re pretty much spot on. Problem is your more interested in trying to show mental superiority against people who are just as intelligent as you if not more so.

          Try not being a dick face and telling us what we already know, give us ideas on how to get there that we can still be comfortable with by maintaining our principals as best we can.

          You come across as a fascist douche because you’re mostly just a douche.

          1. Ugh autocorrect you’re not your.

          2. I understand what you’re saying, and I think you’re pretty much spot on. Problem is your more interested in trying to show mental superiority against people who are just as intelligent as you if not more so.

            (laughing) SIMPLY disagreeing, and DEFENDING my side — with none of HIS potty mouth slime — makes ME the one acting morally superior.

            as intelligent as you if not more so

            No examples, just trash mouth. (snicker)

          3. Ummm, PaulW —
            Did you notice his response was an intentional attack on, and ridicule of, libertarianism?

            I’ll will easily assume that everyone else (other than you) saw it.

  10. “In August, fewer than 20 percent said most members of Congress should be reelected.”

    Right, so they’re going to turn out incumbents by 80% votes.

      1. I’m not. We failed to get mass resignations/seppuku from the incumbants. Clearly they know no shame if they’re running again.

  11. This one is not a empty spectacle from what I saw on American Thinker.
    One guy put lots of ballots, I guess mainly from dead people.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEQpHfnJz-c

    1. And nothing else happened?

      1. Looks like some dead people lost their votes, lol.

  12. The GOP is successfully albeit slowly closing down every abortion clinic in the country. Give credit where credit is due.

    1. It’s a bad thing, but it’s really only going on in some Southern states.

      1. True. But the template is made. Just require clinic docs have full scale admission privileges. Regulate them out of business.

        1. The irony is simply delicious.

          1. I like irony as much as the next person, but not so much when rights are being abrogated

            1. I was referring to the irony of shreeek suddenly discovering a business or medical regulation he doesn’t like. Although, eminences and penumbras notwithstanding, I don’t think abortion is any more a “right” than any other medical procedure – no other of which is guaranteed as such.

              1. Especially regs that are meant to protect women from unscrupulous and incompetent doctors. What’s the harm in that?

                1. Ha, when someone puts such regs forward we can talk. These are thinly veiled attempts to target abortion.

                  1. I don’t disagree but they are just playing the game by the rules the other side has been playing by. Guerrilla politics.

                    1. It’s the same blueprint gun controllers are playing trying to run shooting ranges and gun sellers out of town, yes.

                    2. Exactly right, Bo.

                    3. Guerrilla politics.

                      Examples?

                  2. Most medical regs are thinly veiled, or not-at-all-veiled in some cases (like Certificate of Need laws, for example), attempts to achieve some other end. Which is true of most regulations in general, regardless of industry. It may be surprising to learn that admitting privileges requirements aren’t a brand new variety of regulatory capture.

              2. I think Griswold would cover other procedures like IVF and surgical contraception. Other procedures like circumsicion might be covered under the First. But I get your point (while disagreeing with it)

                1. I don’t think access to IVF or circumcision (or literally any other medical procedure) has ever been subject to the undue burden standard by the courts as has abortion. And I’d oppose subjecting those, or any other medical procedure, to that standard, because I don’t believe in positive rights. I don’t think any medical provider should be required *by law* to have admitting privileges either (although I’m sure liability insurance policies would be conditioned upon it for many types of physicians).

                  I’m intrigued, though not at all surprised, that you found something in there with which to disagree.

              3. What do eminences and penumbras have to do with abortion?

                There is no right to abortion, but the woman certainly has an unalienable right to Liberty. If we consider rights to be God-Given, then it seems even more clear. Our Founders were not stupid, and they knew what “unalienable” means.

    2. I just don’t care about abortion as an issue any more, but it’s just about the only difference between the Reds and the Blues where I am. Pathetic, really, when is there is so much more to talk about.

      1. To me it’s pretty high up there. On one side, it’s wholesale murder. On the other side, if we are not talking about persons with rights what could be a worse affront to liberty than forcing someone to carry a child to term?

        1. …what could be a worse affront to liberty than forcing someone to carry a child to term?

          Presuming your “if” rather than the opposing one, folks are routinely sent to jail for much longer terms than 9 months (when they’re able to escape summary execution) for trivial drug or firearm offenses, for example. It’s relatively easy to rack up 9 months or more of jail time for surveillance-based traffic citations.

          Of course the counter-argument by the pro-life folks would be that 9 months is a pretty trivial tradeoff for saving a life. But as you say, that’s down to your view of what a fetus is or isn’t.

          1. Folks are routinely sent to jail for much longer terms than 9 months (when they’re able to escape summary execution) for trivial drug or firearm offenses,

            But that does not violate anyone else’s fundamental human rights.

        2. “We are not talking about persons with rights what could be a worse affront to liberty than forcing someone to carry a child to term?”

          Someone like Rand Paul thinks we are talking about someone with rights–why misrepresent their position?

          What I don’t understand is how people can’t understand that in order to be nominated by the Republicans, there are a coupe of positions you have to take. One of them is that you have to be pro-life, and the other one is that you have to be anti-gun control. You cannot win the Republican nomination without holding those positions.

          Why would someone, like Rand Paul, who wants to be the president be pro-choice (or pro-gun control)? He’s not a religious figure. He’s not a philosopher. He’s a politician. …running for office. If you want to sell something in a market, you have to give the people what they want.

          The Republican nomination market demands those two things, or it won’t buy whatever else you’re selling.`

          1. That’s not true. This year I have the Republican nomination, the 2nd time (maybe 3rd, I forgot), for NY state office, and I’ve been for legal abortions all along, including late term & even infanticide. This year it’s for assembly, AD 80.

            1. I’ve been for legal abortions all along, including late term & even infanticide.

              No shit? At least you are consistent. If “terminating” a living human being during it’s fetal stage is OK, there is no reason that “terminating” the same human being during it’s infant, or adolescent stage wouldn’t be also OK.

              1. If “terminating” a living human being during it’s fetal stage is OK, there is no reason that “terminating” the same human being during it’s infant, or adolescent stage wouldn’t be also OK.

                Only if we totally ignore the constitutional issue. Pre-viability there are no conflicting rights between the woman and the fetal child. Obviously, there is no such conflict with an infant or adolescent and the mother.

        3. what could be a worse affront to liberty than forcing someone to carry a child to term?

          If you believe that liberty does not excuse you from bearing the consequences of your actions and decisions, then it is not necessarily an affront at all, for the vast majority of pregnancies.

          You chose to have sex, which has the very foreseeable risk of pregnancy. If mitigating that risk requires that you violate the rights of others (which, I know, is the big argument), then bearing the consequences of the risk is not an affront to your liberty at all.

          1. b-but freedom from consequences!

          2. You chose to have sex

            Oh, that lame excuse. How does choosing to have sex cost anyone their unalienable rights? Do they lose property rights? Please tell us what rights we lose by choosing to have sex?

            1. You chose to have sex. The purpose of sex is to make another human. One can only have sex for pleasure alone by interfering with the normal process in some way.

              Actions have consequences. Risks are sometimes taken.

              Some people ski, knowing that there’s a chance that they could get seriously hurt. Some people skydive–even though death is a very great risk.

              Pregnancy isn’t even really a ‘risk’ of sex–it’s the point of sex.

              But it is definately a possible consequence of sex.

              You, Michael, seem to want action without consequences. Freedom from resposibility.

              You seem to miss the fact that life comes before liberty–that without life, one has no use for liberty.

              1. The purpose of sex is to make another human.

                You’ve described lower animals not humans, and rejected the Will of God (or a Creator). Humans — unlike the lower animals — can derive IMMENSE pleasure, even when conception is impossible. Really!

                It was God who created humans, and only humans, that way. Or do you believe the human female must be “in heat?”

                One can only have sex for pleasure alone by interfering with the normal process in some way.

                If the resulting fetus is aborted two months later, why do you believe the man and woman received no pleasure two months earlier. When you achieve puberty, you’ll learn better — if only from masturbation.

                Pregnancy isn’t even really a ‘risk’ of sex–it’s the point of sex.

                Not unless we totally ignore Biology.

                You, Michael, seem to want action without consequences. Freedom from responsibility.

                (yawn)

                You seem to miss the fact that life comes before liberty–that without life, one has no use for liberty.

                You seem to miss the fact that Jefferson and the Founders — unlike you — actually knew the meaning of “unalienable.” Yup, they did and you do not.

                1. Unalienable? An unalienable right to life? I am suggesting that this unalienable right to life can be allowed to inconvenience–not eliminate–an unalienable right to liberty if the individual voluntarily performed actions that they kbnew might have this effect.

                  I think, perhaps that you do not understand what ‘unalienable’ means–in the same way you do not understand what ‘atheist’ means.

                  You have claimed atheism, yet you say this–

                  You’ve described lower animals not humans, and rejected the Will of God (or a Creator). Humans — unlike the lower animals — can derive IMMENSE pleasure, even when conception is impossible. Really!

                  God? Have we abandoned atheism then?

                  And I can only infer that your utter lack of comprehension of my comments on the purpose of sex and what must be done to avoid that purpose was feigned with the intent to torture out a masturbation joke that you undoubtedly think is hilarious

                  1. An unalienable right to life?

                    YEP!

                    I am suggesting that this unalienable right to life can be allowed to inconvenience–not eliminate–an unalienable right to liberty

                    You keep refusing to deal with the simple word “unalienable”
                    If I deny your property rights, is that a mere inconvenience?

                    I think, perhaps that you do not understand what ‘unalienable’ means

                    (lol) What does it mean?

                    my comments on the purpose of sex and what must be done to avoid that purpose

                    You made a total ass of yourself. You insist, so here it is again

                    Azathoth The purpose of sex is to make another human.

                    …Humans — unlike the lower animals — can derive IMMENSE pleasure, even when conception is impossible. ? Or do you believe the human female must be “in heat?” ((no answer))

                    Azathoth One can only have sex for pleasure alone by interfering with the normal process in some way.

                    If the resulting fetus is aborted two months later, why do you believe the man and woman received no pleasure two months earlier? ((no answer)) When you achieve puberty, you’ll learn better — if only from masturbation.

                    You DEMAND that sexual pleasure is not known until several months after the event!!! And now you defend your per-pubescent ignorance of sex!

                    Stop all the insults. You’re just humiliating yourself.

                  2. I think, perhaps that you do not understand what ‘unalienable’ means–in the same way you do not understand what ‘atheist’ means.

                    (lol) An atheist does not believe a God exists. What does unalienable mean?

                    Now you lie AGAIN!

                    You have claimed atheism, yet you say this–
                    You’ve described lower animals not humans, and rejected the Will of God (or a Creator). Humans — unlike the lower animals — can derive IMMENSE pleasure, even when conception is impossible.

                    Umm, see where it says (or a Creator)????? Why would you REPEATEDLY lie?

                    God? Have we abandoned atheism then?

                    (snicker) Was I talking about me or … you? YOU defy the Will of God (or a Creator). It’s from here:

                    “…. all men are created Equal, endowed by a Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

                    When you reject unalienable rights you, ummm, reject the Will of God (or a Creator), and have now REFUSED to deal with the word FIVE times.

                    What is your problem here? Why can you not practice simple honesty?

  13. Me, I await the inevitable, lamenting “Americans are ungovernable” stories.
    It’s not really true, but gives me a libertarian chubby anyway.

  14. Many so-called libertarians have the stench of SoCon on them. This fact is ignored by many here. The LP Purity Test is still a bitch.

    1. I’m all for philosophical consistency but not at the cost of pontifically cutting off my nose to spite my face. I’ll no sooner kick out a generally libertarian candidate with some Socon positions like Paul as I would a generally libertarian pundit who supports, say, public accommodation laws (like I think Welch might).

      1. For dogmatics like Weigel and Tony, subtle nuances, compromise and political bargaining are anathema. It is the progtard way or nothing.

        1. Tony is pragmatic, he’s defended voting for Obama when he opposed SSM.

          1. Tony doesn’t seem remotely willing or able to accept a point of view outside of his progressive worldview as valid. He may be willing to accept it politically, and therefore as an obstacle to work around, but not valid as a legitimate viewpoint. That’s what makes him dogmatic.

            In terms of voting for Obama – well what choice did he have?

          2. Tony isn’t being pragmatic.

            Tony is simply deluded.

            Tony is a Moonie.

            Tony will support the Reverend Moon, even after the good reverend takes all the money Tony spent all day to get panhandling at the airport.

            If Obama personally came to Tony’s house, stole all the money out his wallet, drank all the beer in his fridge, and took a dump in Tony’s kitchen sink? Tony would still vote for him anyway.

            That isn’t being pragmatic. That’s being psychotic.

    2. It ain’t Purity when you’re only applying the same definition which has been used for nearly four decades now — fiscally conservative and socially liberal (tolerant)

      If we say “red” is a color, is THAT purity?

      1. The problem is that the Democrats are entirely hostile to anything fiscally conservative.

        The Republicans may not follow through on their rhetoric, but at least they aren’t ideologically hostile to fiscal conservatism.

        As the Democrats have turned their backs on liberals and embraced progressives, they’ve become more hostile to lots of other civil rights, as well. Actually, I would define progressivism as the idea that the coercive power of government should be used to force people to sacrifice their individual rights for the common good. You should see all the progressives who come here trying to convince us that our rights don’t even really exist.

        So, yeah, as the Democrats became increasingly more hostile to libertarian principles, libertarians increasingly became more amenable to the Republican Party. Why isn’t that as it should be?

        1. Who was the Republican major public office holder to be both fiscally conservative and socially liberal, while actually being libertarian? Gary Johnson (NM, 1995-2003)?

          1. Who was the Republican major public office holder to be both fiscally conservative and socially liberal, while actually being libertarian? Gary Johnson (NM,

            One hell of a lot better candidate than either Paul. Even Reagan was more libertarian than Ron Paul (no bullshit tax fantasies)

            Both Goldwater and Reagan were defending homosexuals in the 1970s, 20 years before Clinton signed DADT abd DOMA, and 30 years before Obama stopped straddling the fence.

            Reagan proposed the largest spending cuts in history (other than the military draw-down after WWII. The cuts would have totaled over $5 trillion by now. When the spending cuts were buried in a GOP Senate, he began asking for a Line Item Veto — against his own party.

            His New Federalism would have consolidated all federal programs at a single level of government, so SOMEBODY could be held accountable. This one came close to passing — states would control all Medicaid and pocket any savings. Feds would do likewise with Food Stamps. It failed only because they couldn’t figure out the financing

            Ron Paul? Nothing.

            1. The problem is there are virtually no Gary Johnson type libertarian Republicans holding office right now. And the few that do exist (Sen. Lisa Murkowski, maybe?) don’t have the same prominence or political ambition of the Pauls.

              Gary Johnson is a far better candidate than Paul on paper. But in reality Johnson himself treated campaigning like a prison, the Pauls used campaigning to build an actual organizational force to help get pols elected. Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Ted Yoho, Raul Labrador, etc.

              The Prominence of these Socially Conservative politicians who take libertarian-leaning positions on the Drug War, foreign policy, civil liberties, etc. are why libertarians gravitate toward them.

              You would need to find more Gary Johnson types: who are interested in running in the GOP primaries, and who are actually interested in doing the work of campaigning to win. That’s the only way you’re gonna bring this trend of libertarians supporting social conservative types like the Pauls to a close.

              1. Gary Johnson is a far better candidate than Paul on paper. But in reality Johnson himself treated campaigning like a prison,

                HUH? The LP is itself a major trap.

                the Pauls used campaigning to build an actual organizational force to help get pols elected. Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Ted Yoho, Raul Labrador, etc.

                Ron has the only “organization” and it’s as fraudulent as a Ponzi scheme.

                You would need to find more Gary Johnson types: who are interested in running in the GOP primaries, and who are actually interested in doing the work of campaigning to win.

                Did you follow the 2012 GOP primaries? Johnson had by far the best issues ads, like Obama ridiculing a healthcare mandate in 2008. “If mandates could work, we could mandate an end to homelessness.”

                You would need to find more Gary Johnson types: who are interested in running in the GOP primaries, and who are actually interested in doing the work of campaigning to win. That’s the only way you’re gonna bring this trend of libertarians supporting social conservative types like the Pauls to a close.

                Or libertarians might abandon the bullshit of a libertarian era as promoted by Reason, Unless and until we develop a political sense (which is what I think you mean) we’ll remain a cult instead of a revolutionary political movement.

                Ron Paul never achieved a damn thing. His “policies” are bullshit, but he snarls well!

                1. “Did you follow the Johnson campaign at all?”

                  “On election day, it was kind of like being let out of prison.”
                  – Gary Johnson

                  “I’m a horrible fundraiser,” he said. “I’m terrible at asking people for money. I don’t ask people for money. I don’t do it. I can’t. So, let’s just not spend any time on that at all. Have others do that. Tell them right up front”
                  – Gary Johnson

                  http://www.forbes.com/sites/al…..aign-life/

                  A lack of enthusiasm for the actual work of campaigning, and failing to fight for the life blood of politics (money), makes for a shitty campaign. It doesn’t matter how good your issue ads are if you fail at those first two things.

                  “Ron has the only “organization” and it’s as fraudulent as a Ponzi scheme.”

                  Yet there seems to be a thriving Republican Liberty Caucus filled with leaders who’ve taken on NSA spying, spending, and Criminal Justice Reform.

                  Meanwhile, the Socially Liberal wing of libertarianism is….nowhere in sight. Among major political figures I can only think of one who even comes close, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Rights, Supports reforming the National Security State). Your faction of libertarianism is lacking in representation.

                  “His “policies” are bullshit”

                  Which ones?

                  Reforming/Getting rid of the NSA?

                  Ending the War on Drugs?

                  Auditing the Fed?

                  Noninterventionism?

                  1. “On election day, it was kind of like being let out of prison.”
                    – Gary Johnson

                    I appreciate your retraction.

                    Your faction of libertarianism is lacking in representation.

                    59% of the population, and hardly my faction. I spent 40 years watching serious candidates being assaulted by libertarian purists – including my being the first (only?) PAID LP state director.

                    “His “policies” are bullshit”
                    Which ones?

                    He lies about being a federalist. “Repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing” is retarded.

                    “I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent ? over half of all revenue ? comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.”

                    It takes a special kind of stupid to believe 55% of revenue comes from those sources!

                    Non-intervention was the dominant GOP position for decades, as Ron says repeatedly.

                    He supports a gold standard which Milton Friedman demolished with a single question, “Do we want a stable money supply or stable prices?” duh

                    OBVIOUSLY stable prices, which the gold standard failed to deliver for nearly two centuries. When Karl Marx was screaming about worker exploitation, worker wages had been repeatedly cut for over a century of deflation. The gold standard gave us Marx. Brilliant.

                  2. Republican Liberty Caucus,

                    Great folks. I joined them at the beginning but they’ve never been an influential voice within the GOP. Do a Google search and you’ll see.

                    They do picture Reagan on their home page. Who tells Gillespie that Reagan was our first libertarian President?

                    I voted for Goldwater, so my sense of the movements history is pretty solid.

                    The RLC supports Ted Cruz — the guy who tried to shut down the federal government — to force repeal of Obamacare — despite having no credible alternative. (This is where the purity wackos say, “only statists think we need an alternative.”) “Statist” is what one says when they have no clue what the fuck they’re talking about. 🙂

                  3. Meanwhile, the Socially Liberal wing of libertarianism is….nowhere in sight.

                    Uhhh, that’s my point! it’s why we’re losing.

                    Without socially liberal, there are no libertarians. Been that way since the late 60s.

                    Where are the Goldwaters, Reagans, Buckleys, Kemps, Friedmans ….all during the Golden years of American libertarianism?.

                    When Reagan got the GOP nomination, he had just led a very public defense of gay teachers in public schools, caused the collapse of the Anita Bryant Crusade, a nationwide anti-gay hate group in the religious right.

                    In a powerful op-ed, Reagan blew away the religious right by stating that our kids had nothing to fear from gay teachers because homosexuality is not a communicable disease like measles.

                    Goldwater predicted that the extreme Christians Right could destroy his party. What will they do to an infinitely weaker libertarian movement?

                    And why has Reason sold out the movement?

                    We know the voters who walked away from the GOP are largely the libertarians, running from social conservatives. So they’ll come back for … social conservatism? Hello? Hello?

                    Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

        2. So, yeah, as the Democrats became increasingly more hostile to libertarian principles, libertarians increasingly became more amenable to the Republican Party. Why isn’t that as it should be?

          Mostly because it’s not true. I’ve been here for 50 years. If you lived in a progressive state, like WA, you’d see almost all libertarians are left-libertarians. Yes, they exist.

          Like I said, a majority of Americans have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for nearly 40 years. Why not assume leadership of the majority of Americans?

          Instead the libertarian label is rejected by 85% of libertarians! (CATO Zogby Poll, 2005)

          What does it say when we’ve failed to energize our own majority for so long, to the extent that out label is actually toxic to our own target demographic? And when the “anti-gummint” libertarians are too extreme for even Ayn Rand!

          1. There is no such thing as a ‘left-libertarian’.

            The two are anathema.

            1. Azathoth!!|10.21.14 @ 4:39PM|#
              There is no such thing as a ‘left-libertarian’.
              The two are anathema.

              You are 1000% clueless. Go to a county LP meeting in King County, Washington (Seattle’s county), or simply open your eyes to reality.

              1. There are positions one takes that let one out of libertarianism no matter what they call themselves.

                Desiring centralized enforced communalism is one of them.

                Since this is a basic tenet of the left, there can be no ‘left’ libertarians.

                The organized Libertarian Party is heavily infested with leftists, so it comes as no surprise that a LP meeting would be infested with leftists.

                This does not change the fact that there is no such thing as a ‘left-libertarian’.

                The two are anathema.

                1. Azathoth!!
                  There are positions one takes that let one out of libertarianism no matter what they call themselves.

                  (snicker)

                  Desiring centralized enforced communalism is one of them.

                  (lol) That’s neither left-libertarian nor a central tenet of leftism.

                  Since this is a basic tenet of the left, there can be no ‘left’ libertarians.

                  You’re a drooling imbecile … and now also a bigot. Why do you insist that 1960s hippies were were right-wingers? (lol) Why do you deny the existence of voluntary communes ? the hippie communes, the Israeli kibbutz, the early-American Oneida, Amana and Shaker communities (and others)? Many voluntary communes are even anarchistic, including communitarian libertarians. Etc., etc., etc?

                  The organized Libertarian Party is heavily infested with leftists, so it comes as no surprise that a LP meeting would be infested with leftists.

                  No comment needed.
                  You just committed suicide.

                  People come to libertarianism from both the left and the right, and tend to keep their ORIGINAL passions. Right-wing libertarians remain passionate on economic issues. Their social liberalism is more intellectual. Likewise, left-libertarians place a higher priority on social and civil liberties issues, while also supporting economic liberty.

                  Only a minority of libs seem to be balanced, equally passionate for both fiscal and social issues.

        3. The Republicans may not follow through on their rhetoric, but at least they aren’t ideologically hostile to fiscal conservatism.

          The Bush2 Presidency was a far greater fiscal atrocity than even Obama. See Medicare D alone. Or the Bush tax cuts — the greatest wealth redistribution since FDR.

          1. Yes, Bush was a bible thumping progressive, please tell us something we didn’t know.

            1. Yes, Bush was a bible thumping progressive, please tell us something we didn’t know.

              Umm, I responded to Ken Schultz, who didn’t know that Bush was “ideologically hostile to fiscal conservatism.” That’s why I quoted him.

              And now you know something you did not know! (Along with not knowing what “progressive” means.)

  15. Team Blue charged hill GC. That’s pretty much nails my feet to the party line come November.

    Although I’m absolutely certain when the big gun control push happens, it will be written in republican statist ink. Fortunately for us they will pull a lot of crap before that point. They’re statist are too stupid to grab the guns first. Team Blue does exhibit at least some pragmatism in this department.

  16. Can’t I hate them both equally?

  17. It is not difficult to understand why the midterms are empty of real issues. The Democrats have a record of failure and thus can only run on scare tactics about how the other side is worse. The Republicans, even if they take the Congress, have no power to implement an agenda without the cooperation of the President, which is something no thinks will happen. So, what is the point of the Republicans running on a positive agenda that everyone knows they won’t be able to enact? The Republicans best justification for this election is “vote for use to send a message to the Democrats about how awful they have been and to help limit the damage they will do”. The best justification for the Democrats is “but the Republicans are worse”. So that is what we are getting.

    1. “So, what is the point of the Republicans running on a positive agenda that everyone knows they won’t be able to enact?”

      It seems to me that the *only* time Republicans vote for any useful bills is when they know the bills will be killed by a Democratic Senate or Democratic President.

      1. The Republicans definitely need a rebranding effort, and they should start with a new spokesmodel.

        Once they get a new candidate for president, that might help (depending on whom they choose), but in the meantime, some of them might consider running against John Boehner the way Democrats run against Pelsoi. John Boehner is a really big problem.

        1. The last time we had 8 years of a no shit Progressive president was Wilson. At the end of that 8 years Coolidge beat the Democratic nominee with over 60% of the vote. It was the largest landslide in history if I am not mistaken.

          Coolidge’s campaign slogan was “a return to normalcy”. The Republicans could learn a lot from that going into 2016. As much as anything people are tired of the aggressiveness of the Obama years. They would like government to be less contentious, less ambitious and out of their faces for a while.

          That can be a very good thing for Republicans and for any small government advocate, as Coolidge’s example proves. The message, however, can’t be cloaked in the language of radical change. People are tired of that and will vote for a boring Democrat they know if for no other reason than to just stop things from changing so fast.

          The message needs to be one of “we are going to get the government off your back, make it competent and get things to calm down for a while” instead of the right wing Yin to the Obama “hope and change” Yang.

          The next two years are going to be for the Democrats a similar soul destroying experience to what the Republicans experienced during Watergate. Despite that, Gerald Ford damn near won re-election in 1976, for the simple reason he shut the hell up and didn’t do a lot and let things calm down a bit.

          1. Why should the Republican’s aoofer any policy and give the Democrats something to pick apart?

            isn’t there some old polotical adage that goes, ” when your opponent is trying to hang himself give him some rope”.

            1. Exactly one out. If you didn’t know any better you would think Suderman is just pissed off the Republicans won’t stand up and take some of the heat off of the Democrats.

          2. John, I just started reading Pestritto’s book on Wilson. The origins of the progressive movement are no shit even more frightening than I thought.

            1. Wilson was terrifying. They totally gloss over the horrible shit he did once the war started. He turned the country into a police state. The bastard really did deserve that stroke. It was God saying he still loved America.

        2. The Republicans definitely need a rebranding effort, and they should start with a new spokesmodel.

          Even moreso for libertarianism.

    2. What about Republicans running for state or municipal office in jurisdictions that aren’t solidly controlled by either party?

      1. Robert,
        Or school boards where party is irrelevant. In 1989, I launched a successful tax revolt and fielded an entire slate of candidates. Our coalition was totally non-partisan. At meetings we’d joke that we’d be throwing hand grenades at each other anywhere else in town.

        My biggest supporters were Christian conservatives. They knew I’m an atheist — they always ask!– but didn’t care.

        Electoral-minded libertarians, all 36 of us, have always been able to form nonpartisan coalitions, once they realize that we get nowhere if we never govern. It helps to have no bias at all, left or right.

        Parents were always telling me the same thing. They noticed and appreciated that they could see no left or right bias in me, so I assumed that was what voters were talking about. Luckily, they knew I’m libertarian (I was attacked as one of the better-known libs in Greater Cleveland.)

    3. So, what is the point of the Republicans running on a positive agenda that everyone knows they won’t be able to enact?

      This ignores the 1994 Contract With America, which then led to both tax and spending cuts and (partial) welfare reform. Clinton ran on welfare reform in 1992, and would have had a major problem getting it past his own party – like Kennedy had with his major “supply-side” tax cuts.

      Then again, Clinton, a leading New Democrat, was much less of an ideologue than Obama, and chaired the centrist Democrat Leadership Council during its most rapid growth. Democrats forced a change after the Reagan years, while Republicans began throwing Reagan under a bus (and never stopped).

      Would Obama, an apparent narcissist, let his Presidency continue as the failure it is today? I seriously doubt it.

  18. My roomate’s aunt makes $71 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her income was $12021 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    You can try this out. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.