Election 2014

Could Gridlock Be Good?: Katherine Mangu-Ward Talks Election Results on Stossel

|

Managing Editor Katherine Mangu-Ward appeared on Fox Business' Stossel on a panel alongside National Review's Deroy Murdock and the Libertarian Republic's Austin Petersen to discuss the 2014 midterm results and whether or not libertarians should celebrate gridlock.

Video is in two parts: Part I is approximately 10 minutes. Part II is approximately 5 minutes.

Original air date: November 6, 2014.

Advertisement

NEXT: Tonight on The Independents: Now What? With a Trash-Talking Ron Paul, Plus Gary Johnson, Alan Colmes, Andrea Tantaros, FAIR's Dan Stein, and More

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. As they ain’t repealing anything or doing away with regulatory agencies or cutting spending, gridlock is the best you can hope for. Bipartisanship can only accelerate our doom.

    1. Bipartisanship can only accelerate our doom.

      I dunno. The current alternative is stagnating frog-in-slowly-boiling-water pretty bad, but not bad enough to risk doing something about anything situation.

      1. All bipartisanship does is turn up the heat.

        Congress is grim because every single shit decision is the absolute best that can be done.

        It is a study of the worst happening to everyone and what part of your humanity must be sacrificed today just to stand a chance of survival, and all it asks is whether or not it would have been better to die.

  2. The video doesn’t work.
    “Error loading media: File could not be played”

    1. WHAT IS REASON TRYING TO HIDE?

  3. Can Gridlock be good?

    Let me save you all a click.

    Yes.

  4. I agree with First.Repealing bad laws and regulations is the first thing that’s needed.Scoring a congress on how may bills they pass (laws enforced by guns) is a fools errand.

  5. Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

  6. OT: Kerry:

    Countries of Asia and the Pacific region to set up a network to share information on corruption.

    Apec members said that the purpose of the agreement, proposed by China, was to deny safe haven to anyone engaged in corruption.

    Sec State John Kerry hailed the move as a “major step forward”.

    “Corruption not only creates an unfair playing field, it not only distorts economic relationships, but corruption also steals from the people of every country the belief that the system can work for everybody.”

    But, don’t forget Kerry’s ‘farewell address‘:

    There’s another challenge that we must address and it is the corrupting force of the vast sums of money necessary to run for office.

    I’ve used the word “corrupting” and I want to be very clear about it.

    I mean by it not the corruption of individuals but a corruption of a system itself that all of us are forced to participate in against our will: The alliance of money and the interests that it represents, the access that it affords to those who have it at the expense of those who don’t, the agenda that it changes or sets by virtue of its power is steadily silencing the voice of the vast majority of Americans who have a much harder time competing or who can’t compete at all.

    Arrest warrants went out to all members of Congress, and a million others in DC today.

    1. What it really means is they will share information on *tax-evaders*. Oh, and anyone who doesn’t play ball with the local officials.

      1. Agammamon|11.8.14 @ 9:46AM|#
        “What it really means is they will share information on *tax-evaders*.”

        This.
        10 to 1 that the folks fingered by the network are NOT gov’t officials caught with their hands in the till.

    2. so,arrest the entire Chinese P,L.A.?

  7. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_…..ntial-move

    Raiders thinking of moving to San Antonio. You would think an up and coming city like San Antonio would hold out for a professional team.

  8. http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..s-say.html

    The most dangerous place in the world right now is between a Navy SEAL and a camera. So much for taking your secrets to the grave. Fucking disgraceful. I hope the next President ends the program and sifts Special Ops entirely to the Army. Let the SEALs go be actors in Hollywood.

    1. Once the Pentagon decided to make Act of Valor using active-duty SEALs, and once the White House gave the amazing Katheryn Bigelow access to information for Zero Dark Thirty, I assume they lost any respect when it comes to secret keeping.

      However, I like the part about O’Neil getting wasted in bars and telling everyone he killed Bin Laden. Classy!

      1. When the Seals see the CnC and his inner circle try and take all the credit and exposing secrets themselves I don’t blame them.

        They are just following the CnC’s example.

    2. Only the US media could turn this into a controversy.

      1. I would say that this is a controversy. The president and his cabinet have been leaking shit since day one. Anything that might make them look good and allow them to take credit.

        And then they threaten to prosecute SEALS for doing the same thing. The people who were actually in danger.

        1. Yes, because government’s aren’t really against leaks. They are against uncontrolled leaks. The administration wants to control the message 100%, and a leaker not under their thumb obviously undermines that. Words like classified have no meaning beyond that to politicians like Obama.

          It’s the same as the schtick getting corporate money out of politics. They don’t object to money being spent on campaigns. They simply want the money to be properly funneled through their campaigns so that they control the message. Because if some third party is doing it on their own, they may break script and say something inflammatory. For that, these scumbags are willing to try and amend free speech.

        2. Not sure how I feel about it.

          On the one hand, I can see how keeping ops secret aids in their success.

          OTOH, the asshole president can release aspects of the op to further his political career, but the Team Member is chastised for wanting to profit from his actions?

          I find it distasteful that the government thinks it can run covert ops without being accountable to the people who pay for it. There is certainly justification for keeping certain aspects of these ops classified, HOWEVER, the op itself doesn’t need to be classified. The military classifies too much. I understand why they do it, but it’s just lazy.

          The other thing that bothers me is that the “ethos” of not profiting from your actions smacks of muny iz baaad. MANY in the military actually think this and I find it, again, distasteful.

          1. They put SEAL on their resume and profit from it from that respect, so I fail to see the difference.

            1. Question for you, Crusty.

              Who was the first man to walk on the moon?

  9. There that guy goes blaming the LP’s lack of votes to the expense of getting on the ballot. That canard’s been around a long time, and it’s false. For 1 thing, in many states, NY for instance, it’s just as hard for the other candidates to get on the ballot for most offices. For another, even in those states where it’s easy for major parties to get their nominee on the ballot, it’s comparing apples to oranges. Consider what it costs the typical candidate to become the nominee: typically years of activity, sometimes followed by an expensive nomination campaign. Looked at from the candidate’s perspective, ballot access of the type LP’s usually going for is a bargain.

    The reasons LP nominees don’t do better votewise are severalfold. Radical/extreme parties (i.e. those based on a consistent ideology) of all kinds are very unpopular in the USA; voters are positively turned off by explicit ideology. On top of that, libertarians behave especially badly in their own political party; divided we stand, united we fall, getting into each other’s way. And finally, libertarianism appeals disproportionately to individualists, who are not cut out for community activism.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.