Election 2016

Ben Carson's Gay-Making Prisons, and the Insurgent/Petulant/Crusader Split Among GOP Anti-Establishmentarians

Why not all 'outsiders' are built the same, and how that might benefit Ted Cruz.

|

And don't get me STARTED on the Vatican-Washington pact! |||

Today the neurosurgeon Ben Carson is coming under political fire, including from conservatives, for giving this answer to a CNN question about whether being gay is a choice:

Absolutely.

Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight—and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question[.]

Uh, let's not and say we did?

First of all, I think the correct answer to that question, from any presidential candidate, is "Why are you asking me that weird-ass question?" (The reply to which, if given honestly, would be "Because we're hoping you'll say something stupid, ya freak!")

Secondly, it's both mildly notable and wholly predictable that Carson lived down to the stereotype. This is, after all, the political naif and recent Republican convert who said in January that Americans should aspire to ISIS-style commitment to defend their cause, who said in 2014 that U.S. government and institutions are "very much like Nazi Germany" (an assertion Carson has made and defended over and over again), who said about national health care in 2009 that "the first thing we need to do is get rid of for profit insurance companies," who said in 2013 that "Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery," and who also said in 2013 that "my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition."

In other words, Carson saying weird things is not some kind of aberration extracted by gotcha-hunting journalists, but rather a demonstrated component to his conservative appeal. That the media sneers at his statements just adds to his cred—after all, the number-two opponent during the Conservative Politial Action Conference (CPAC), just shy of Hillary Clinton, was the capital-M Media. Given that he just finished 4th at the CPAC straw poll with 11.4%, that he was at a 2nd-place 18% in a national PPP tally a week ago, that he's tied for 3rd in Iowa and 4th in New Hampshire, it's worth asking what Republican itch Carson scratches.

Here's my guess: The Republican Party in 2015 has a huge and unsated anti-Establishment passion, one that's only stoked by the primacy of elite characters like Jeb Bush (and Mitt Romney before him). Establishment vs. anti-Establishment has been the internal GOP divide since at least spring of 2010 (when Tea Party types began primarying Republican darlings in earnest); led to just a brutal parliamentary smackdown of grassroots activists at the 2012 Republican National Convention, and is as inevitable in the 2016 presidential campaign as water flowing downhill. This fight will be had, no matter how hard RNC Chairman Reince Priebus tries to schedule it out of existence. Candidates who figure out how to channel anti-establishmentarianism will punch above their weight during primary season (something Ben Carson and Ted Cruz in particular seem to understand); candidates who fight against it (Bush most openly) are in for a rude surprise.

But not all GOP anti-establishmentarians are built the same. Below the jump, a preliminary taxonomy of three main types:

Good hair. |||

1) The Petulants: These are candidates, typically though not always from far outside the corridors of power, whose very existence in the race, however theoretical, is a thumb in the eye of both the media and the Establishment. They tend to be unpolished culture warriors who make constant headlines with provocative and hyperbolic statements, often about matters of next to zero concern for the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania. If they are in Congress, they're the ones periodicially grinding the wheels of government to a near-halt over some Quixotic fight which they are virtually guaranteed to lose. They have zero demonstrated crossover appeal to non-Republicans.

Ben Carson is this year's pre-eminent Petulant thus far, with the ghost of Donald Trump's hair long behind him (you could make a case as well for perpetual California political gadfly Carly Fiorina, who got a vigorous standing ovation and 3.0% of the straw-poll vote at CPAC). Ted Cruz has more than a toe in this camp as well, but we'll talk about more him below. Prior Petulants have included Hermain Cain and post-2008 Sarah Palin, also Michelle Bachman. (See Nick Gillespie's acerbic "The GOP's Long Love Affair With Schmucks" for more about the type.)

2) The Insurgents: These are energetic champions of mi

You are getting sleeeeepy…. |||

nority strains within the Republican big tent, who often got there by successfully challenging the GOP Establishment, and/or providing a markedly different example of governance in one of the 50 states. They have a demonstrated appeal to at least some non-Republicans, even though they can be a bit quirky, and have already taken turns being hate-figures on MSNBC.

Rand Paul is the prototypical Insurgent this time around, representing the rising but still outnumbered libertarian strain within the GOP. Marco Rubio and Chris Christie had that mojo circa 2010, but both are now seen as much more establishmentarian figures (particularly since Rubio championed the grassroots-despised effort at comprehensive immigration reform, and Christie palled around with President Barack Obama). Rick Perry has a "Texas model" to contrast himself with; more compellingly, at least in the national narrative, than Bobby Jindal's record in Louisiana. But the best gubernatorial fit might be Scott Walker—just quirky/inexperienced enough to give the Establishment pause; undoubtedly accomplished in the minority GOP strain of anti-labor pugilism/public-sector reform, yet with enough crossover appeal (in his own blue state, anyway) to win three elections in four years. Walker doesn't fit as neatly here as Rand Paul, but he also has potential access to Establishment money that Paul will likely only dream about.

Hard to find Santo & Huck in the same pic. |||

3) The Crusaders: These are social conservatives fighting a lonely, uphill battle against a fallen culture. They are doing what's right, regardless of what's popular, and their longshot nature (and grassroots organization) is a core part of their appeal. Rick Santorum starred in that role in 2012, Mike Huckabee in 2008 (Gary Bauer in 2000, Pat Buchanan in 1996 and 1992), but it's unclear who if anyone will take the mantle this time around.

This lack of star power may provide a huge opening for Ted Cruz. The most aggressively populist (by far) speaker that I saw at CPAC, Cruz alone can talk like an Insurgent, Petulant, and Crusader in the same breath. In conservative rooms he sounds like the growly-voiced son-of-an-Evangelist-preacher that he is, talking about "reigniting the miracle of America" and standing "for life and marriage"; I've seen him go full God-and-flag at a California Club for Growth meeting. Combine this with his explicitly anti-Establishment rap and record of congressional Petulance, and Cruz has a pretty clear path to the GOP Final Four. His act also, FWIW, comes off as nails on a chalkboard to just about everyone who isn't positively inclined toward him, which the Establishment will certainly exploit if he becomes a real threat.

I'm sure there are blatant holes and biases with my categorizations here that you will improve upon in the comments—for example, there is a long list of Republicans who would classify Rand Paul as a "Petulant" or something more pejorative. But I'm equally confident that even candidates backed by Establishment money had better figure out how to sound anti-Establishment soon, or face a hastier-than-expected exit.

NEXT: Today's oral argument in King v. Burwell

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. You know, if going to prison really does turn people gay then maybe libertarians should use that as an argument to get social conservatives like Carson and Huckabee to embrace criminal justice reform.

    1. Some alliances just aren’t worth it.

    2. Huckabee is big on criminal justice reform. He pardoned rapist/murderer Wayne DuMond AND guitarist/songwriter/bandleader Keith Richards.

      1. And (allegedly) prevented his son from being investigated for animal cruelty.

        1. Please tell me his son fucked a dog or something.

        2. Jeff Flake got his boy off a dog-killin’ rap

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ing-house/

          1. That was a ridiculous politically-motivated charge pushed by Joe Arpaio out in Maricopa County. The dogs in that instance died because of a freak failure of the air conditioning unit for the building they were housed in…in Arizona. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s office’s initial investigation found no wrongdoing, but then Arpaio decided to push to get it prosecuted.

            Basically, Arpaio is trying to take down politicians in his state who represent a threat to his established interests in his county, and Flake is one of those. So he went after Flake’s family. That’s just par for the course for him, since he’s engaged in harassment of political opponents before.

  2. Primaries should separate the wheat from the chaff, but the media will continue to define the GOP by the nuttiest things the chaff said. Much like one “hands off my medicare” sign at a Tea Party rally means the Tea Party are hypocrites when they call for reduced spending, but a “kill the bankers” sign at an Occupy Wall Street rally is just some lone nut.

    1. “but the media will continue to define the GOP by the nuttiest things the chaff said.”

      Well and you can’t ignore much of the Media ignoring the nutty things their favored candidate has said. How many completely nutty things has Biden said and been given a complete pass on?

      1. “How many completely nutty things has Biden said and been given a complete pass on?”

        Not to mention that he gropes more people than a team of TSA agents.

        1. Biden gets a pass?! If I see that shoulder fondling one more time I’m going to turn gay.

        2. His motorcade has killed more people than my guns.*

          * Since I have owned them. I may have something from Zastava that was potentially used in the Bosnian wars.

    2. Carson sounds like an idiot, but there is no good way for him to answer that question. If he says “no, it isn’t a choice”, he’s lying. If he says “no comment”, the people who want to attack him will just assume the answer they want him to give. If he says “yes, but…” and tries to elaborate, only the stupidest parts of his answer will be replayed.

      1. but there is no good way for him to answer that question

        Homosexuality neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm, so who cares if it’s a choice or not? It’s their right to go peacably about their lives however they wish, regardless the genesis of that wish.

        1. I was talking about the political calculus.

          1. The fact your base is demanding you give one of the bad answers doesn’t mean they’re aren’t any good ones.

            1. This

            2. The fact that you (BC) dug a hole in the middle of a pigpen and jumped in doesn’t mean you have to live there.

        2. Homosexuality sometimes buys me a drink at the bar, so there’s that.

          1. You can’t refuse to cater its wedding.

        3. I think that really is the only good answer. Just say “I’m not gay, so I can’t know and it doesn’t matter anyway”. I assume that being gay is not, in general a choice. But even if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t change the way I think of it at all. If you want to bang someone of your own sex, then you should do that (with another consenting adult). And even if you don’t think being gay is OK, it still doesn’t matter to policy unless you want to start imprisoning people for sodomy again in which case I suppose you might need to argue that it is something that people choose so you can more easily assign moral culpability.

          1. Smoking pot is a choice. And as long as I’m not being forced to fund it or perhaps my neighbors light up then do target shooting near the property line I don’t really care whether it is occurring.

        4. Homosexuality neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm, so who cares if it’s a choice or not? It’s their right to go peacably about their lives however they wish, regardless the genesis of that wish.

          That would be my answer were I running for office. But if I ran as anything other than a Democrat, do you think the media would accept that?

        5. “Homosexuality neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm,”

          Except if one runs a bakery in Oregon or a flower shop in Washington.

          1. It isn’t homosexuality making one bake cakes or flower arrangements.

            1. It isn’t homosexuality making one bake cakes or flower arrangements.

              Good point, But.

              Considering all the rage about the cakes and flowers, wouldn’t it be wise for gays to demand the mandatory crap starts. As long as they go along wiith it, the bad guys have an excuse to blame “the gay agenda.”

              They don’t even have to do it everywhere. Say, metro areas with 100% plus. Or gays in different states might have different triggers. I don’t like the trigggers, but we often hear, “Can’t they find another baker?”

              Respect is a two-way street. And as long as everyone would rather throw rocks, we ain’t never gonna unite against the common enemy. The political class.

      2. “here is no good way for him to answer that question”

        Why not just say that its an orientation similar to being straight?

        1. Just as glaucoma is an eye condition similiar to 20/20 vision?

        2. Because he doesn’t believe that. Carson thinks it is a “sin”.

          Religion poisons everything.

          1. You could make a pretty strong case that homosexuality is abnormal, and a disorder using the same science to classify many other disorders. Which is why I don’t think playing the “reeliguns r dumb” card is a good strategy. Many things are sins and nobody cares, many things are abnormal and nobody cares. But if you just want to let everyone know you’re a part of the good guys this is a good way to do it.

            1. There is no such thing as “sin”. It is a religious fabrication. Once, premarital sex was considered a “sin”.

              There are certainly immoral acts though. But ethics has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

              1. Sin is just a term for immoral. It’s irrelevant why anyone finds something to be immoral. You’re simply going to spin your wheels if you frame the argument that your morals are better than their morals. Unless you find the true moral code inscribed on the nucleus of a hydrogen proton it will always be subjective. It makes much more sense to come at it from an NAP principle. Or even turn the other cheek. But then you’d have to follow that through to its logical conclusions for freedom of association.

                1. Sin is just a term for immoral

                  Perhaps for you. But not a dictionary. And you say the exact opposite a few seconds later.

                  You’re simply going to spin your wheels

                  … if you try frame the argument as sin=immoral.

                  . It makes much more sense to come at it from an NAP principle

                  Then only sins involving “aggression” would be immoral
                  Now back to the top. It’s like a closed loop,

              2. CO2 is a sin or so I’ve been told by my betters. Luckily we don’t have to worry about green religious zealots taking over the government and imposing their religion on the rest of us. No, it is truly much more important to worry about a flash-in-the-pan candidate who even if elected wouldn’t be able to impose any of the policies you fear.

                1. This.

              3. Once, premarital sex was considered a “sin”.

                Still is. morality didn’t change, culture did. The majority went from a correct understanding to an incorrect understanding; the majority did the opposite when it came to slavery 150ish years ago.

                There are certainly immoral acts though.

                That’s what we mean when we say “sin”.

                I think you just tried to play the moral relativist and absolutist card over the course of 4 sentences.

                1. That’s what we mean when we say “sin”

                  Whoi is “we”? Your own family? Congregation?

                  I think you just tried to play the moral relativist and absolutist card over the course of 4 sentences

                  Your absolutism is much worse, in a single sentence.

                  1. The Village Idiot may have failed at playing a moral relativist but succeeds at being an idiot and the Town Liar.

        3. I’d say he probably didn’t say that because he doesn’t believe that. It would be kind of an odd thing to say in any case.

          Unless he wants to criminalize homosexuality, which would be a hard road given Supreme Court decisions on the subject, he should just say that it doesn’t matter if it is a choice or not, at least as far as anything political goes. And he can still oppose gay marriage, civil rights laws and such.

      3. There is no good answer?

        How about;

        “I am not gay, I am straight. I have been straight for as long as I have memory. I guess I was just born that way. I have no memory of making that choice. That is really all I can speak to. I don’t have a crystal ball that lets me peer into other people’s minds or souls. All we have to go on are their words and actions.

        Why would you even ask me that? (looks at interviewer like they are an idiot)

        If you ask me something like that again this interview is over.”

        1. “If you ask me something like that again this interview is over.”

          ‘Carson refuses to answer questions!’

          1. It is probably a good idea to always have your own people record the interview independently.

        2. That’s a good answer.

      4. Carson sounds like an idiot, but there is no good way for him to answer that question.

        Look, under normal and reasonable circumstances, my neighbors’ domestic situations would be none of my business but, as a taxpayer, I am increasingly expected to condone and pay for things like domestic spying programs and the ACA….

      5. …there is no good way for him to answer that question.

        “Sexual desires are natural; sexual activity is a choice, and one that can sometimes involve health risks. That is not to say that I think that the government should regulate sexual activity, which reminds me of these other areas of life that should not be regulated by the government…”

        1. Have you thought about running? If I heard a politician say anything resembling that, I’d be more excited than I was for the Phantom Menace.

      6. For many or most gay people, the strong feelings they have are not a choice. It’a biological, probably environmental in the womb, with some small contribution by genetics (not yet fully identified). Kind of like being left-handed. Whether they choose to act on those feelings is a choice – no different than what straight people do. Now are there some odd balls that choose to do it to be different? Probably. Are there just really horny people that will F*ck anything that move? Sure. A few of them post here I think. But, most people don’t “choose” to be gay in a meaningful sense any more than straight people choose to be straight.

        1. Kind of like being left-handed.

          Left handed people certainly AREN’T NORMAL.

          1. Lefties make up about 10 percent of the general population. But researchers have found that in populations with certain mental disorders, that rate goes up. Previous studies have found that people with psychosis had a 20 percent likelihood of being left-handed

            http://www.everydayhealth.com/…..nders.aspx

            Now, shall we get into pedophelia?

            1. Lefties make up about 10 percent of the general population

              Only the committed ones at 12%

              Committed conservatives are 13%

              Fiscally conservative and socially liberal (together) are 59%

              I always find it amusing that doctrinaire liberals and doctrinaire consernatives each believe they’e the majority Americans are desperate for. But ther’te 1/4 combined. Tribalism distorts.

              1. I am amazed at the number of idiots that claim the “libertarian” mantle yet not only violate the NAP personally but advocate for the state to do so to maintain its oppressiveness in the form of mandatory and enforced taxes. Only a true Village Idiot does it so consistently.

        2. That certainly seems to be the case. I think that the political calculation for someone like Carson is to position himself to have a good response to questions about why gays shouldn’t be protected like racial minorities have been. If he can say “being black is not a choice like being gay is”, he has an easy answer to that.

          1. Then how does he approach protection of religious minorities?

            1. …. inlcuding the non-religious, where I’d be afraid to hear his answer!

              Then again, socons as extreme as him ARE a minority.

        3. I’d be perfectly fine conceding that both nature and nuture play a role in virtually every manifestation of human behavior, and the role each plays for any particular behavior evident in any particular person is fluid and varies widely.

          Recognizing that the influence of nurture isn’t a choice per se but an artifact of society and conditioning seems perfectly reasonable.

          But the better answer is who fucking cares and what relevance does it have to the presidency?

        4. The fact that some people change their preference late in life doesn’t prove it’s a choice, but it is strong evidence against its being genetic.

          1. Robert, have you seen any numbers for how many or those who change their preferenece are “coming out” on desires they’ve repressed? That couid be quite large in the past 10 years or so, as the social stigma recedes to less of a threat.

    3. Remember, a few Gadsden flags at a Tea Party rally means the movement is racist and secessionist but thousands of actual communists marching in New York City for climate change tells us nothing about the climate change movement.

      1. What the fuck does the Gadsden flag have to do with either racism or secessionism? It’s a direct reference to the American Revolution, not the Civil War.

        1. 100 years ago is 100 years ago!

        2. YOU. RACIST. MONSTER!!!!!

          THE GADSDEN FLAG IS A CIS-NORMATIVE RACIST SYMBOL SYMBOLISING THE PATRIARCHY!!!! WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT BIG LONG SNAKE REPRESENTS, ANYWAY??????? THE SNAKE IS COILED, REPRESENTING THE WHITE PATRIARCHY’S ATTEMPT TO SQUEEZE THE LIFE OUT OF MINORITIES111111!!! iT’S YELLOW, SYMBOLIZING THE WHITE MAN’S CONTEMPT OF PEOPLE OF CORLOR!!!!!! THE INSCRIPTION ‘DON’T TREAD ON ME’ IS A TRIGGER PHRASE BORN OF THE CIS-WHITE-MALE PATRIARCHIAL VIOLENCE1!!!!!!!!!!

          I JUST….

          I JUSST…

          I….

          AARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        3. Because some conservative and possibly racist militias have used it. So it must be bad. Even though plenty of racists use the regular US flag too.

        4. The “Revolutionary” war was secession. Don’t tell a Government funded history professor that.

    4. If the GOP would jettison the retarded SoCon/culture warrior fuckery once and for all, they’d stop getting defined by the things those nutbags say.

      1. True, but they’d also lose a lot of elections.

        1. They’d lose pretty much all of them.

        2. I suspect fewer than you’d think. If anything, it’s the culture warrior crap that keeps costing them the White House.

          Reagan used to talk generally about his faith, so idiots like Huckabee and Santorum assumed that meant it’s a good idea for Republicans to rail about the evils of all the things they don’t like. They missed the point that people liked Reagan because he wasn’t particularly preachy on that stuff…because Reagan wasn’t an idiot.

          1. True. Reagan had excellent political instinct until his mind rotted from Alzhiemers. His followers do not at all.

            1. Sorta like Ted Kennedy until he completely pickled his liver. Well, there was the Mary Jo Kopechnik incident and the sexual assault with former Conn Senator Dodd (D). And his defense of his nephew Skakel. As well as when he got expelled from Harvard for cheating. Maybe the liberal lion wasn’t so hot ever.

          2. He wasn’t really a religious fanatic either. Some of these
            others are.

            1. He was very religious. He just didn’t believe in shoving it down other people’s throats and throwing it in other people’s faces.

              What some might call an *actual* Christian.

          3. They missed the point that people liked Reagan because he wasn’t particularly preachy on that stuff…because Reagan wasn’t an idiot.

            The Robertson crowd attacked Reagan strongly, late in his first term for being all talk and no show. He talked about religion a lot, but ignored their agenda. It was fun watching it all play out. Even Robertson/Falwell acolytes ignored them. Reagan was more popular, a valuable lesson now forgotten. Yet, the Moral Majority probably hurt Reagnan more than helped him in `1984 There were more anti-Majority votes for Mondale than pro=Majority votes for Reagan. Or they had just run out of steam. Goldwater had been attacking them heavily. And for a while, the GOP’s libertarian wing ruled the roost, or at least the most influential.

        3. Why? Who are the retarded SoCon/culture warriors going to vote for, the Dems?

          1. Why? Who are the retarded SoCon/culture warriors going to vote for, the Dems?

            They could conceivably form a 3rd party, but I doubt it’d gain much electoral traction. Plus there’d be no growth potential, since SoCon views are a diminishing minority.

            1. No, I think there’s something approximating a steady state for the foreseeable future in “SoCon views”, because they’re not the same views over time. As the front keeps moving, it takes in new people who were formerly socially liberal or moderates, at the same time it loses old people from death or resignation. The culture war keeps being fought over different things, not the same things forever.

              1. Were you around when Falwell and Robertson tried to get their people to put pressure on Reagan for their agenda. Their people ignored them.

                A few years later, Christian conservatives were my strongest supporters, both time and money, in a successful local tax revolt. They knew I was an atheist — they always ask! — but didn’t give a damn. I finally came to believe that the Christian Taliban is not as united as they appear. Santorum and similar idiots are the only ones sticking up for their values, Ron Paul fuels the fire as one of those saying that “separation” is all a plot by secularist “war on religion” which was never even mentioned by any founders, which probably causes history majors to split a gut!

                There is indeed a war on religion but MUCH less than the hysteria. Shame on us for allowing it, I’ve been defending Christians, often openly, since that tax revolt. I owe them.

                1. Well… thanks for the support, I guess.

                  Could you please stop calling me “Christian Taliban” though? I’m a Fundamentalist of fundamentalists but know that Christ didn’t command me to use FORCE against unbelievers.

                  I follow NAP. I follow the golden rule. I follow Christ (first). I’m not going to hurt you unless you hurt me first. Calling me “Taliban” is a bit of unnecessary name-calling, no?

                  1. Mike doesn’t like Christians. He is trolling you.

                    1. Mike doesn’t like Christians. He is trolling you.

                      Umm, I not only defended Christians, I SAID I defend them, explicitly.
                      Read it again, slowly

                      There is indeed a war on religion but MUCH less than the hysteria. Shame on us for allowing it, I’ve been defending Christians, often openly, since that tax revolt. I owe them.

                      “Openly” as in the words you’ve slandered here..

                      Thanks for providing DIRECT proof of your slanderous nature, which will expose your repeated bullshit that I attacked you as a Christian. I’ll even save a direct link to this comment.

                      (Again these are the “libertarians” who have caused the libertarian brand to be rejected by 91% of libertarians) For me. that’s 40 years of dedicated activism, flushed away by bullying and aggression.

                      Decide for yourself but they’re a bigger threat to liberty than Obama and Pelosi — who could never drive away 91% of us, or even 1%, right?

                  2. Could you please stop calling me “Christian Taliban” though?

                    The rest of your comment shows it has nothing to do with you.
                    “Taliban” are theocrats.

                    Calling me “Taliban” is a bit of unnecessary name-calling, no?

                    Nothing you say here is even remotely connected to what said.
                    And since you’re not even in this thread, how could could I have been referring or responding to you?

          1. ^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

            1. Thanks again for showing why the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians. You’ve been publicly humiliated as a liar, just a short ways above, but you keep on going, spewing your hatred. RonPaultards. Here:

              https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5135250

              (flush)

              1. Sluggo. It is not what you said you did but what you actually did here. Recall when you attacked me when you thought I was a Christian (same sex marriage article) then keep ignoring all of the evidence that I am not? (Snickers)

                And I was agreeing with your post above. Way to overeact and aggro-jaculate on yourself in response.

      2. …they’d stop getting defined by the things those nutbags say.

        Maybe those nutbags. But, then the press would simply target another GOP constituency as the nutbags.

        1. The Republican Party needs to get over it’s ‘media persecution’ complex. It’s overblown and used as a constant excuse for their own shortcomings.

          1. Recognizing that the media, as a rule, is hostile isn’t a persecution complex. It’s just a recognition of reality that needs to be acknowledged.

            1. I think it’s greatly overblown and has become something like a ready-go to complaint/victimization claim. It’s like how the left complains that the Right owns talk radio.

              1. You are aware, I assume, that a UCLA study found the big three networks as biased to the left as Fox is biased to the right?

                http://www.google.com/url?sa=t…..9884,d.eXY

                1. Who cares? I mean, really. Again, it’s like when leftists complain that the Right has this advantage because of talk radio. Get your message out some other way.

                  1. And part of that is recognizing that you aren’t going to get a fair treatment from hostile sources. So, catering to approval from the press is stupid for Republicans. Which was my original point.

                    1. I wouldn’t cater to them, I just wouldn’t constantly complain about them either.

                    2. Cause you are a fucking twit, Bo.

                      The media hates team red (as do I).

                      You constantly suck the dicks of mass media that exists to promote the canklemeister for pres in 16.

                      Own it dude.

                    3. Of course you wouldn’t complain about the media, Bo. You want the Republicans to lose.

                      But, any Republican who wants to get elected has to know that he’s got to marginalize or neutralize the media as a force multiplier for his opposition.

              2. The right does own talk radio, and for good reason.

                1. Yes they do. But what is that reason?

                  1. Who listens to the radio?

                    1. Who listens to the radio?

                      This.

                  2. people who work for a living spend a lot of time driving

                    1. SIV, I think it was kinda like the ‘you know who else…’ question. You weren’t supposed to just come right out and say it.

                  3. Palin’s Buttplug|3.4.15 @ 6:29PM|#
                    “Yes they do. But what is that reason?”
                    Why don’t you ask the guy who tried to set up a liberal radio network and failed, turd?

          2. Agreed. Their problem is that they like to whine a lot about the unfairness of the press, but then they keep playing to the press for approval in their legislative choices. It makes them look weak and hypocritical to both journalists and voters.

            1. There’s actually some advantage to having a hostile press. For example, since the media is seen as somewhat hostile when they do come across something substantial about the GOP a lot of people dismiss it as just more of that ‘lame stream media bias.’ A similar thing goes on with ‘extreme’ conservative groups, Dems love it when they pick up a scandal because most people think ‘oh well, they hate everything the Dems do, it’s just more of that.’

              1. It at least plays well in the sports world…

          3. Agreed. Frankly it has never been a good excuse — if you know the playing field is unlevel, why are you pretending that it is and how would this presumption be anything other than incompetence?

            1. Frankly it has never been a good excuse — if you know the playing field is unlevel, why are you pretending that it is and how would this presumption be anything other than incompetence?

              Martyr Complex?

          4. I don’t even think it’s about the media so much. All candidates who have any sense aren’t going to alienate part of their base. I’m sure the amount of democrats who are atheist, or anti-religion is higher than indicated. But as long as some of their voters are religious they won’t take that stand. The larger point though, is that those issues mean very little.

      3. There’s no test to sign up to be a Republican so they can’t jettison anybody.

        1. There’s no test to sign up to be a Republican so they can’t jettison anybody.

          Sure they can. Just disown the lame moralizing prigs and say that their views aren’t representative of the party platform. Problem solved.

          1. There’s no definitive spokesman. If somebody from the party said that, and I’m sure someone has, then somebody else will just disagree. The best they could do is distance themselves from it, but not everyone else.

          2. “Just disown the lame moralizing prigs and say that their views aren’t representative of the party platform. Problem solved.”

            But enough about the Democrats.

    5. Why do you care how the GOP is defined?

      Aren’t you all libertarians? (guffaws)

      1. We would like to win an election someday with
        a candidate who is less of a buffoon than Bush
        and Obama.

        Did you read the part above about the small
        but growing “wing” of the Republican party?

        I know I shouldn’t feed the troll.

        1. That one is a harmless,sometimes amusing clown.

      2. Aren’t you all libertarians? (guffaws)

        Stop laughing! Too many libs have their butts jammed up the elephants ass. They even swallow the same bullshit as a lot of the hardcore GOP loyalists

    6. Cry some more. Comfort yourself with the reality that the GOP has the entire democratic system rigged in their favor.

      1. Not really. Your president is just such a tremendous piece of shit that he’s united undecided voters against him.

        1. Your president is just such a tremendous piece of shit that he’s united undecided voters against him.

          Umm, he’s the first President ever re-elected during so bad an economy.
          Last I checked, undecided voters are not the electorate which elects anyone – even as dogcatcher.

          And if a “:tremendous piece of shit” got re-elected in so bad an economy, then is Romney an even bigger piece of shit? Or perhaps the total lack of a credible healthcare plan? Both combined?

      2. I’ve seen Tony stupid but assertion takes the cake….Tony, you are dumber than my dog , hat tip, hahahaha…When retards reveal themselves result in an educational moment, lol.

        1. When retards reveal themselves result in an educational moment, lol..

          That is a very profound observation. And incredible candid.
          From a total retard like yourself. I admire your courage. lol

          You’re the first person I’ve seen who makes Tony look above normal, in comparison.

          On a hunch, I did a page search for your handle. Did not find a single word of substance, nothing but personal insults at maybe a 7th-8th grade level.

          Do you really have absolutely nothing of substance to contribute?

          You parents clearly failed to instill in you any simple civility, respect or simple human decency. Was that intentional on their part? If not, are they proud of what you’ve become? Umm, do you kick kittens and puppies to death.

          We libertarians unite around hating aggression for a half century, but that’s physical force. Verbal aggression is the same thuggish mentalit. We also defend your free speech right to be verbally aggressive. But we can still see a total asshole. Dig the difference?

          1. How do we keep mandatory taxes without threat of force or use of force?

            Voluntaryism isn’t going to just happen. Sp inn the interim, how is this accomplished?

  3. “I’m sure there are blatant holes and biases with my categorizations here that you will improve upon in the comments”

    I think you laid it out well Matt.

  4. Rand Paul kinda looks like the Heaven’s Gate bro there.

    1. There’s a guy posting on here that looks more like him. And I wouldn’t put it past him to lop off his nuts and wear purple robes.

  5. I like your classifications, Matt, though I’d rename the Petulants to The Clowns. Because that always ends up being the role they end up playing.

  6. Scott Walker had the perfect response. Whenever one of these JournoList scumbags asks about gay butt sex or some other retarded gotcha question, smile, politely tell him him to go fuck himself in his earhole, and talk about things that people care about. Don’t play their game; that is the template every republican ought to adopt from here on out.

    1. Yeah, nobody cares about gay issues, I mean, I hardly hear about them at all!

      1. Because the media is going to cast anything from a Republican other than a full embrace of homosexuality as “anti-gay”. And a full embrace of homosexuality is going to turn off a lot of Republican primary voters. If a Republican candidate for office said he supported same-sex marriage but public accommodation laws were a lousy idea, the media would be on 24/7 coverage about how he wants businesses to discriminate against gays.

        It’s a loser of an issue for Republicans and they’re best off setting the discussion on terms where they are more likely to win.

        1. If they’re so ashamed of their position maybe they should change it. Avoiding questions on it will rightly seem like cowardice, especially if they use as terrible of a line as ‘no one thinks this is important.’

          1. So they should support public accommodation if it gets them elected. I don’t agree.

            1. If you want to make an argument against public accommodations you have to make your case. You can’t excuse your failure to make your case on ‘media hostility.’ There’s media that would be friendly to them on that (like the fairly big Christian media world) and media that wouldn’t.

              1. …and media that wouldn’t.

                Like the Times. And the Post. And CNN. And ABC. And CBS. And NBC. And…

                1. Again, so what. Use the Wall Street Journal, use Fox, use CBN, use Breitbart. Stop whining.

                  1. The WSJ is considered a very liberal news organization. The editorial section is not.

                    1. Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

                      http://newsroom.ucla.edu/relea…..-UCLA-6664

                      In general, the more factual a news organization is the more liberal it is considered.

                    2. “More factual”

                      I don’t think you understand what those words mean.

                    3. It means it has been vetted by the ministry of truth of course.

                    4. Didn’t Jayson Blair write for the NYT? Less factual than Brian Williams.

                    5. The WSJ is considered a very liberal news organization.

                      That might be a slight exaggeration. Al Hunt was in news at the Journal (later CNN and Bloomberg) when he attacked the Journal’s Editorial Page Editor for lying that income tax revenues “skyrocketed” after the Reagan tax cuts.

                      Hunt said income tax revenues barely increased at all. What skyrocketed was FICA revenues, with SIX rate increases, 1983-1990. I checked. Hunt was correct. That was the day I learned that both liberal and conservative media are massively jammed with bullshit, My own analysis was published a few years later, with the title Tax Quacks

                      http://libertyissues.com/quacks.htm

                  2. I haven’t seen anyone in the Wall Street Journal advocating against same sex marriage in recent history.

                    Accept that you are a prog , BO, own it bitch, accept your proggishness, you will feel better about your feelings.
                    pe
                    If it is a problem with your supposed libertarian leanings, that horse left the barn a long time ago.

                    Accept your statist self Bo, it’s obvious to the rest of us, you will feel less confused if you just accept it, Carpe diem, bo, Carpe diem bo.

                  3. Crawl into a comfy echo chamber and pull the wool over your own eyes.

                    Anyone, left or right. who does not READ left and right is being suckered and manipulated. Often eagerly.

              2. If you want to make an argument against public accommodations you have to make your case.

                IMO, his case isn’t *strictly* against public accommodation. Here you have politicians expressing honest opinions about marginally relevant issues to 95+% of Americans (and hardly relevant to the other ~5% on a day-to-day basis) and being hoisted by their own petard for doing so. I certainly wouldn’t say foolish ideas should be celebrated, but shouting them down for their honesty only encourages doublespeak and deception.

          2. How dare Republicans want to frame the conversation to their advantage!

            Did you even fucking bother to read what I wrote? Anything other than an extreme progressive position from Republicans is going to be cast as something other than what it is. There’s no reason to be ashamed of a position you don’t hold.

            The President, until a couple of years ago held the same policy position on gay marriage as George W. Bush. How many people were casting him as anti-gay? How many cast George W. Bush as anti-gay?

            1. “The President, until a couple of years ago held the same policy position on gay marriage as George W. Bush.”

              This is silly. First of all, gay rights means a bit more than just gay marriage, and if you took ten things that most gays cared about regarding policy Obama seemed ‘better’ to them than Bush even when Obama opposed gay marriage. Secondly, iirc Obama opposed gay marriage but opposed constitutional amendments to that effect and supported civil unions, W did not.

              1. What more is here to gay rights than gay marriage?

                1. At the time we’re talking about? DADT, gay adoption, etc.

                  1. What time are we talking about? Not now? What’s your definition of rights here?

                2. What more is here to gay rights than gay marriage?

                  Equal rights in general. It took Reagan to slap down the Moral Majority assholes who tried to ban gay teachers in the late 70s. Homosexuality is NOT a choice, he said (KABOOM). Then, the laugh of the year, gays are no threat to our kids because homosexauality is not communicable “like measles” (KABOOM)

                  It was the first loss for the nationwide anti-gay Anita Bryant Crusade, which soon collapsed, brought down by Reagan. But now we have the anti-gay bigotry and Phony Phederalism in the Ron Paul cult.

              2. Quit playing with your dick in public Bo, it’s embarassing.

              3. But … but … but … on gay marriage, Obama is more libertarian than Rand Paul … and MASSIVELY more than Ron.

                1. And on the NAP and taxes Ron Paul is much more libertarian than the Village Idiot & Town Liar. MASSIVELY SO. (snickers)

            2. Actually, if private accounts are true, Bush had a much better position on it versus Obama.

              (And I don’t think Obama actually holds that position and rather just want’s people to think he does. Cynical I know.)

              1. The public can’t be blamed much for not acting on private accounts.

                1. And “I oppose gay marriage, but am in favor of civil unions” (Mr. Bush’s public position, whatever his stance on a marriage amendment) is entirely, completely different from “I’m for civil unions, but am opposed to gay marriage” (Mr. Obama’s position when elected).

                  1. Why would it have to be different?

                  2. And “I oppose gay marriage, but am in favor of civil unions” (Mr. Bush’s public position, whatever his stance on a marriage amendment) is entirely, completely different from …. (Mr. Obama’s position when elected)

                    Indeed. Bush called for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Obama did not.
                    On gay marriage, Obama is more libertarian than Dubya, Ron and Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Too bad he’s not on almost everything else!

            3. Bill Dalasio,

              Dubya’s hyper-bigoted attack on gay marriage … some believe lauched the wave of states legalizing gay marriage, starting the very next year. It was Bush’s action which began the dialogue

              “In February 2004, Bush called for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage that would have etched discrimination into our nation’s most sacred document. Then, thanks to a Bush-backed effort 10 years ago next month, voters in 11 states approved ballot initiatives that banned committed same-sex couples from marrying. Contrary to popular lore, the anti-gay measures did not give Bush a reelection edge. But they did spark a public debate about same-sex marriage that ignited the backlash we’re witnessing today.
              Support for marriage equality in 2004 was 38 percent. Today, it’s 59 percent.”

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ce-scalia/

          3. If they’re so ashamed of their position maybe they should change it.

            Are we talking about gays or just people who happen to have beliefs and/or opinions about them?

            I see little shame. I actually see people more concerned with other issues who are incapable of avoiding (through their own ineptitude or sheer oppressive volume) cultural bullshit.

      2. It’s almost a media issue. I can link to about a hundred different polls showing that it’s down near the very bottom of the priority list of the country as a whole.

        1. Which is why nearly every state ran out and amended its constitution about it, and why the federal government passed DOMA, and why the Supreme Court is going to hear cases about it. Because it’s not important to anyone.

          Do people think other things are more important? Sure. But it’s silly to act like this isn’t a big political and legal issue of the day.

          1. It’s a “big political and legal issue” because the media puts it front center constantly. As far as its actual importance as an issue, it affects only a tiny minority, and only with regard to a few civil issues. Compare this to, say, runaway debt, or tax policy, or the drug war.

            I’m all for gays (or whomever else) being able to marry whomever he or she or it they want, but the rights-violation seems a lot more egregious in the case of the drug war, where people are actually stripped of their liberty and put in cages because of their prohibited-but-peaceful conduct.

            1. but the rights-violation seems a lot more egregious in the case of the drug war, where people are actually stripped of their liberty and put in cages because of their prohibited-but-peaceful conduct.

              The first step in ANY reform of government is to educate and/or persuade votes.

              It’s an issue because public opinion supports a change. It was Duby who began the dialogue in 2003(?) by calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. The very next year,11 states passed voter initiatives supporting marriage equality. And the public is sill moving in the same direction.

              Opnions differ on whether this swing came from a dialogue Bush began, or a voter rejection of his bigotry. Probably a bit of both.

              We never get to pick our issues in advance of public opinion. Elections.

        2. Yep, the media talks about because it’s a wedge issue for the Republican Party has a whole and it also splits the Rs from lots of independent voters.

          There are no issues where the media does the same to hurt the Democrats.

      3. It’s almost like the media is pushing an agenda or something…

        1. What is “the media”? Everything that’s not almost all of talk radio and a big chunk of cable news and the Internet, right? That monolithic entity whose purpose is to enact the will of the gay mafia… If only Republicans hadn’t fallen into the trap of adopting bigotry and ignorance as their position. Those poor Republicans, foiled by the media again.

          1. What is “the media”?

            Quo est veritas?

            If only Republicans hadn’t fallen into the trap of adopting bigotry and ignorance as their position.

            Well, to be fair, I could simply change “Republicans” to “Democrats” and the statement would be just as true (if not more so).

  7. If the GOP can keep generating clowns like this, it will make Rand Paul look like the sane reasonable candidate.

    1. Until they get around to foreign policy.

      1. And then he’ll look twice as sane and reasonable.

  8. Buchanan may have been a Crusader in ’96 and 2000 but he was much more a petulant insurgent in ’92. The campaign was focused on Bush’s betrayal of the Reagan Revolution and, most importantly, our national sovereignty. It was more Jesse Helms and John Birch Society than his usual paleoSoCon-jeremiad schtick.

  9. Hard to find Santo & Huck in the same pic

    It’s a small blessing.

  10. Dr. Carson’s stance on the 2ND Amendment is even more embarrassing. He sounds good but he does not know how to fight in the political arena. He is toast.

  11. Combine this with his explicitly anti-Establishment rap and record of congressional Petulance, and Cruz has a pretty clear path to the GOP Final Four. His act also, FWIW, comes off as nails on a chalkboard to just about everyone who isn’t positively inclined toward him, which the Establishment will certainly exploit if he becomes a real threat.

    Cruz is a masterful speaker and would thrash all comers in formal debate. After what he did to Feinstein in the Great Gun Control Slaughter of 2013, it would be a joy to watch him eviscerate whatever roadkill the Democrats trot out in 2016.

    On the other hand, he’s ambitious, intense, and grating. Unlike his dad, Rand is guilty of equivocating for the sake of political gain, but Cruz appears to be an Obama/Clinton-level narcissist who would say anything to advance his career. If he had the populist charm of either, he’d be a lock for the presidency. But he doesn’t, and though he’ll probably get the nomination at some point in his career, it’s hard to see him winning with that voice and that personality.

    1. Yeah, so whait if Kruz is praised, but Carson damned … for saying the same thing!

      Kruz is the crazy fuck who tried to shut down the federal government … to block Obamacare … with no credible alternative!

      Why shouid we care that $250 billion — roughy 1/4 of the entire personal income tax is subdsidized by income taxes … and another $150 billion in higher private insurancc premiums to employers during the great recession?

      It’s like Ron Paul. Growl something bat-shit crazy, which sends a tingle of the leg of some libertarians … but scares the crap out of most libertarians.

      1. Another Hihnsane rant.

        1. (laughing) Which part, Sluggo?

          1. You used “sluggo” the other day. I think it was when you were falsely accusing me of being Christian. Anyhow, mix in a “whippersnapper” or a “hooligan.” I think some of us would really appreciate that.

            1. I think it was when you were falsely accusing me of being Christian.

              A page search found no such thing. And now, you’ve exposed your lyng sack of shit for all to see, all by yourself!. This and the immediately above

              https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5135250

              1. Derp. It wasn’t in this article. It was in the two regarding SCOTUS and the ACA. You must recall those. You made like thirty posts in each. If you truely can’t remember that then it is time in your life to consider giving someone else the power of attorney and if not already the case assosted living.

                But I think you just want to pretend/ignore you completely fucked up. Again.

  12. “Establishment vs. anti-Establishment has been the internal GOP divide since at least spring of 2010”

    nerd voice: Actually, I would say since 1872, when the establishment Republicans supported General Grant and the reform-minded Liberal Republicans* nominated Horace Greeley.

    PS – Grant won, setting something of a pattern for establishment -versus -grassroots battles.

    *Yes, that’s what they called themselves. But that’s when liberals were kind of, you know, liberty-oriented.

  13. “…they’re the ones periodicially grinding the wheels of government to a near-halt over some Quixotic fight which they are virtually guaranteed to lose.”

    You know who else wants to grind the wheels of government to a near-halt….

    1. The Republicans. When they stood there drinking a slurpee watching Obama try to get it out of the ditch.

    2. The wheel-maker’s union.

  14. “i want to be the gop nominee for president.”

    “that didn’t answer my question dr. carson.”

    “yes it did.”

  15. Sounds like Dr. Carson retracted his statement, or apologized, or something.

  16. my co-worker’s mom makes $66 hourly on the computer . She has been without a job for nine months but last month her income was $15318 just working on the computer for a few hours. this page.for work detail go tech tab…. http://www.Job-bandana.com

  17. Sounds like a punky plan to mew dude.

    http://www.AnonStuff.tk

  18. “2013 that “my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.”

    His last name isn’t Paul or Kruz so he’s evil. Or is that evilish?
    Kruz:

    “:…standing ‘for life and marriage’; I’ve seen him go full God-and-flag at a California Club for Growth meeting. Combine this with his explicitly anti-Establishment rap

    But not Carson!

    Banning abortion at conception is anti-establishment, along with full God-and flag and opposing gay marriage ? Might this be why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians? But that’s just voters.

    ” …representing the rising but still outnumbered libertarian strain within the GOP

    The libertarian strain may even be 1/3 of what it was in the early 80s!
    Of the growing number of American voters we now share values with, was that caused by the 91% Nolan libertarians … or by the 5% self-branded libertarians? (Cato/Zogby survey)

    And thank God we have Ron Paul reminding us that there is no basis for “separation” in any writings of our founders. I guess Ron trashed Jefferson and the Treaty of Tripoli when he was trashing the Ninth Amendment.

    And we alll know that “separation” is part if the secularists was on religion, right?

  19. Arghhh!

    Thought he was beyond the GotchaMachine ploys!

    Oh well, nice while it lasted.

    And the better reference for ‘gay by choice’ argument, should you need to go there, would be ancient Rome and Greece where it was routine for most to engage in homosexuality.

    1. it was routine for most to engage in homosexuality.

      But in those days, it was more like masturbating and there was no distinction between hetero and homo, sex was sex. They obviously also had sex with women … or they’d have disappeared!

      Today, homosexuality means same sex all the time. Even marriage.

  20. I suspect Carson is a closet homosexual or at least bisexual. That’s the only possible explanation for why he would hold such a ludicrous opinion. Anybody else would laugh at the notion that sexuality is a choice.

    Other than that, Carson makes even McCain look smart. What is wrong with the GOP that they keep picking such losers?

  21. Anybody else would laugh at the notion that sexuality is a choice.

    Yes, we do laugh at the Christian Taliban! Reagan was mercilessly attacked by the socons when he said homosexuality was not a choice, nor were gay teachers a threat to our children because its not communicable like measles. (great line) He was instrumental in defeating the initiative to ban gays from teaching in public schools.

    Probably drove Falwell and Robertson nuts! They began attacking Reagan late in his first term, but even their followers ignored them. Reagan was much more popular to them than their preachers were.

  22. Just as Joseph said I’m alarmed that a stay at home mom can earn $5046 in 4 weeks on the computer .
    check out the post right here …… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  23. And what? We’re not supposed to understand that “Reason” is all about the LGBT agenda?

    1. And what? We’re not supposed to understand that “Reason” is all about the LGBT agenda?

      Reason the publication, and reason as a thought process. But we get it, you’re most likely a bigot. It’s not the sinister LGBT agenda, it’s an agenda for equal rights and constitutional values, so are you kidding us or kidding yourself?

  24. “The men who think that wealth comes from material resources and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think?for the same reason?that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one’s mind, choice or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition. Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself. No matter what corruption he’s taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment?just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity!?an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exaltation, only in the confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience?or to fake?a sense of self-esteem .” Ayn Rand

  25. Dr Carson was a great neurosurgeon. the hospital he practiced in denies his social opinions.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.