Republican Party

Steve Scalise's Legislative Record is a Bigger Problem Than His Past Speaking Gigs

|

In what is being cheekily billed as "the last scandal of 2014," it's come to light that Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who is now the third-ranking Republican in the House leadership, spoke at a 2002 conference organzied by a white supremacy group.

His address to the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a group founded by former KKK leader David Duke, was first revealed by a Louisiana blogger on Sunday.

Confronted with the report, Scalise told the Times-Picayune that he did not remember speaking to the white nationalist organization but did not deny that he had done so.

"I detest any kind of hate group," Scalise said. "I don't support any of the things I have read about this group, but I spoke to a lot of groups during that period. I went all throughout south Louisiana. I spoke to the League of Women Voters, a pretty liberal group… I still went and spoke to them. I spoke to any group that called, and there were a lot of groups calling."

The Daily Beast presents a compelling case that Scalise almost certainly must have known what the EURO 2002 conference was all about but also quotes a black Democrat from Louisiana supporting him:

Scalise received unexpected support from black Democrat Rep. Cedric Richmond, who told Times-Picayune reporter Julia O'Donoghue that he doesn't "think Steve has a racist bone in his body" and that the Republican is being used as a "scapegoat to score political points." 

More here.

So Scalise, who was elected to Congress in 2008, is not a racist or a closet white supremacist. That seems totally settled.

Is he any good from a small-government, libertarian perspective? One of the main selling points of the new GOP-majority Congress is that finally we'll start to see the sort of fiscal responsibility that Barack Obama and the Democrats flushed down the toilet when they took over the federal government in 2008, right?

To the right is a graphic from On The Issues, a website that compiles politicians' votes on a variety of issues and then plots them along the familiar "World's Smallest Political Quiz." Scalise falls into the "hard-core conservative" category according to On the Issues. That means that he is staunchly anti-abortion, wants to "keep God in the public square," strongly opposes higher taxes on the wealthy, supports gun rights, and more. Essentially he is a standard-issue, right-wing Republican.

Mercatus.org

Which to a libertarian should be cause for concern. When it comes to spending, he is mostly against it, except (of course) for defense and military purposes and old-age entitlements. He signed on to the Ryan budget plan, which falls far short of bringing any sort of restraint on spending. He is neutral on Social Security reform. He voted to extend Patriot Act rules authorizing roving wiretaps, is against any form of legalized pot, and wants to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. He's not a free trade supporter, demagogues against Obamacare partly on the grounds that it will take money from Medicare (which he wants to reform by raising the eligibility age rather than scrapping the unsustainable program altogether).

He is against nationalized health care (when pushed by a Democratic president), stimulus spending (when pushed by a Democratic president), wars waged unilaterally (when pushed by a Democratic president). Those are all good positions from a libertarian perspective, but it remains to be seen what Scalise will be like when Congress is fully in GOP control, or when a Republican takes the White House. To the extent that he perfectly represents his party, there's no reason to be optimistic that he will be anything other than a big-government conservative who is ready and willing to use the state to enforce a single set of values and to spend huge piles of money on whatever he thinks is proper.

If the GOP really wants to effect change in a positive direction, it needs fewer Steve Scalises and more Justin Amashes in the House and more Rand Pauls in the Senate. Along with a handful of likeminded colleagues, they are working to shrink the size, scope, and spending of government from a principled belief in individual freedom and openness to pragmatic reforms with demonstrated results. While the libertarian-leaning Republicans tend to be socially conservative, they recognize that it is not the role of the government to dictate how people live in their private lives any more than it is to tell them how to run their businesses. It's precisely that willingness to follow principle and consistency that makes them standout from politicians of either major party that simply switch sides on issues based on fleeting partisan advantage.

NEXT: Buckley v. Grants to States

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. So some speech 12 yeas ago made by some Congressman holding a leadership position in the House is a huge deal that effects the entire party and should end his career but Obama attending in the words of Gilmore “The Church of the Screaming Communist” every Sunday for over a decade is nothing at all and only a racist would care. And lets not forget Diane Feinstein got her political start with the help of Jim Jones.

    But hey, liberal media bias is just a Right Wing meme.

    1. I suspect a lot of digging is going on to remove some inconvenient senators. But the IRS, NSA, and everything else is not worth investigating.

      1. One of my more brazen progressive acquaintances insists on referring to NSA spying in the past tense and adding “under Bush.”

        1. Just like torture stopped when Obama took over? Or like how Guantanamo closed then?

        2. They just rewrite history. And they seem to do it faster and faster now. Give it a few years and your Prog friends will be telling you that Obama was a conservative.

          1. A few years? Try now.

            I’ve seen people claim that Obama and the Dems are center right to counter the Repubs having gone overboard to the right.

          2. HELLO…. Obama is more of a conservative than Reagan was….

        3. I saw Citizenfour last week. It is legitimately scary, and to the film’s credit, they frequently bring up Obama’s name.

    2. “So some speech 12 yeas ago made by some Congressman holding a leadership position in the House is a huge deal that effects the entire party and should end his career”

      It’s about marketing.

      The Republicans are extremely vulnerable to the charge of racism from urban swing voters. Caesar’s wife has to be above reproach.

      There’s no reason why he should have to resign his seat–if his constituents want to keep him. But, yeah, if Republicans want to continue to do well and do well against the Democrats in the upcoming Presidential election, then from a marketing perspective, he screwed the pooch.

      I don’t care if Joseph McCarthy was a complete buffoon, or if being a member of the Communist Party back in the ’30s made you about as complicit in the cause of communism as subscribing to Mother Jones would today. If you consorted with communists back then, it would have been political suicide for the Democrats to keep you in a leadership position in the McCarthy era.

      We’re in a place today where the appearance of racism is about as popular as the appearance of communism was in the McCarthy era.

      Even if it’s just marketing. Nobody said politics is fair. And if the Republicans keep him in a leadership position, the Democrats will use that to suggest that the Republican Party is insensitive to the concerns of minorities. …and the Democrats certainly aren’t going to refrain from saying stuff like that because it isn’t fair to this guy’s political career.

      1. Nobody said politics is fair

        That’s crazy talk!

      2. You miss the point Ken. The enormous double standard of the media can never be pointed out enough. The problem with rolling over on this guy is that it just gives the media more power.

        The Republican’s problem is that they have too many people like you who are terrified of the media and terrified the media won’t like them.

        Your comparison to McCarthy is actually apt. What you fail to mention is that eventually people stood up to McCarthy and put an end to the nonsense. The answer is for the Republicans to stand up this kind of horseshit and put an end to everything being considered “racist”. If they don’t do that, it will never end. And no amount of caution will end it because the media will forever invent something new to show how racist they are. You can’t win playing this game so you have to end it.

        1. You can’t win playing this game so you have to end it.

          And how do we end it? Attend more white-supremacy meetings! That’ll teach ’em!

          1. You end it, by telling them to fuck off and doing the right thing regardless of what they think. If giving this speech really is bad for whatever reason, then make this guy answer for it. If it wasn’t and he didn’t say anything wrong in the speech, the tell the media to fuck off. Stop acting guilty for once. One of the reasons why these sorts of things work is that when the media makes an issue out of something ridiculous like this, people like Ken immediately roll over and start kissing their boots and apologizing for being associated with such racists. All that does is reinforce the narrative that Republicans are racist. If the Republicans would stand up and defend themselves and take the media to task, that impression wouldn’t be so easy to make.

            1. Once again I must humbly suggest, “Fuck Republicans.” Why cut them more slack than I cut Democrats? And I kind of doubt Ken is a Republican either (although I may be wrong.)

              1. I’m no fan of the GOP either, but if you’re going to hang someone out to dry, hang them for something tangible and significant.

                1. Again, “tangible and significant” is whatever the market says it is.

                  If not kicking this guy out of the leadership ends up costing the Republicans some of their political capital, then what he did is tangible and significant.

                  I had a girlfriend who bought a car, one time, because it was painted yellow. If painting cars yellow will make urban swing voters vote for someone like Rand Paul instead of someone like Liz Warren, then painting cars yellow is both tangible and significant.

                  1. reductio ad populum

                    You’ve already lost. You’ve ceded control of the discussion to the opposition.

                    If the GOP were smart they would get the text of his speech, if available, and publish it. They would examine his ties to the racist organizations in general. If simply speaking to outlying groups without consideration for what they said or received in return is reason enough to let someone go from their position, then every one of them will eventually be judged by that standard and will probably suffer for it.

                    1. “reductio ad populum”

                      Just for the record, I’m not saying anything is true because it’s popular.

                      I’m saying it’s popular because it’s popular.

                      The truth isn’t a popularity contest, but elections are. And the way to win this upcoming popularity contest isn’t to ignore the anti-racist sensibilities of urban swing voters.

              2. Because it makes you look like an unprincipled moron Nothing.

                May I humbly suggest using your fucking brain for once and hanging out people of either party when they deserve it and standing up for them when they don’t. How about that? God fucking forbid anyone thing. It is much easier just to pose and say stupid shit like “fuck them all”.

                1. I assure you that it’s no pose, John.

                  1. It’s amazing that so many people think it’s not serious. I’ve seen some hard core progs call it political hipsterism because they honestly believe that nobody could really be against the government.

                  2. Yes it is CN.

                    You don’t believe that. You were just on the morning links talking about how ridiculous the Obama wedding thing in Hawaii is. You didn’t seem to have a “fuck them all I don’t care if the criticism is fair” attidude about that did you?

                    It is not fuck them both with you. It is fuck the Republicans no matter what and maybe fuck the Democrats sometimes if it doesn’t offend people or make you look too Republican.

                    You are a poser CN. I am a lot of things but I am not a poser. And I can smell it in someone when I see it.

                    1. and maybe fuck the Democrats sometimes if it doesn’t offend people or make you look too Republican.

                      Wow, John. You sure got me pegged. Congratulations. You are one insightful dude.

                    2. Truth fucking hurts CN. If you don’t like it, try having some intellectual integrity sometime.

                    3. Wow, John. You sure got me pegged. Congratulations. You are one insightful dude.

                      Maybe John is being unfair, but you certainly haven’t addressed this criticism:

                      You were just on the morning links talking about how ridiculous the Obama wedding thing in Hawaii is. You didn’t seem to have a “fuck them all I don’t care if the criticism is fair” attidude about that did you?

                      Instead of responding to that, you decided to go with SJW-style ironic mockery.

                      So what’s your response? Your actual response, and not, “Oh wow you got me so bad Fluffy, wow you’ve got me pegged!” or something like that.

                    4. So either you’re a Republican or not a Republican. And since Democrats are not Republicans, if you’re not a Republican you’re a Democrat. Do I have that right?

                    5. No Sparky. You either think and stand for the truth or you don’t. If you do, you judge each side equally and with no regard to what team they are from. If you don’t, you judge based on team. And judging both teams bad is no better than judging one team good and the other team bad. In both cases you are not thinking but emoting.

                      If this guy is a legitimate racist and a bad guy, by all means run him out of public life. If he is not and he just gave a speech to an outlier group, then people ought stand up for the guy no matter what they think of his politics.

                    6. If this guy is a legitimate racist and a bad guy, by all means run him out of public life. If he is not and he just gave a speech to an outlier group, then people ought stand up for the guy no matter what they think of his politics.

                      Hear hear

                    7. Sooo, no thinking person could possibly be against both teams. The only way you can prove you can think for yourself is to be on a team. Yep, that totally makes sense now.

                    8. Sooo, no thinking person could possibly be against both teams.

                      No. No thinking person could possibly be against both teams and all people on either team on all issues and in all circumstances. Sometimes one or the other team is right about something. Other times a member of one or the other team is being treated unfairly and should be defending. If you are a thinking person and care about what is right, you will agree with the teams when they are right and defend someone from unfairness regardless of whether they are politicians or partisans.

                    9. As a team player, why is it so hard for you to grasp that some people don’t want to play the game?

                      Why is it impossible for you to understand that it doesn’t matter if I happen to agree with a Republican or a Democrat on an issue when I completely disagree with either of them trying to force that issue on others? Thinking gays should have the exact same rights as non-gays and women should be able to get abortions doesn’t make me a Democrat. Thinking people should be able to own guns and believe in God doesn’t make me a Republican.

                      Individual Republicans and Democrats are like the “good cops” you always hear about. Sure they’re fine people individually, but they still support their fellows no matter how much they fuck up.

                    10. Sparky,

                      Don’t you understand that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of? I don’t give a flying fuck about this guy’s politics. He could be a communist for all I care. The point is that his giving this speech in and of itself was not wrong and he shouldn’t lose his job or be run out of public life for it. I don’t care what team he is on. He deserves to be treated fairly regardless of his team.

                      I fully understand Sprarky that there are people, apparently like you, who are just as pig headed as any partisan but just do it by being “anti partisan”. You are still judging by team not reason and morality even if your answer is always “go get them”.

        2. “enormous double standard of the media can never be pointed out enough. The problem with rolling over on this guy is that it just gives the media more power.”

          We have to engage with the world the way it is–not the way it should be.

          Here’s an excellent opportunity for the Republican Party to demonstrate in the media that they are unsympathetic to the problems of racists.

          And from being the owner of the Clippers to the concerns of protestors in the streets of Ferguson, being unsympathetic to the problems of racists is an important thing to be.

          This is like Clinton executing a retarded guy to demonstrate that he was tough on crime and couldn’t be Willie Hortoned like Dukakis. …except in this case, no retarded people are executed–just some politician just joins Trent Lott as being in Congress without a shot at leadership anymore.

          Worse thing have happened to good people.

          1. We have to engage with the world the way it is–not the way it should be.

            Then who will stand up for the way it should be?

            1. Why bother?

              1. Now that’s the question.

                1. We do!

                  We should all stand up for the way things should be–in the future.

                  Except, that shouldn’t be the goal if you’re trying to market in the here and now.

                  Wal*Mart doesn’t buy merchandise in China and then mark it up and resell it because they think people should pay more for it in the future.

                  Wal*Mart looks at the price of things–the way they are now–and makes sure it pays less than that for the merchandise it resells.

                  You don’t dictate to the market in real time what it wants. If you try to force the market to want what it should, the market will crush you.

                  Rather, the market dictates to you what you will be selling. I don’t care if you paid $100 a barrel for that oil–the market is only paying $60 now.

                  Republicans are extremely vulnerable on the issue of racism to urban swing voters. That’s their market for the Presidency. You don’t dictate to that market what it wants. You go make a speech at Howard University–so you can appease that market. Is Rand Paul about to win the endorsement of blacks at Howard University anytime soon?

                  No. Of course not.

                  But he scores a lot of points with urban swing voters–especially younger ones–who care a lot about the problem of racism.

                  Keeping this guy in the Republican leadership is the opposite of what Rand Paul did at Howard.

                  1. Keeping this guy in the Republican leadership is the opposite of what Rand Paul did at Howard.

                    And you miss my point. I never said keep him. But if you’re going to can him, it needs to be on principle. Examine his ties to racist organizations, look at his speeches, look at his funding, set the terms of the debate. If you don’t take control and simply axe him because he spoke to the wrong people, then everyone in your organization will be judged by that measure, Rand Paul included.

                    1. “If you’re going to can him, it needs to be on principle.”

                      The only principle involved in winning elections for the major parties is winning.

                      There are dirt-cheap hookers in most run down pool halls of our most neglected and burned out cities with more principles than the Republican Party leadership has when it’s trying to win an election.

                      Certainly, if they’re going to throw an election on principle, it isn’t going to be for the principle of fairness to one of their own.

                      Bill Clinton executed a retard to show that he was tough on crime.

                      Think about that for a second, and then talk to me about party leadership and the principles of fairness in winning elections.

                    2. Again, you miss the point. Once you succumb to those terms, you will all be judged by those terms. Are you certain that Rand Paul has never spoken to a verboten group?

          2. We have to engage with the world the way it is

            No Ken. You have to work to change the way it is. As long as it remains as it is, the Republicans will never win. So rolling over and licking the media’s boots does nothing but ensure you are going to lose.

            Your position is that the Republicans should just roll over and do unjustly end people’s careers based on media lies because that is just how things are and we need to placate the media.

            That is completely the wrong thing to do. When the situation is such that you can’t win, the answer is never to just accept that. The answer is to work to change the situation.

            1. “No Ken. You have to work to change the way it is.”

              We–as in libertarians–have to change the way it is and what people value?

              Okay, I’m on board with that. That’s one of the reasons why I donate to Reason.

              But the Republican leadership doesn’t need to use this as an opportunity to teach urban swing voters that friendly interactions with with racists isn’t always a nefarious thing.

              They need to try not to shoot themselves in the foot with this thing–given the way things are right now. …and given the way the political market is going to be over the next two years.

              You think being pro-life and against deficit spending are tough issues for the Republicans? Just wait ’til the Democrats make racism a Republican issue!

              Somebody in the Republicans leadership must be smarter than that.

              1. Somebody in the Republicans leadership must be smarter than that.

                Good one!

              2. But isn’t that just another case of telling people how to live their lives?

            2. “Your position is that the Republicans should just roll over and do unjustly end people’s careers based on media lies.”

              I admit that the future of this man’s political career within the Republican Congressional leadership is the very least of my concerns on this issue.

              Dey terk his jerb!

              And, anyway, isn’t having your career ended based on media lies what you sign up for when you become a politician?

              If this job doesn’t work out, I wish him well in all of his future endeavors. There are lots of other opportunities for a smart, hardworking guy like him. And if he can’t find an office job, working construction isn’t anything to be ashamed of. Lots of good Americans do that for a living–and support their families well.

              1. In all honesty, I couldn’t give two shits about Scalise. I probably wouldn’t even like him if I met him.

                What I do care about is what the terms of the argument are. And unless we are arguing about principles instead of principals, then we will lose in the long run.

          3. Exactly–just as Libertarians routinely denounce and disavow Racist Ron Paul, right? Right? Hello?

            1. Are you suggesting that Reason backed away from criticizing Ron Paul for his newsletters?

              Or are you citing Reason’s coverage of that story as an example of libertarians holding the same standard for one of their own?

          4. We have to engage with the world the way it is–not the way it should be.

            The problem with “engaging the world the way it is” is that “the way the world is” is stacked against you. Bullies don’t respond to cooperation by acknowledging good will. They just find a new set of demands to make. And they’ll never run out of them. Today it’s speaking to racists. What is it tomorrow? Writing in some magazine that a racist also published in at some time (say one partly funded by the Koch brothers)? Or maybe just opposing affirmative action?

            1. Exactly that Bill. Bullies can’t be appeased.

            2. “The problem with “engaging the world the way it is” is that “the way the world is” is stacked against you.”

              Sometimes it is stacked, but you still have to find ways to make the best case for yourself–given the way the world is.

              After doing my due diligence, taking on investors, and spending all of it to get approvals, the city decides to run a street through the middle of my property–without giving me notice, updating the general plan, or anything. All of it terribly unfair!

              You think going back to my investors and saying, “Sorry I lost all of your money, but the world isn’t the way it’s supposed to be” is going to make them feel any better about losing their money?

              Acting in the imaginary world of the way things should be will never get you what you want in the real world. You might be able to change the way things are in the future–but the present tense is always happening in the real world. And you’d be surprised how much you can get in the real world–even given the unfairness–given the way the real world is now.

              In the real world, the Republicans being associated with racism costs them national elections.

              P.S. We were able to show that the street going though our property would result in the deaths of a certain number of children down the street, and we were able to show that the streets capacity could be more than exceeded by re-striping some of the streets around it and by installing a traffic light–both of which we agreed to pay for.

              1. Acting in the imaginary world of the way things should be will never get you what you want in the real world.

                In the real world, there’s absolutely nothing the media can do that you can’t weather by telling them to fuck off and just hanging on until they lose interest.

                That’s the real world history of pretty much every event in US politics since 1992.

                I agree with John, but for a different reason than the one he’s giving: Obama has learned, better than even his predecessors (who were pretty damn good at it) that sticking with Fuck You That’s Why and refusing to give ground even when caught red-handed always works in the end if you’re just shameless enough about it. If Obama is going to act that way and succeed, every one of his opponents must do the same.

                In the real world.

                1. I don’t know.

                  Obama lost big in the last election.

                  And his predecessor was pretty good at stiff-arming the media, too.

                  I think he had other factors working in his favor, too, and the Republicans being associated with racism in the minds of swing voters coupled with Obama’s minority status didn’t hurt Obama any.

                  The question in the real world is always, “What do we do now?”, and that’s what the Republicans leadership should be thinking about. Not, “The world would be so much better if only…”

              2. It strikes me, though, that you did precisely the opposite of what you’re suggesting. Accepting the world the way it is would entail accepting the city’s decision and taking your losses. Instead, you fought. You showed it would have terrible consequences. You showed that the way the world is wasn’t going to work out very well.

                And to me, the Republicans rolling over every time media progressives cry “racism” would be the equivalent of just taking your losses because the city wanted to build its road.

                1. “Accepting the world the way it is would entail accepting the city’s decision and taking your losses. Instead, you fought. You showed it would have terrible consequences. You showed that the way the world is wasn’t going to work out very well.”

                  We didn’t sit around and wait for the city council to start following the law or behaving justly.

                  We could have sued them, and in four or five years, maybe our investors would have gotten their money back.

                  The way the world is, it costs a lot of my investors’ time and money to make a city council act the way they should. The way the world is, we have to get what we want regardless of their wanton actions and disregard for our rights and the law.

                  There was no reason why we should have to pay for re-striping streets and putting in new traffic signals either.

                  But the world isn’t the way it should be, so I did the best I could for us given the way it is now. And like I just wrote elsewhere, the most important question is always, “What do we do now”?

                  What we should do in the future is important, too, but those choices will be reevaluated when the time comes. Eventually, you’ll look at the parameters as they are, at that point in time, and you’ll ask, “What are we going to do now?” And if I don’t make the best choice, it isn’t because the world isn’t the way it should be. It’s because I didn’t make the best choice given the way the world really was now.

      3. By all means, let’s continue to avoid discussion of actual policy and principles and continue to elect our leaders by appearances and other useless metrics.

        1. Hey, it’s worked this far, right?

        2. “Let’s continue to avoid discussion of actual policy and principles and continue to elect our leaders by appearances and other useless metrics.”

          Besides price, you know what the biggest difference is between fish bait and sushi?

          Marketing.

          What the market wants is not a “useless metric”. And right now the market is extremely sensitive to charges of racism.

          That’s the market that’s going to choose an executive order era President from between candidates like Liz Warren or Rand Paul.

          If Rand Paul somehow manages to win the nomination? The reputation of the Republicans and their association with racism isn’t going to be a “useless metric”. The Republicans’ reputation with urban swing voters on the issue of racism may determine whether we get a President Hillary or President Warren that is so bad, we might look back to the Obama Administration with nostalgia.

          Certainly, the most irrational thing you can do from a marketing perspective is market yourself to a large group of irrational people as if they were rational.

          1. Besides price, you know what the biggest difference is between fish bait and sushi?

            Marketing.

            Is it racist to hate ever single airport-self-help-book quoting MBA asshole?

            1. These sayings survive because they work.

              P.S. Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered.

              P.P.S. Never try to catch a falling knife.

          2. Actually, sushi doesn’t have anything to do with fish, except to dumb Americans.

            1. “Actually, sushi doesn’t have anything to do with fish, except to dumb Americans.”

              You know what’s dumber than an American who thinks sushi has something to do with fish?

              A restauranteur trying to sell sushi without fish to dumb Americans.

          3. The biggest difference between sushi and bait is that sushi has been flash frozen to kill the parasites. But go ahead and eat bait if you want.

            Thing is Ken, you’re not going to get Rand Paul on the ticket if we can’t discuss actual policies and principles, nor will it even matter.

            If all that matters is marketing, then that is what Congress will occupy itself with as opposed to governing.

            1. The biggest difference between sushi and bait is that sushi is rice. Not fish. You can have your sushi with fish, but you don’t have to.

              1. You got me. Sashimi.

            2. “If all that matters is marketing, then that is what Congress will occupy itself with as opposed to governing.”

              The leaders of both parties mostly treat their own governing as marketing.

              I’d like to see them govern with Rand Paul as President, but in order to make that happen, a certain number of swing voters are going to have to vote Republican.

              That’s the main reason I care about the Republican brand. Rand Paul needs to be nominated by the Republican Party, and in our marketing efforts, I’d rather the Republican Party didn’t soil their brand by letting it be associated with racism.

              Rather, I think they need to actively disassociate their brand from racism.

      4. The Republicans are extremely vulnerable to the charge of racism from urban swing voters.

        Maybe so. After all, urban swing voters rejected the Democrats’ race-baiting.

        http://ethicsalarms.com/2014/1…..ex-wagner/

        The question is why. Do they reject race-baiting on principle, or only when targeted against whites?

    3. This is a REAL scandal John! Completely different from all those fake scandals, like running guns into Mexico and the I.R.S. targeting conservatives for extra scrutiny.

      1. Or that (straight) marriage-hating Obama’s golf game!

  2. And lastly, isn’t what he said in the speech the important thing not where the speech was given? If the guy got up and talked about the need to save the white man from the brown hoards, then yeah he has some explaining to do. If he got up and gave a reasonable speech, who the hell cares about the venue or the audience? Maybe going out and talking to these radical groups and trying to make a reasonable case to them about things might be a good thing to do. The fact that they are not saying a thing about what the guy actually said, tells me that he didn’t say anything wrong.

    1. IIRC, Ron Paul has caught a lot of shit in the past because he’ll speak to pretty much anybody. I wonder if this isn’t a similar situation. Also, identity politics demands that no one ever speak to anyone not in the in group.

      1. It’s all about the feels and keeping up appearances.

        /Bo

  3. So Scalise, who was elected to Congress in 2008, is not a racist or a closet white supremacist. That seems totally settled.

    You’re joking, right?

  4. I would like to note that the linked site’s political quiz is broken. I’m apparently a Moderate Libertarian Liberal because no matter what I say the damn thing thinks I’m strongly for more Fed funding for healthcare and against privatizing Soc Sec.

    1. I’m a Hard Core Libertarian. Fuck yeah.

      1. I’m not seeing a link to the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz.”

        1. Probably because Scalise fares better on that one.

    1. That is another good one. And then of course there is Ted Kennedy. You get drunk and leave one woman to drown in the car you crashed and that is just something that happened on the Cape and stayed there. Give a single speech to some white pride organization no one has ever heard of and that is serious business. You have to go.

      1. Standard “Fuck Ted Kennedy” disclaimer, but I think you missed by point, John.

          1. Spambot seems to be following me today. Is that possible?

            1. Nothing is impossible Citizen

            2. So, how are the residents of Columbus handling the Harbaugh hire? I think he’s going to disrupt the heck out of OSU’s recruiting and Big Ten success, though he’s got his work cut out for him at the outset.

              1. Honestly, Pro Lib, I think the Nuts are excited. Like Megamind, they need a worthy adversary to hate, and haven’t had one in a while.

                1. Sure, I can see that. . .until the pain begins. He’s a very good coach–much better, in my opinion, than Meyer.

                  I used to want the same thing with FSU and Miami (and still feel that way about the SEC East as a whole) during their very long droughts, but the problem with that is that it’s only good to have better competition when your team remains at the top, too.

                  1. I’ve heard several (wistful?) comments about Meyer and Harbaugh perhaps becoming the Woody and Bo of this generation.

                  2. He’s a very good coach–much better, in my opinion, than Meyer.

                    When the game starts? Sure, absolutely. But that’s not all there is to coaching, and I don’t think Harbaugh is going to be nearly as good on the recruiting trail as Meyer even with all of the hype surrounding his hire.

                    I also think they’re going to be playing in totally different markets. OSU still has Tressel’s fence around Ohio, and I think Meyer is going to keep making the effort at prioritizing pure athleticism over game sense and physicality. Who this hire is really going to kill is Dantonio and MSU, since they’re looking for (literally) the same guys but Harbaugh and Michigan both have better pedigrees.

                    1. Harbaugh will get a lot of recruits right out of the gate because of his prior coaching successes. Later, when he’s more widely known as a jackass, maybe not so much. I suspect he’s going to turn Michigan around very quickly. It’s a great hire for them.

                    2. I agree. I just don’t think it hurts OSU all that much, except in the sense that actually losing to your rival every other year is worse than beating the crap out of them.

                      It’s going to be fun to watch, basically a new version of what the Stanford / Oregon matchup was for a few years.

                    3. God knows the Big Ten needs some upgrading.

        1. No I didn’t. Robert Byrd was a Democratic icon in the Senate and was an actual former member of the Klan. The point is that Democratic misconduct is never a big deal and any action by any Republican that could even be considered controversial is always a national scandal. They ignored Byrd’s membership in the Klan just like they ignored Kennedy killing that woman.

          You missed my point.

          1. No, John. I got your point. I was kind of making fun of it (apparently using my powers of precognition). It seems a common reaction here that any criticism of Republicans is followed by cries of “But Democrats are worse! Woooorse!”
            I’m in the “fuck them both” camp. But you know that.

            1. To be fair, I’m highly doubtful in this instance that Scalise’s appearance before this group means he’s actually a racist. Like everyone is saying, these guys speak in front of a lot of groups, and if he were doing this on a regular basis, that would be coming out now, too. So it’s probably the usual race-baiting nonsense.

              Byrd (and some other noted politicians, justices, etc.) clearly was a racist at some point in his career, maybe still was until the end.

              I say a pox on all of them, too, but it’s a fair point to note that we’re a little in mote vs. beam territory when it comes to racism.

              1. Fair enough. But the whole “but Byrd!” thing sounds a whole lot like the “but BOOOSH!” thing to me.

                1. Yeah, I’m not a big fan of that line of argument, especially when it’s about people no longer in power or, in Byrd’s case, no longer among the living.

            2. I did miss your point, you are correct. You however miss the entire point of why pointing out Robert Byrd is appropriate here. The fact that Robert Byrd was in the Klan doesn’t say anything about whether this guy giving a speech was right or wrong. It does, however, say a lot about the double standard of the media and the Democrats in general.

              The media cannot make Robert Byrd into a Senate icon and then turn around and try to act like things like this are a big deal. If Byrd’s being in the Klan wasn’t a big deal to them, and it wasn’t, then they can’t turn around and claim this is a big deal.

              Hypocrisy doesn’t matter on the merits of an issue, but it does matter on the question of standards. The Democrats and the media should not be able to apply ridiculous standards to Republicans while applying no standards to themselves.

              1. There’s one difference that’s significant–we’re talking recent history versus decades ago. Not that I think Scalise is likely a racist, but it is a distinction with some merit if, for instance, his speech called for the deportation of Americans not of European descent or something.

              2. “The Klan is needed today more as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia,”

                And he said he would never fight, quote, “with a negro by my side. Rather, I should die 1,000 times than to see this beloved land become degraded by race mongrels,”

                -Robert Byrd

                1. “There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time.”

                  -Robert Byrd, 2001

                  1. I thought that was Elvis Costello.

            3. I dont think this is a “Dems are worse” argument as much as pointing out the double standard.

              Byrd/Kennedy may or may not be worse. But they werent hounded over their problems.

              See Ron Paul’s newsletters as another example.

              1. You honestly think Ron Paul’s newsletters generated as much media coverage as, say, Chappaquiddick?

                1. And why the fuck isn’t Bo here to do this?

                2. I did wonder when it wasn’t 100% certain he wouldn’t get nominated (only 98% certain) whether that would become a huge issue as the GOP nominee. Well, wonder is the wrong word. It would’ve been beaten to death, the only question was by how much.

                3. Ron Paul’s newsletters didn’t kill anyone you half wit. And those newsletters generated more press than Obama’s association with Bill Ayers. And to the extent they did, it was much more negative rather than the “nothing to see here” stories that Obama got.

          2. The point is that Democratic misconduct is never a big deal and any action by any Republican that could even be considered controversial is always a national scandal.

            That’s because Republican policy is stupid. You preach it, you own it. You want the scandal immunity the Democrats have? Stop telling people how to live their personal lives.

            1. But drugs, Fd’A! Why do you hate the children?

              1. Yeah Citizen, the Democrats are all about ending the drug war. Jesus fucking Christ what the hell is the matter with you?

                1. the Democrats are all about ending the drug war.

                  Wow, John. Talk about tunnel vision. Let me liber-splain it to you. Fuck the GOP. Fuck the Dems. (Did you catch that last part, you know, about the Dems? ‘Cause you always seem to miss it.)

                  1. Yes CN,

                    I know. You allow any subject relating to polices make you a complete fucking moron incapable of rational thought. All you are saying is that you don’t care enough to actually make reasoned decisions and will buy anything no matter how ridiculous that you think hurts either side. Good for you. Have fun with that. Understand that makes you a fucking unthinking moron.

                    1. Wow, John gets so befuddled by anyone who is not a Team Partisan like himself. It’s delightful to watch.

                    2. I grow weary, Bo. I hooked it, you reel it in.

              2. How could anyone hate children? Who else is going to work in my mines for what I pay?

            2. Wait, who isn’t doing that now?

            3. You mean like telling people who they have to do business with and what lifestyles they must support?

            4. Did you get a labotomy last night Fransisco? That is the dumbest thing you have ever said. If not telling people how to live your life gives you “scandal immunity”, then why the hell does either party have it. The Republicans have never told me how to live my life once. The Democrats in contrast, tell me I shouldn’t be able to own a gun, buy food they think is unsafe, how fast I can drive, how efficient my car has to be, what kind of light bulb I can buy and a whole lot of other things.

              Jesus tap dancing Christ Fransisco, do you really think me or anyone else on this board is so fucking stupid that you could get away with saying something like that?

              Just stop it. Stop commenting on this thread. You clearly have lost your fucking mind on this subject and need to pose somewhere else.

              Before you go full retard, I am not saying the Republicans don’t try and tell people how to live their lives. But the Democrats do just as much or more. But hey, don’t let facts in logic get in the way of things.

              1. The Republicans have never told me how to live my life once

                This is like Seamus O’Toole saying “The Irish have never told me how to live my life once!”

                1. Before you go full retard, I am not saying the Republicans don’t try and tell people how to live their lives. But the Democrats do just as much or more. But hey, don’t let facts in logic get in the way of things.

                  Which part of that sentence do you not understand CN? Just because they haven’t told me doesn’t mean they haven’t told other people. I am aware of that. That is why I put in that last sentence. Forgive me for thinking you could fucking read or have a coherent thought on this subject.

                  Look, I get it, You are all cool and nonpartisan. Those Republicans are all evil racists and you know it.

                  There, your street creed is preserved.

                  1. The Republicans have never told me how to live my life once

                    I forget who posted this, John. But if you want to look it up, you could take up your case with them.

                    1. Citizen Nothing,

                      Are you so stupid you can’t understand the idea that just because the Republicans don’t want to control my life that doesn’t mean they don’t want to control other people’s lives? Are you that stupid and on the mental level of Fransisco or are you just that fucking dishonest and unwilling to admit how badly you are losing this argument?

                      Can’t you just start yelling Red Tony like sarcasmic does when he loses an argument? It frankly has a bit more self respect than posting utterly idiotic shit like this.

                    2. Self respect, shmelf respect! Look who I spend time arguing with on the Internet!

              2. The Republicans have never told me how to live my life once.

                I am not saying the Republicans don’t try and tell people how to live their lives.

                You just open your mouth and shit falls out, doesn’t it John?

                1. Sometimes I forget what a legitimate half wit you are Fransisco. You really are that dumb. Just because the Republicans don’t tell me how to live doesn’t mean they don’t tell other people how to live. It just means I am less cross ways with them.

                  That point is pretty obvious from the post, I thought. But I forget that you really are not bright and really think at a very low level. Forgive me for not making simpler points and spelling it out for you more. More complex points like this one are just beyond your ability to grasp apparently.

                  1. Just because the Republicans don’t tell me how to live doesn’t mean they don’t tell other people how to live. It just means I am less cross ways with them.

                    See, this was my whole Seamus O’Toole joke. But when you have to explain a joke…

                    1. Lets talk about Seamus O’Toole. Lets not talk about the moronic idea that since Republicans tell people how to live they should be subject to every ridiculous manufactured scandal and Democrats somehow shouldn’t.

                      Lets change the subject CN. Good idea because the actual subject of the thread isn’t going so well for you.

                  2. Wasn’t there a comment about not going full retard?

                    1. I say if you’re going retard, why not full retard?

                    2. Good point, all in is the only way to go. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

                    3. You are doing it CN. You are doing it. Come on tell us more about how you will believe anything as long as it says something bad about the R or the D, unless of course it involves a wedding in Hawaii, then we have to be reasonable.

                    4. Wait, John. Weren’t you the one who brought up how Obama probably didn’t even know about the wedding. There you have it, ladies and gentlemen: John is a Democrat shill! (Explains a lot, don’t it?)

                    5. What good is a half retard?

                2. And even though I tried to stop you from going full retard, you just couldn’t help yourself. Wow. Jesus Fransisco, stop and think.

              3. The difference is, John, the Republicans will proudly stand there and claim they are the party of moral righteousness. The left makes no such claim.

                They both do it? Really? No shit!

                Dems are hypocrites. They say they don’t tell people how to live, they do so, and then pretend they didn’t.

                Republicans, on the other hand, don’t even pretend. They’ll tell you up-front, that it’s THEIR JOB to tell people how to live (wrt “social” issues”). You retards aren’t even smart enough to lie about being slavers.

                You claim to know the path to righteousness for everyone else, and then wonder why people hold you accountable when you fall off your own wagon.

                They don’t call you the stupid party for nothing.

                1. The difference is, John, the Republicans will proudly stand there and claim they are the party of moral righteousness. The left makes no such claim.

                  Are you delisional? The entire left brand is based on moral branding. Why do people vote Democrat? To show they care about the poor, to show they are good people, to show they care about the environment, to show they are not racist. The entire left brand is based on moral superiority through voting and on the cult of the morality of “tolerance.

                  Do you know any actual liberals? Do you think they are all welfare queens voting for free shit? No. They are mostly earnest well meaning people and the intellectual children of the old Puritan elite. They wake up every day wanting to be moral and be a good person and are totally convinced the way to do that is through leftist politics and anyone who doesn’t do that is immoral, intolerant and racist.

                  Forget knowing liberals, do you even read this board? There are about five threads a week on the moral smugness of the left. They are not different than the worst evangelical crusader, they just have different issues.

                  1. They are not different than the worst evangelical crusader,

                    What did I tell you? It’s like John is turning into Bo.

                    1. What are you talking about CN? How is that statement not true? How is the left not morally smug and self righteous? HAve you just given up on making rational points now?

                    2. He’s getting younger, more handsome and intelligent?

                  2. Completely delisional.

                2. The difference is, John, the Republicans will proudly stand there and claim they are the party of moral righteousness. The left makes no such claim.

                  I don’t know that this is true. It strikes me that, if they use different language, the Democrats play this game just as completely as the worst Republicans with the SJW brigades. What is there agenda other than pushing a strict moralism from their own side of the social issues? On the other hand, who holds them to account?

                3. They say they don’t tell people how to live

                  I really can’t see any way to even begin to defend this statement.

                  It’s incredibly absurd.

                  Even the word “progressive” itself informs you that the speaker intends to use the state to change how you live.

                  1. I think you are missing my point Fluffy.

                    I’m not claiming that either side DOESN’T IN ACTUALITY tell people how to live. They do.

                    Simply that, WRT social issues, dems tell people (claim) they are the party that doesn’t tell people how to live.

                    The Republicans have no problem saying (claiming) they are all for telling you how to live.

                    A republican will tell you that fucking a hooker is wrong and there should be laws against it. So when a republican gets caught fucking a hooker, the dems can claim hypocrisy (read scandal).

                    When a democrat gets caught fucking a hooker and the republicans try to turn it into a scandal, the democrat says, big deal. We never claimed fucking hookers was wrong to begin with.

                    That’s why scandals stick to republicans and not democrats.

                    Get it?

                    Has NOTHING to do with their actual actions. It has to do with their claims.

                    1. The Republicans have no problem saying (claiming) they are all for telling you how to live.

                      A republican will tell you that fucking a hooker is wrong and there should be laws against it. So when a republican gets caught fucking a hooker, the dems can claim hypocrisy (read scandal).

                      When a democrat gets caught fucking a hooker and the republicans try to turn it into a scandal, the democrat says, big deal. We never claimed fucking hookers was wrong to begin with.

                      That’s why scandals stick to republicans and not democrats.

                      Yep.

                      @John
                      I have a difficult time calling the progressives obsession with fairness to be a system of morality, since the foundation of it is using the government to institutionalize injustice.

              4. “The Republicans have never told me how to live my life once.”

                “I am not saying the Republicans don’t try and tell people how to live their lives.”

                In the same post!

                1. Yes Bo. I am not “people”. You can tell most of the world how to live their lives without telling me personally how to live my life.

                  It is a simple concept and just the sort of thing that you are either too simple minded or too mendacious to understand. Your simple mindedness and inability to grasp anything but the simplest points never fails to surprise me.

                  1. You’re not included in people? Now that would explain some things.

            5. That’s because Republican policy is stupid. You preach it, you own it. You want the scandal immunity the Democrats have? Stop telling people how to live their personal lives.

              So, to get ‘scandal immunity’, all republicans have to do is stop telling people how much soda they can drink, salt they can use, GMO crops they can eat, cigarettes they can smoke, lightbulbs they can use, water they can flush or shower with, music lyrics they can listen to, carbon they can exhale…..I can go on and on and on.

              1. No, you need to stop telling people you are the party of moral righteousness and then failing to live up to your own morals.

                Democrats don’t claim to be the party of moral righteousness, and therefore don’t have any social standards to live up to.

                I never said they BOTH aren’t shitbags or they both don’t ACTUALLY tell you how to live.

                I answered the question as to WHY Republicans are held accountable and Dems aren’t.

                1. Democrats don’t claim to be the party of moral righteousness, and therefore don’t have any social standards to live up to.

                  Jesus Christ on a cracker!?!?!

                  I take it you don’t get Progressives United emailed newsletters? Because between you and me, the Democratic Party definitely does claim to be the party of moral righteousness. That’s why the adjectives vile, evil, stupid etc appear so often in their description of Republican policies or themes.

                  The newsletters I get from that outfit read like they were written by someone who interned for Jimmy Swaggart.

                  1. I think Francis is talking about the moral righteousness of ‘personal values’ and not social gospel type stuff, but it’s worth you pointing out Dems do the latter.

                  2. Ohhhh! I see. It’s the Democrats who trumpet the ideals of groups like “the moral majority.”

                    It’s the democrats who ally themselves with the church groups and attempt to pass laws against prostitution, gambling, homosexuality, porn, divorce, sex, adultery and drugs…in the name of the Lord.

                    (heavy sarcasm, in case you missed it)

                    And the Republicans wonder why THEY get drug through the mud when their members turn out to be closet

                    johns
                    gamblers
                    homos
                    pornographers
                    cheaters
                    and drug users and the Dems don’t.

                    I just don’t get it. (derp)

                    1. t’s the democrats who ally themselves with the church groups and attempt to pass laws against prostitution, gambling, homosexuality, porn, divorce, sex, adultery and drugs…in the name of the Lord.

                      Yes they do. They are called BLACK CHURCHES. The Democrats totally do that. And on top of that the mainline Protestant churches are run completely and totally by liberals and completely support liberal causes like environmentalism and social justice as their “Christian Duty”. The Republican evangelicals are not the same as the old school Protestant denominations like the Presbyterians and the Methodists.

                      Fransisco, you are just profoundly ignorant on this subject. There are tons of liberal churches out there and tons of liberal Democrats who are church going Christians.

                    2. It’s the democrats who ally themselves with the church groups and attempt to pass laws against prostitution, gambling, homosexuality, porn, divorce, sex, adultery and drugs…in the name of the Lord.

                      Well, yes. And they did this before there was ever a group called the ‘Moral Majority'(was it ever a real group or was it just media shorthand?) You are aware, of course, that prostitution, gambling, homosexuality, porn, divorce, sex, adultery and drugs all have laws against or pertaining to them before anyone ever thought the words ‘moral majority’?

                      Never forget that it was the Democrat backed PMRC that tried to use the law to censor music–WHILE the moral majority people were being ridiculed for not liking the same music.

                    3. You are aware, of course, that prostitution, gambling, homosexuality, porn, divorce, sex, adultery and drugs all have laws against or pertaining to them before anyone ever thought the words ‘moral majority’?

                      And which of the two party platforms (stated positions), currently in power, support those laws now?

                    4. Democrats and Republicans.

                      THAT was easy.

                2. Democrats don’t claim to be the party of moral righteousness, and therefore don’t have any social standards to live up to.

                  Again, they totally do. Their entire brand is about making the political personal and political issues moral. Beyond that, even if your point were correct, it would only apply to issues the Republicans made into moral ones. So if this guy was caught with a hooker, then you could apply your double standard. The problem is he wasn’t. He was caught violating one of the Democrats moral sacred cows, never being associated with racists. The Republicans are not the ones who claim everyone is racist. The Democrats are.

                  Even by your logic Fransisco, this guy, because he is a Republican, should especially walk free. The Republicans are not the ones making not appearing racist to be a moral issue, the Democrats are.

                  You are just grasping at straws here Fransisco because you are terrified you might have to defend a Republican. Get over yourself. I defend Democrats when I think they are right. Just defend the right thing and stop worrying someone might think you are a closet conservative or something.

                  1. Can I suggest that maybe this is getting play because it aligns with a common stereotype about Southern Republicans, and one the GOP has been taking great pains to counter? I don’t think it will be a big deal either, it’s currently a rather small headline at Washington Post. If the GOP just move him from his position and gave him a nice, more obscure committee assignment this would probably go away like the Chargers playoffs hopes.

  5. my best friend’s mother makes $82 /hour on the computer . She has been without work for ten months but last month her pay was $14362 just working on the computer for a few hours. this page…………
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  6. Spending is power,making laws is power.That’s why I like the ‘do nothing congress’of the last few years.The economy seems to also.

    1. ‘No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.’
      -Mark Twain

  7. It seems that Scalise’s problem is he isn’t right-wing reactionary *enough.* If he were, he’d probably want to cut spending more. And it seems that he realizes spending is too high but just doesn’t have the guts to piss of his constituents by voting for major cuts.

    I don’t know if that’s better or worse than voting for big spending out of conviction.

    1. Its better. The craven opportunist can be bought and reasoned with and manipulated into doing the right thing for the wrong reason. The committed fanatic just keeps coming.

  8. Thanks for clarifying which one is Scalise in the alt-text, Nick. I was wondering.

    1. Is that Pelosi doing the Nazi salute? Holy shit!

      1. She’s just so old that she went back to her old habit.

        http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/…..ersquo.htm

    2. I was pretty sure it was that dude on the right.

  9. Here, spambot. Here, spambot. Come on, bottie! There’s a good little bottie! You there?

  10. Should “Populist” properly be the polar opposite of “Libertarian”? I think that’s sort of a slur implying that Libertarian values only interest some elitist class. I think something like “Collectivist” or “Majoritarian” or (gasp) “Communist” would be more appropriate.

    1. I prefer “authoritarian”.

      1. I call them Tonytarians

    2. “Free” shit is pretty popular.

      1. Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. (no offense to Paul)

    3. I think it’s the only part of that spectrum that works. Populists are the inside-out libertarians. Their rhetoric is sympathetic but at heart they’re extremely self-centered. (free shit) Libertarian rhetoric is self-centered but at heart they are more concerned with what works for everyone.

    4. Maddox & Lilie had their reasons for using that as one of the poles 35 yrs. ago. Basically it’s because the USA had no mass authoritarian movement like socialism or fascism, but could trace a relatively authoritarian stance to populism. All American -isms stemmed from liberalism, however.

  11. Pelosi Slaps White Baby; Film At 11

    1. That’s not a slapping hand, that’s a Jedi mind-melding hand.

      1. #endwhitebabyprivilege

        1. Or, as I stated above, a Nazi-saluting hand. To be fair, Scalise is doing the Nazi salute, too. Did I miss something while on vacation?

          1. That is just a picture of the head table at the EURO meeting. It is Scalise ending his speech and giving the podium to Nancy.

            The EURO organizer asked them to use the salute as they transitioned between speakers.

      2. “You don’t need to know what’s in that bill.”

          1. Oh. I assumed it was Obamacare.

            1. Merely different expressions of the same Holy Writ.

  12. To the right is a graphic from On The Issues, a website that compiles politicians’ votes on a variety of issues and then plots them along the familiar “World’s Smallest Political Quiz.” Scalise falls into the “hard-core conservative” category according to On the Issues. That means that he is staunchly anti-abortion, wants to “keep God in the public square,” strongly opposes higher taxes on the wealthy, supports gun rights, and more. Essentially he is a standard-issue, right-wing Republican.

    That’s a really informative red dot.

    (The shape-changing quote from Scilisi that’s really from that website is a nice touch.)

  13. Perhaps I will be proven wrong, and it will be nice if so. But I rather doubt that the GOP will move in a libertarian direction on anything unless it’s by accident. Typically when they win big their attitude toward libertarians is “we don’t need libertarian support now so STFU”. They hate libertarians and unless an election is looming have no use for smaller government. (To me, cutting a Democrat’s pet program and redirecting the money to a Republican’s pet program is not smaller government.)

    1. Looks like big media’s gotten to E.E. Sandwich, too.

    2. Why do you hate our brave heroes who sacrifice everything to keep you safe?

    3. Neither party will go that far Libertarian because most of the country is not Libertarian. The parties just want to win elections. You want either one of them to go Libertarian, get the voters to go Libertarian. Until you do that, you are pissing in the wind.

      1. I agree. It’s unfortunate that many libertarians think that the parties are the way to go. That’s going to be futile.

        I would add that it also means that it’s futile for the parties to appeal to me.

        1. You are never going to get all you want. So it shouldn’t be futile for them to appeal to you. If they are never going to get your vote no matter what, why the hell should they care what you think or in any way try and be more Libertarian?

          What Libertarians don’t get and Progs do get is that politics is a never ending long game. No cause is ever totally won because no cause is ever totally lost. You are never going to get everything you want. You are only going to get pieces of it. The way to win is to take every single piece you can get every chance you get and relentlessly move forward. That is what progs are geniuses at. They are geniuses at taking half a loaf and then retrenching and waiting for their next opportunity. Libertarians want everything or nothing. And this is why Progs beat the living daylights out of Libertarians in the political world. There are not that many more real hard core committed Progs than there are real committed Libertarians. They both are about 10% of the population. But the Progs run the country and the Libertarians run jack and shit. There is a reason for that and it is because Progs live and die politics and understand how to play the long game and Libertarians don’t.

  14. Which to a libertarian should be cause for concern. When it comes to spending, he is mostly against it, except (of course) for defense and military purposes and old-age entitlements. He signed on to the Ryan budget plan, which falls far short of bringing any sort of restraint on spending.

    So what was the better choice, opposing the Ryan plan? I’m just starting to look at the linked scorecard, and how could he be better under the 1st category, Budget & Economy? Mr. Gillespie, are you just straining to find whatever bad you can write about this guy? I’ll look at the rest of the table next, but couldn’t let this wait.

    1. Yeah, just as I thought, Mr. Gillespie’s presenting this guy’s record & statements as much worse than an objective reading of the source would say. Nick couches silence on some issues in the least favorable terms.

      Also, the trouble with the “social issues” scale in the diamond chart is that a lot of answers will move you down the social freedom scale without being unarguably anti-liberty. The trouble is that legislators vote less frequently on matters that can be said to be primarily about social freedoms than they do about economic freedoms, so libertarians making up these scales have to weight the social freedoms votes more heavily (i.e. base them on fewer votes) and, in order to get better norming, count various “conservative” stances as anti-freedom even when they’re not really, like for instance matters of public school curricula.

      1. The other problem with the “social issue scale” is that Leftist social control issues like food and other aspects of life somehow don’t count. If you think the government should tell people what food they can eat or how safe their car should be, you are just as much as a social conservative as someone who wants to ban gambling and porn.

        1. I wish we could just lay that “liberals care about social freedom” myth to rest. I know that Republicans are consistently disappointing on economic freedom, but that’s because they occasionally get things right. Are liberals ever NOT wrong?

          1. I wish I could too. It drives me nuts. There is more to freedom than drugs and porn. And the fucking liberals are not as good advertised even on those two issues. The feminist left would just as readily ban porn as anyone on the Religious Right would.

            1. I think the feminist left is pretty split on banning porn.

              1. No. They are split on what kinds of porn to ban. Some of them are down with acceptable lesbian or “feminist porn” whatever that is. Some of them think all of it is objectifying and horrible. But nearly all of them agree that porn they view as sexist, rape porn, male dominated S&M kinds of things, should be banned.

                1. I’ve read feminists debate about any porn being banned John. Some feminists, like Nadine Strossen of the ACLU, have been quite vocal about opposing banning any porn.

                  1. Some have, but they are in the small minority. The vast majority support banning it, they just disagree on the extent it should be banned.

                    1. Do you have any link to support that statement, that most feminists support pornography bans?

                    2. Found this article about the split even back in the 1980’s among feminists about banning porn.

                    3. http://www.boston.com/news/glo…..ut?pg=full

                      “Even at the time, MacKinnon and Dworkin’s campaign sharply split the feminist movement. While supported by leading figures like Steinem and Brownmiller, the Indianapolis law in particular galvanized others in opposition. They formed the Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce, or FACT. When the law’s constitutionality was being decided by a federal appeals court, FACT submitted an amicus brief-signed by Betty Friedan, Rita Mae Brown, Kate Millet, Adrienne Rich and others-opposing it.

                      Torn between the conflicting arguments, the National Organization of Women was unable to take a position.”

                    4. That was nearly 30 years ago Bo. Times have changed. Betty Friedman is dead. Today it is all about the rape culture. MacKinnon and Dworkin won.

                    5. The article is about how MacKinnon and Dworkin’s anti-porn movement was STRONGEST then John, and has only faded in support among feminists now.

                    6. And beyond that Bo. You are upthread smugly informing everyone that I am delusional to think that any Democrat or leftist claims moral authority or tries to tell people how to live. Yet, you are down here admitting that at least some leftist feminists want to ban porn like like the evangelicals do.

                      Is this part of the thread in some kind of alternative universe?

                    7. “You are upthread smugly informing everyone that I am delusional to think that any Democrat or leftist claims moral authority or tries to tell people how to live.”

                      Really? Where do I say that?

                    8. If you don’t beleive me go look. Go find me ten, self identified “leftist feminists” who have stood up against the banning of porn. If you can’t do that, then my point stands because there are any number of well known leftist feminists who are for outright banning. Show me the contrary examples and I will give you the point. I personally have never seen a leftist feminist who wasn’t associated with the ACLU or named Camille Paglia stand up for porn. If you have counter examples, feel free to provide them.

                    9. It’s silly for you to try to throw the onus of proof on me for your claim, but here you go:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism

                    10. Sex positive feminism is not the same as endorsing all forms of porn. Try understanding the terms before using them Bo. It makes it easier .

                    11. Most sex positive feminists are against pornography censorship. Show me ten feminists identified as sex positive who support bans on pornography John.

        2. Here in MA, the state won’t let me idle my car for more than 5 minutes without fining me; won’t let me gamble except in venues it selects; won’t let me make and sell whiskey; won’t let me pack a butter knife in my daughter’s backpack; won’t let me hire a prostitute; won’t let me buy and insurance policy accross a state line; mandates that I sort my garbage into cardboard/paper, plastics, or general garbage; won’t let me buy alcohol after a certain time on Sunday; won’t let me sell alcohol at a restaurant without a permit – and requires me to force patrons to consume the alcohol on premises instead of taking it home in a doggie bag; fines me if I open my store on Thanksgiving; etc ad nauseam

          It’s a shame that the Massachusetts legislature is dominated by the moral scolds of the Republican party!

          1. Most of those laws you cite are fairly widespread, longstanding ones. I guess you can blame the Blue Legislature there for not repealing them, but it’s hard to argue their especially responsible for them.

            1. Absolutely it is. First, most of those laws are new. The only ones that are old are the booze ones. The rules about your garbage or plastic knives as school are all new. And there is a lot of push to liberalize the booze laws. The legislatures just refuse because they are in the pockets of the restaurant and big alcohol industry.

              The Democratic party loves to control people’s lives and are just as socially conservative as anyone on the Right. They just have different things they want to control.

              1. “First, most of those laws are new.”

                won’t let me gamble except in venues it selects;
                won’t let me make and sell whiskey;
                won’t let me hire a prostitute;
                won’t let me buy and insurance policy accross a state line;
                won’t let me buy alcohol after a certain time on Sunday;
                won’t let me sell alcohol at a restaurant without a permit – and requires me to force patrons to consume the alcohol on premises instead of taking it home in a doggie bag;

                None of those are new.

                1. I don’t disagree with your basic premise though John. The Democrats push for plenty of ‘social’ controls, they just do it in a different name (‘public health’).

                2. Gambling is. Sure gambling was banned going back to the late 19th Century, but the scheme to only allow it in certain crony run places is very new. They changed the law to make it that way in the last 20 years.

                  And the ban on distilling, while old, was reexamined when they legalized home brewing and the legislature choose to keep it that way.

                  And yes, while the blue laws on alcohol are new, there is always a push to change them, the legislature just refuses. So you can’t say, “well they just haven’t gotten around to changing them”. No. There were asked to change them and refuse to do so.

                  Sorry Bo, they own those laws. Each one of them they have been asked to change then and have refused. So your “well they just are there and no one is responsible for them” excuse doesn’t fly.

                  1. Your gambling example is absurd, because it’s a liberalization of an older law.

                    And your point on all the others is essentially the first one I made: “I guess you can blame the Blue Legislature there for not repealing them”

                3. The last law prohibiting gambling in MA was passed in 2012 IIRC.

                  The alcohol laws were revised this year.

                  The laws governing prostitution were revised in 1972.

                  Really ancient, Bo.

              2. The Democratic party loves to control people’s lives and are just as socially conservative as anyone on the Right. They just have different things they want to control.

                True. So how did the meme get around that “liberals” were for freedom on social issues? I’ll tell you: It’s because at the time the current libertarian movement blossomed?the late 1960s?the social issues that were on the table were different from the ones today. The “liberals” fairly quickly won on porn, got a little bit of favorable movement of the needle (heh) on certain drugs, and won on abortion. (Running against this alignment of “liberal”=”social freedom” was guns.) That was essentially accomplished by the middle 1970s, but by then libertarian analysis in terms of Nolan charts, etc. had frozen in place.

                This is a large part of the reason why Don Ernsberger found to his shock (albeit not disappointment) 20 yrs. ago that Republicans were much, much better on freedom overall on avg. than were Democrats: They beat the Dems on economic freedom hands down, and it was a draw on social issues. The social issues on the table today, as things have moved on even farther, to where “conservatives” are actually better than “liberals” overall on them too.

                1. As John has noted, it’s of the nature of the “left” to keep changing the agenda on social issues, often picking sides you’d’ve had no idea years earlier that they would pick.

        3. Maybe the chart is really a cylindrical surface where the extreme of the busy-body left merges into the busy-body right like yin/yang.

    2. Nick’s just trying to get everyone Ready for Hillary.

  15. my neighbor’s half-sister makes $74 every hour on the internet . She has been without work for 10 months but last month her paycheck was $18600 just working on the internet for a few hours. visit the site….
    ?????http://www.netjob70.com

  16. he is staunchly anti-abortion, wants to “keep God in the public square,” strongly opposes higher taxes on the wealthy, supports gun rights, and more. Essentially he is a standard-issue, right-wing Republican.

    Which to a libertarian should be cause for concern.

    Gee, that sounds awful. What kind of libertarian supports lower taxes, gun rights or laws against murder? And as far as the public square goes, fuck any mentions of God or religion; it’s not really freedom when you’re doing it in public. The only forms of public expression I support are advertisements for gay Mexican marijuana-flavored ice cream sold out of a food truck by an uncircumcised GMU economist.

    1. Awesome bellyache. Could have used some ‘Cosmos!’ though.

    2. I think, what he was referring as far as the “cause for concern”, was the other 50% of the Republican platform which are undeniably anti-liberty.

      1. Given what I excerpted, that reading is overly charitable.

        Mind, I know nothing about Steve Scalise. I am completely ready to believe that Steve is a shitbag — he is a politician, after all. This article does nothing to actually show that this is the case. There are two items in the article which should actually matter to a libertarian (“He voted to extend Patriot Act rules authorizing roving wiretaps, is against any form of legalized pot”). This is the only worthwhile sentence in an article full of BS like “He is against nationalized health care (when pushed by a Democratic president), stimulus spending (when pushed by a Democratic president), wars waged unilaterally (when pushed by a Democratic president)”, and the excerpt above.

        It is an attempt to shoehorn a narrative into a topic story which is not necessarily true — and I simply have no way of knowing whether it is true or not. Why should we pretend that this is a good, informational or convincing article, when it is simply partisan flogging of a tired point?

  17. That chart really is fucking stupid.

  18. Betsy Woodruff at Slate seems to have a different slant on this, which is at odds with others at Slate.
    Does Slate talk to Slate?
    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..o_did.html

  19. Scalise….more…..
    From Hotair:
    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..after-all/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.