Election 2016

Why Are the Democrats So Old and Tired?

2016 field so far looks like an AARP convention, minus the Viagra

|

A

I'm sooooo tired, I haven't slept a wink. |||

t the Washington Examiner, the shrewd political columnist Byron York points out that the Democratic field for the 2016 presidential race is more than a little gray around the gills:

There are five Democrats who have either declared or are thinking about running for president. Three — Joe Biden, Bernard Sanders, and Jim Webb — will be over 70 years old on Inauguration Day 2017. Frontrunner Hillary Clinton will be nine months short of 70. Only Martin O'Malley, who will turn 54 a couple of days before the 2017 swearing-in, has not reached retirement age already.

What explains this last wheeze of the Boomers? York lets an anonymouse do the talking:

"It's the snuffing out of young talent by the strength and size and sheer velocity of the inevitable nominee," says a well-connected Democratic strategist. "The Clintons took all the air out of the collective Democratic room. There are a lot of people who would be running who are much younger, but they've got their future in front of them, and they don't want the Clintons to ruin it, in this campaign or after this campaign. So they're waiting for a moment when there is enough oxygen to run."

"If Hillary Clinton weren't running, we'd have a field that looks like the Republican field — young and vibrant and diverse."

That first paragraph rings true (it certaintly seems hazardous to a Democrat's future to stand in the way of the Clinton juggernaut), but the second sounds like wishful thinking. One key reason why there aren't any attractive young Democratic candidates running is that there aren't many attractive young Democrats to choose from.

I'm sooooo tired, my mind is set on you. |||

Don't believe me? Consider the ballyhooed young talent the party trotted out at the 2012 Democratic National Convention: Laughably dishonest campaign hack Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (D-Florida). Failed ex-Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Banal San Antonio mayor-turned Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, whose keynote speech at the convention contained such calorie-free bromides as "We have to come together and invest in opportunity today for prosperity tomorrow."

I wonder should I call you, but I KNOW what you would do! |||

Such goo-goo '70s-style economic liberalism (with its policy repudiation of 1990s-style Bill Clinton Third Way economics) is what sells within the party establishment, even if the American public has been stubbornly resistant to any salesman not named Barack Obama. (Consider how much of the Democratic talent pool has simply been run out of Congress and various statehouses in 2010 and 2014.) Meanwhile, what gets hearts racing among the progressive base is not the occasional libertarianism of unorthodox young'uns like Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas), but rather the explicit class warfare of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, and failed Chicago mayoral candidate Chuy Garcia.

You'd say, you're putting me on. |||

If there was to be a Tea Party-style wave of contested Democratic primaries (and there won't be any time soon), it would likely not be on the issues of drug policy or surveillance (alas!), but rather income inequality, Robin Hood taxes, and jacking up the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Progressives who think those are winning national issues may want to reflect that the only likely 2016 candidate to fully embrace them will be a geriatric socialist from Vermont.

So the base is trying desperately to foist the Blue State model onto recalcitrant Red State America; the party establishment is coughing up deeply unlovable dynastic schemers like Hillary Clinton and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and meanwhile the Clinton machine is neutralizing potential challengers by God knows what means. I know it's fashionable among some to bemoan the "clown show" of the 2016 Republican presidential field, but at least there's an actual contest there, and a detectable pulse.

Advertisement

NEXT: Peter Suderman Reviews Ex Machina

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I know it’s fashionable among some to bemoan the “clown show” of the 2016 Republican presidential field, but at least there’s an actual contest there, and a detectable pulse.

    But you have to remember that the crazy ones, the radicals, the anarchists who want to Shut Down The Government?, are the Republicans.

    1. And why, precisely, is it crazy to want to shut down the government? I can think of several important social and legal functions that the Federal Government is supposed to be responsible for, but it frankly doesn’t seem to be all that interested in actually performing those functions.Close down the government and chase the highbinders and meddlers back to their academic caffe klatches and their bicoastal cocktail parties, and we might be able to get the behemoth under some sort of control.

      As matters stand the Federal Government is mostly busy with pounding as much money as possible down assorted non-essential (or even downright harmful) ratholes.

    2. It seems like word went out from Media Matters or wherever to refer to the GOP lineup as a “clown show” or “clown car.” I see those phrases in website comments everywhere.

      1. Whereas their opponents across the aisle arrive in a fleet of hearses.

        1. +100

          1. +1 (or two) Moby Dicks.

        2. Around here it’s the Century Village bus.

      2. Ha! Yeah, I also saw numerous comments mentioning “clown car” when both Cruz and Rand announced. I knew the phrase got thrown out there for them to mindlessly parrot from some lefty source.

      3. Now that you mention it, I have seen that phrasing used a few hundred times…

    3. You have touched upon the key Democratic offering to the voters: ‘We’re the ones who aren’t crazy.’ It’s not much of a program, but having driven the Left out of their ranks long since they have to go with what they’ve got.

    4. Seriously now, folks who self identify as “Republicans” prefer a big government with extended extra-Constitutional laws, and guarantees for government. You’re thinking about private entitlements… Republicans want that money to go to police agencies and prisons.. and of course, EVERYBODY wants a bigger military…. but really now… Big government, “law and order” Republicans want a huge system with unlimited power..and it’s all good… as it’s just to defeat “the liberals”, who are no more liberal than Republicans are conservative.

      1. StP… both ‘major parties’ are in it for Power and Control and Big Government Influence over The Other Side.

    5. sarcasm, yes?

  2. “You’d say I’m putting you on, but it’s no joke…”

    1. +1 English insects with mandibles

  3. I think the problem may be something slightly different. It’s not the Clintons that sucked the air out of the room, it was Barack Obama.
    This is what usually happens when a cult-of-personality type ruler comes to power. That one personality tends to eclipse every other potential leader. You see it happen all the time in autocratic regimes. The one central leader tends to suppress potential threats, and as soon as the strong-persona leaves, there’s a massive power vacuum.
    The Clintons just happen to be the corrupt oligarchs that managed to surivie the autocrats rule and are now there to fill the vacuum.

    Now, I don’t think Obama was consciously suppressing threats. I think it’s more that his own cult of personality was so focused on him (by definition) that it sucked all the attention away from any alternatives or replacements. The Obama followers never considered who would replace him.

    1. Re: HazelMeade,

      The Obama followers never considered who would replace him.

      In 2016, Democrats will face the same feeling of despair and unease that the Soviets felt when Stalin died. Or Venezuelans when Chavez kicked the bucket. At least the Chinese had Dem Xiaoping. American little red Marxians don’t have anybody that can replace Nuestro Querid?simo Se?or Presidente, not even Liawatha.

      1. All my uber-liberal proggie friends are trying their little hearts out to be enthusiastic about Hillary. If I engaged in politics on Facebook, I would ask them why they’ve suddenly become so conservative.

    2. ^This. But also the number of people identifying as members of either party is at an all time low and the number identifying as independent is at an all time high. Many people hate both political parties and only vote out of obligation or a lesser or two evil position.

      Really, the name branding of both parties are damaged beyond repair, but ,like every other thing in modern America, we can’t seem to slip the bonds that tie – too many vested interests in the status quo.

      1. One can only hope that, much like cable tv, our political system is an ancient juggernaut which may yet be compelled to align with the reality of viewers at home.

      2. Lady bertrum, I have nothing to disagree with you about if I take your comment as a computer model. But as we’ve seen, reality often doesn’t align with the model. All of those young people are going to vote for someone come election day, and I think the GOP really has an uphill battle.

        1. Not necessarily. Young people tend to be the group most disinterested in voting, so there’s a chance droves of them will stay home

          1. All this conjecture is a waste of time and ink. The Dems have eight more years to develop an heir to Hillary’s throne.

            Am I being sarcastic? I certainly hope so, but I imagine there’s a contingent in Team D that really believes this.

    3. Now, I don’t think Obama was consciously suppressing threats.

      I disagree, but admit I don’t have any evidence. Those inner circle cultists seemed to recognize that if you put anyone with any gravitas next to their empty suit, it would be disastrous.

      1. You may have a point, I can’t think of one cabinet minister or secretary who I remember, with the exception of Clinton, Eric Holder, and Kathleen Sebelius. And the latter two only because of the scandels.

        By contrast, Bush had some big guns in his cabinet, like Condi Rice and Colin Powell.

        Maybe I’m just not paying that much attention though.

        1. No, you’re right. Obama’s administration has been filled with empty suits, and rife with high turnover. He goes through press secretaries at a fantastic rate.

          Apparently Jarrett is an acquired taste.

          1. He goes through Sec Defs as fast if not faster. Any wonder our foreign policy execution is such a disaster?

        2. Whatever happened to Condi? I really expected her to become something in politics, but she just sort of disappeared after Bush.

          1. She’s an academic with a good career going and went back to that. I bet Stanford pays more too. I don’t know much about her, but I got the impression that she isn’t all that interested in electoral politics.

            1. ^This. I always felt she thought politics to be odious work, tolerated as a stepping stone into a more influential academic career.

              1. And occasional guest appearances on 30 Rock.

              2. I do get the impression that she’d serve another appointment, though. She was on fire about inequalities in public education in Romney’s acceptance ceremony-thingy.

                1. I agree. Go back and watch some of her speeches. She’s not a bad public speaker, but she sounds more like an interesting professor than an enthusiastic politician. I always got the impression that she found the policy components of politics interesting, but never cared much for the kissing hands and shaking babies that is required to get elected.

                  1. wow. a love-fest for one of the principal architects of the WoT and the use of torture? shameful.

                    1. I always thought Mohamed was the principal architect of the WoT. See Pirates, Barbary.

    4. I don’t know, a lot of people seem tired of Obama. Some Dems would be happy to get away from him – hence the small fervor for the “true progressive” Warren – and others would probably be enthusiastic for an Obama-Lite candidate, someone young that talks up a lot of the same issues as Obama. A new vessel to take up Obama’s work, since Obama himself is now tired and beaten down by the damn racist Republicans. But Clinton is there to obstruct any such challengers. The anonymous source’s logic is compelling: if you’re a young Democrat, why risk torpedoing your future by going up against the Clintons?

      1. That’s the thing though. The true believers in Obama want someone *just like* Obama. Which is really hard to find. Personality cultists don’t usually immediately find a new fixation. Instead they hang pictures of the deceased on the wall and pray for a return.

        Unless there’s another young, “articulate, clean”, black man with a progressive bent out there, they aren’t going to be happy. The only candidate I can see the true believers gather around is Michelle Obama. Call it the Evita effect.

        1. Unless there’s another young, “articulate, clean”, black man with a progressive bent out there, they aren’t going to be happy.

          The closest I could think of is Deval Patrick, former governor of MA.

          1. Didn’t he have some kind of scandal?

          2. Won’t work.His lips are too big.
            Obama has “white” lips.

            Just kidding. But not really.

            1. Wow, does he really really like sucking the juice out of watermelon rinds with those monster lips?

              1. No, they are so swollen and full from sucking the liberty out of the electorate. Like all proglords.

        2. That, supposedly, is why Julian Castro will be her veep. He’s an enthusiastic showman and acceptable arm candy. (He also looks like Curious George, can’t speak Spanish, and hasn’t done a lick of real work.)

    5. In all fairness, even Donald Trump probably could have eclipsed George Bush. It wasn’t even a challenge for Barak Obama. All he needed to do was end the wars and repair the economy, the heathcare reform and diplomatic outreach have been gravy. Libertarians don’t like war and financial meltdowns, right?

  4. such calorie-free bromides as “We have to come together and invest in opportunity today for prosperity tomorrow.”

    Brace yourselves. O’Malley is a past master of such spewing.

    1. Sounds like a Chuy Garcia campaign ad. Hey, guys, I’ve got an idea – Chuy por Presidente!

    2. Yeah, in my linked piece O’Malley was mouthing ’em at the 2012 DNC.

    3. I’m not sure why people think Carcetti even has a chance. He cut his teeth in Baltimore politics. There’s got to be an insane amount of dirt out there just waiting to be found.

      1. Well, Obama came up in Chicago politics, and yet here HE is.

      2. Anything is possible when a Pravda-like media suppresses any dirt and shouts down anyone who doesn’t.

  5. Come on, its hardly a trend and is much more just a snapshot in time. Just 6 years ago, the Dems ran a candidate who vied for the nomination when he was 46 years old. In fact, if libertarianish Rand Paul gets elected President this time (he would be 54), he will be older than when Obama got elected the SECOND time. And the frontrunner Bush? He would be 64 if elected.

    The GOP is hardly vying for youthful vibrancy, including the libertarianish candidate.

    1. No, but since the GOP base tends to be older than the DEM base that’s not so much of an issue for them. But they can’t keep that up forever; eventually the boomers and their massive numbers of votes will disappear.

    2. No, it’s not a trend. Or if it is, it’s not a trend that can last very long. You can’t get too much older than Hillary and be a plausible candidate.

    3. I love the smell of Lowellian partisan hackery in the morning.

      1. I love the smell of Lowellian partisan hackery in the morning.

        Doing the tough work in some of the toughest comment boards in the country.

  6. The Best President of All Time His Holiness Saint Ronnie the Wise was a geezer.

    1. It never ceases to amaze the level of stupidity and/or mendacity you can deploy on command.

    2. The Best President of All Time is Calvin Coolidge and he was 46 when became President.

      Silent Cal had all of the qualities Americans should want in their President: A man of brevity, pet lover, prankster, retired a quarter of the federal debt, lowered taxes, refused to appoint members of the KKK to federal offices (an improvement of the Progressive saint, Woodrow Wilson), supported anti-lynching laws, and occasionally wore silly hats when people asked him.

      1. Jesus, a Google for Coolidge, the man who proposed federal anti-lynching laws and spoke favorably of blacks and their struggle for civil rights in response to Klansmen, returns the following bullshit:

        President Calvin Coolidge was a noted Klansman and was well known to be an active member of the Ku Klux Klan. He allowed cross lightings on the Capitol steps and reviewed the giant Klan parades of 1925 and 1926 in Washington D.C.

        Of course Coolidge was a Klansman, he was an evil Republican who besmirched the good reputation of (actual Klan sympathizer) Woodrow Wilson!

        1. Character assassination in the name of progress is no vice.

        2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..vil_rights

          But Wikipedia is a well know hive of right wing racists.

          It is funny how today’s Democrats try to think of those from the early 20th century. Bring up racist southern Democrats and you will be told that that’s a completely different thing. Yet they lay claim to FDR and Wilson. Must support the narrative that small government types are and always have been motivated by racism, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

        3. From Wikipedia – Although federal spending remained flat during Coolidge’s administration, allowing one-fourth of the federal debt to be retired, state and local governments saw considerable growth, surpassing the federal budget in 1927.

      2. You’re right.

    3. Unlike Hillary, Reagan was likeable and brought a youthful vigor to his campaign and presidency by virtue of his personality.

      1. But Hillary is “likeable enough!” Barack Obama said so!

      2. Which is incontrovertible proof that personality isn’t everything.

        1. True. Probably why Hillary never bothered to cultivate one.

        2. Said Obama’s buttboy. The irony is worthy of calling a round of shots. “A toast to Tony! The most fallacious/fellatious lemming I don’t want to know…”

    4. Good point: we had a really old Republican president about 30 years ago.

      1. And he’s a huge outlier since there have been no other presidents of a similar age pretty much ever.

      2. And if you get Tony going, he’ll change the subject many times to avoid dealing with that lying POS in the WH.

  7. They eat their young, presumably

    1. Social Security. Obamacare. Student loans.

      We can go ahead and leave off the ‘presumably’.

  8. The dem candidates are old because the dems have no choice. Their farm system is empty. They’ve been getting their ass kicked at the state level(except in batshit insane prog states) for so long that anyone who isn’t old is Tony level retarded.

    1. But shouldnt they have some candidates from batshit insane prog states?

      1. You mean Warren?

    2. Yep, hence the continuing and intensifying push toward identity politics. They know that the only way to win states that have a semblance of normalcy is to slice us into ever thinner and thinner sashimi-grade tranches of groups that they can then convince that if they deviate from the Christian white male cishetero right handed norm in any way, a view for republicans will surely result in their impending catenation.

      1. Hence also the emergence of Chelsea, whom Hillary has effectively promised to make her own Valerie Jarrett and whom we can expect to see a lot of on the campaign trail. She’s probably dieting herself limp right now in order to live up to that airbrushed Elle cover.

        (Should Hillary become prez, or even if she doesn’t, her veep choice and Marc Mezvinsky and Anthony Weiner can form the Irrelevant Studs club.)

  9. I’d wager that more than a few Dems hope Clinton loses the campaign and that clears the way in 2020 and later for a whole new crop of younger candidates like Gilibrand, Booker, (C. Clinton, C. Kennedy?) and any successful Dem governors (if there are any!)

    1. One thing will be certain; by 2020 at least half of the current geriatric crop will have died of old age.

  10. The Democrats are so old and tired because the Liberalism/Progressivism that drives them is a played out philosophy. It may stagger on for a while, but it is now just about where European Aristocracy was between the World Wars; discredited, outdated, arrogant, and more and more generally despised, but still in power.

    And I don’t think the Democrats have a Churchill on their bench to revitalize them in an emergency.

    1. Hence the turn to identity politics.

    2. Sounds about right.

  11. The Democrats’ farm system is full of progressives from the Northeast and mayors of god awful major cities that the rest of America doesn’t want to emulate.

    Again, when you look at the polls on the Republican side, the candidates are basically sorted by name recognition with one glaring exception: Chris Christie. He’s the only candidate with a lot of name recognition that’s sitting at the bottom polls with the people nobody’s ever heard of.

    Why is that?

    I suspect it’s becasue Chris Christie is the candidate that’s most like a mayor from a big city. The shit that makes you successful in the Northeast or major cities is the same shit that makes you ugly as hell on a national stage. And the Democrats farm roster is full of names from the Northeast and major cities.

    1. And the Democrats farm roster is full of names from the Northeast and major cities.

      Well, yeah. Where else are the Democrats popular?

      Another problem the Dems have is that they are all the same. With a few crazy exceptions they agree uniformly on the issues so their only resort in a primary is going to be mud-slinging. No one smart wants to get into a mudslinging contest against the Clintons. That’s career suicide.

      1. I don’t know. They all look the same to us from the libertarian view point, but there are divides within the party that seem big to their voters. Hell the gun debate is a big one between southern and northern democrats (though most the southerners get by by being in denial about the northerners wanting to ban guns). There is also a lot of disagreement between the progressives and the liberals, though you’ll never see the liberal voice their opinions they do vote based upon it.

        1. I’d way the gun thing is more urban/rural than north/south. Plenty of relatively gun loving democrats in the rust belt and New England.

      2. “That’s career suicide.”

        That right there is the problem both for the current political system and for the democrates.

        Being a politician was never suppose to be a life long “career”, it was suppose to a role filed by common citizens.

        To some (small) extent we still see this on the R side, there are some politicians who had prior careers before going for office. But the Dems seem to be comprised of only people who have spent their entire lives inside government with no private sector experience. I hated Romney, but at least the guy had a real career and made his money legitimately.

        1. An example is Condi, mentioned above. Out of academics for politics for a spell, then back into academics.

      3. The thing is, they really aren’t all the same. They are just good at showing a united front in a rather superficial way.

  12. “If there was to be a Tea Party-style wave of contested Democratic primaries (and there won’t be any time soon), it would likely not be on the issues of drug policy or surveillance (alas!), but rather income inequality, Robin Hood taxes, and jacking up the minimum wage to $15 an hour”

    yea, im not buying it. Minimum wage maybe, but lefties have been pushing the income inequality for some time and people still dont give a shit. Its the kind of thing that resonates well with the most vocal, but falls flat amongst the general populace.

    1. YOU’RE not buying it, but that doesn’t mean progressive Dems won’t primary Rahm Emanuel types on those issues.

      1. If it weren’t for the Democrat machine, Rahm Emanuel couldn’t win in Chicago.

        He upset the teachers, and the biggest stories I keep hearing coming out of Chicago are about how violent crime is out of control.

        Rahm Emmanuel was forced into runoff against some guy named Chuey.

        Rahm Emmanuel couldn’t hold his own against anybody nationally. It’s all about the machine.

        1. some guy named Chuey

          *Wookie grunt*

    2. Welch is right. The issue isn’t whether or not they’d win running on those issues, it’s whether or not there’d be primary fights over it.

      As Welch alludes to, the Rahm primary fight was pretty enlightening. There’s clearly enough there to embroil more moderate dems in primary fights, but even in Chicago the ardent progressive couldn’t win.

    3. I suppose it depends where you live. It resonates extremely well where I live and $15 minimum wage has passed in more than one district.

  13. “Robin Hood taxes”

    So… taxes that retrieve ill-gotten tax revenue and return it to its rightful owners? I can almost see a bureaucracy doing that…

    1. I am so freaking tired of Robin Hood being used like that. He didn’t steal from the rich to give to the poor. He returned their hard earned money that the imposter and his sheriff were egregiously helping themselves to. Aaaarrrgghhh!

      1. It’s true. Robin hood was essentially a tea party guy who was agitating the progressive tax policies and the IRS.

        1. I blame that stupid fox and rooster for mis-informing impressionable youth.

          1. For some reason everybody gets that one wrong. Ayn Rand referred to Robin Hood as a despicable character as well.

            Not that Ayn Rand is right about everything to begin with, but she at least seemed pretty intelligent.

            1. “Not that Ayn Rand is right about everything to begin with”

              Her dislike of Robin Hood was perfectly understandable, and she no doubt knew that Robin Hood and the outlawry of the times was about the peasants trying to recover their right to forage and hunt on Crown lands. They didn’t lobby their representatives, sue anyone in court, or distribute denouncing pamphlets, they resisted violently. How could anyone expect Rand to support them?

              1. “They didn’t lobby their representatives, sue anyone in court, or distribute denouncing pamphlets, they resisted violently.”

                Im amused by the idea of illiterate peasants from the Middle Ages having access to tort or “lobbying”.

              2. OK Mr. Liarman, I don’t usually return to cold threads, but this got just too stupid for words and it’s the rare day that my field comes up here, so I just can’t resist.

                Again, as I pointed out repeatedly yesterday, the Robin Hood tales have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the enclosure of the commons and EVERYTHING to do with disgruntlement over taxation. READ THE FUCKING STORIES if you don’t believe me.

                The “outlawry of the times” was also decidedly not “about the peasants trying to recover their [un-enumerated] right to forage and hunt on Crown lands.” It was about stealing from people and not sharing it with peasants afterwards. These guys were largely former soldiers – peasants couldn’t afford swords.

                Your delusion that there is some historical event behind the Robin Hood tales involving some tyrannous act by King John that was later undone by the Forestry Charter because of some peasant rebellion is . . . fantasy.

                The expansion of the Crown lands began under William the Conqueror, who seized England illegitimately by force. His heirs continued the expansion of the lands. John neither initiated this practice, nor was especially egregious in it relatively speaking.

                The Forestry Charter was an act of the baronage taking advantage of the weakness of Henry III during his regency. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the bands of robbers in the woods, who had no ideology and no interest in the welfare of the peasants.

            2. No, Ayn Rand did not refer to Robin Hood as a despicable character; Atlas Shrugged is the first place I saw the legend of Robin Hood set right (Ragnar tells of how Robin Hood was hijacked and used as a class warfare cartoon while the actual story was that he robbed the state and returned government loot to the taxpayers). That’s why this is a common discussion in libertarian circles.

              1. “Atlas Shrugged is the first place I saw the legend of Robin Hood set right”

                I don’t know how one would go about setting a legend right. I suppose re-writing it would be one way. If Rand had her wits about her, she would have been able to distinguish fact from fiction. Robin Hood was fiction, mostly, but the Charter of the Forest and the outlawry that led up to it were real. And that was all about the rights of peasants to access the commons. Rand above all believed in private property. She would have had no time for the peasants’ right to any property they didn’t own.

      2. I’m surprised at the sympathy towards Robin Hood here. King John privatized the public forests and punished with death or maybe just blinding if the sheriff was in a good mood that day, poachers, foragers for firewood and other trespassers. Robin Hood opposed these actions, as did the poor. Robin Hood fought for the commons. He won too; shortly after Magna Carta, another concession by the King allowed for ‘unprivatization’ of the public forests.

        Incidentally, instead of a Robin Hood tax, how about sales taxes?

        1. mtrueman|4.17.15 @ 12:49PM|#

          mtrueman lies constantly and admittedly. Arguing with a 5YO will yield far more honesty than mtrueman ever provided.

          1. Robin Hood was fighting to regain the commons lost to privatization. Whine all you like, but you’re not going to get away with re-writing history. Not while a trueman is here to keep you honest.

            1. You have no idea what you are talking about. The commons were a disaster, which is why they were closed in. They represent everything that is wrong with “community property.” People grazed their sheep and dumped their trash in the commons because it was “free,” leaving their own land clean un-grazed.

              In other words, just exactly what happens with Federal land today.

              And Robin Hood is a fairy tale, not a real political figure.

              1. “The commons were a disaster”

                For King John, sure. That’s why he closed them. Do you actually believed he did this because the Merry Men were dumping trash in his Royal forest rather than their own estates? This is self-parody, isn’t it?

                “And Robin Hood is a fairy tale”

                That didn’t stop you from claiming Robin Hood returned money to ‘working peasants,’ presumably leaving those ‘dead-beat peasants’ or ‘inner city peasants’ out in the cold.

                1. John was a moron who never did anything that wasn’t purely in his own interest (as far as he was able to perceive it). His son was even dumber.

                  The commons were an ecological disaster. This was widely acknowledged as a problem even in the 13th century. A little further study would have told you that. They were not a great boon shared by “commoners,” they were open spaces that were simply exploited by the first person who got to them because they were held “communally.”

                  The people who were most successful at closing the commons (Henry 8 ultimately) did it out of entirely selfish reasons, like many politicians who are claiming to save the world.

                  Robin Hood is not real, but Robin Hood stories were very real and very common and very popular in the 14th-15th centuries. The point of the stories is universally to express the aggravation of peasants at being taxed and exploited by the nobility. The 13th century didn’t so much have a welfare class of “inner city peasants.”

                  1. “The 13th century didn’t so much have a welfare class of “inner city peasants.”

                    Say what you will about those inner city peasants, at least they weren’t carting off their trash to dump in Sherwood Forest creating an ecological disaster.

                    1. You demonstrate your ignorance afresh with each new post.

                    2. “You demonstrate your ignorance afresh with each new post.”

                      I have to admit, you are difficult to keep up with. I’d like to hear more about how Mr Hood was a tea-party guy who opposed the irs.

                    3. Read the Robin Hood stories again. Find me one where Robin Hood defends the commons against privatization.

                    4. Since you’ve run off now, let me also point out that you have your left-wing arguments backwards. The closing of the commons is supposed to be an example of the benevolent exercise of public power against abuse of common property by private interests (i.e. peasants). That was the take back in the 90s, anyway. . .

                    5. “The closing of the commons is supposed to be an example of the benevolent exercise of public power against abuse of common property by private interests”

                      Perhaps to you it was. But Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men would disagree.

                    6. “But Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men would disagree”

                      I’m glad you’ve finally come around.

                    7. “I’m glad you’ve finally come around.”

                      Making you glad. That’s what counts, after all.

            2. mtrueman|4.17.15 @ 12:58PM|#

              mtrueman lies constantly and admittedly. Arguing with a 5YO will yield far more honesty than mtrueman ever provided.
              I repeat this because it is absolutely true. You might as well converse with a 5YO as to engage this dishonest piece of shit.

        2. You get that Robin Hood was not a real person, right? And therefore didn’t have actual *positions* about things like “privatizing the commons,” whatever that might mean in the context of 13th century England (not at all what it would mean today).

          1. “whatever that might mean”

            Looks like someone could benefit from a little more study time. Maybe start with Forestry Charter or the Magna Carta. The authors of these documents certainly did have positions on things like public access to commons.

            1. Was Robin Hood one of those authors?

              I spent 8 years of graduate school studying medieval history. Who are these “private” parties you imagine taking over the commons in the 13th century to the detriment of the common people?

              1. “I spent 8 years of graduate school studying medieval history.”

                English medieval history? I think not. Spend another year or two and you might learn something about these matters. Things like who exactly was closing off usage of the commons by peasants etc.

                1. School me. Who was closing off usage of the commons by peasants?

                  1. “School me.”

                    If you spent 8 years in graduate school, you’re probably familiar with the concept of tuition. I’ll be happy to school you if you’re willing to pay the price.

                    1. In other words, you have no idea.

                    2. “In other words…”

                      Pay up or school yourself.

                    3. I’ll help you out then. When you say “privatized,” what you really mean is “confiscated by the governing authorities.” But you knew that, didn’t you?

                    4. When you say “privatized,” what you really mean is “confiscated by the governing authorities.”

                      Actually, I mean enclosure which goes beyond confiscation by authorities. Enclosure is about preventing peasants access to commons. The Charter of the Forest, which I mention now for the second time, reversed some of this.

                    5. “I mean enclosure which goes beyond confiscation by authorities. Enclosure is about preventing peasants access to commons.”

                      And you still dodge around the question of “by whom?”

                    6. And you have yet to show even an *oblique* reference to this issue in any Robin Hood tale.

                    7. I’m just going to leave this here, as it’s not clear to me that you fully understand what this document is:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_Forest

                      “In contrast to Magna Carta, which dealt with the rights of barons, it provided some real rights, privileges and protections for the common man against the abuses of the encroaching aristocracy”

                    8. “In contrast to Magna Carta, which dealt with the rights of barons, it provided some real rights, privileges and protections for the common man against the abuses of the encroaching aristocracy”

                      From that same wikipedia page:

                      “At a time when the royal forests were the most important potential source of fuel for cooking, heating and industries such as charcoal burning, and such hotly defended rights as pannage (pasture for their pigs), estover (collecting firewood), agistment (grazing), or turbary (cutting of turf for fuel),[7] this charter was almost unique in providing a degree of economic protection for free men, who also used the forest to forage for food and to graze their animals.”

                      Exactly as I was writing about my original post. Read the wikipedia page again. Not a word mentioned about taxation, irs, working peasants, trash dumping, tea partying, giving the poor their money back or any of the other idiocies that is being bruited about.

                    9. From your original post: “I’m surprised at the sympathy towards Robin Hood here. King John privatized the public forests ”

                      and then: “Robin Hood was fighting to regain the commons lost to privatization”

                      Why would you be surprised at libertarians admiring Robin Hood for fighting against royal confiscation of private property if that is really what you meant to imply?

                    10. “Why would you be surprised at libertarians admiring Robin Hood for fighting against royal confiscation of private property if that is really what you meant to imply?”

                      The Crown was not confiscating peasants’ firewood. The Crown had enclosed or privatized Crown land, preventing peasants from foraging firewood in areas where they had always foraged. Libertarians will side with the Crown on this question as long as it involves reclaiming the ability to forage on the commons. You pointed out yourself that what the peasants were up to was nothing less than an ecological catastrophe. Others will point out that the peasants had no right to avail themselves of the Crown land, as they were little more than tennants. Others will point out that the outlaw peasants weren’t complying with the King’s orders and deserved whatever violence was in store for them.

                    11. “Libertarians will side with the Crown on this question ”

                      What is wrong with this statement? Something feels, I don’t know, counter-intuitive about it.

                      Myself (I have no interest in -isms), since we’re retroactively applying modern concepts to an arena in which they have no meaning, I would apply a homesteader principle to argue that the Crown had no right to seize the land in the first place, and thus no right to enclose it. Had there been a peasant uprising led by merry robbers against this practice, I would whole-heartedly support it.

                      The thing is, this doesn’t have anything to do with Robin Hood.

                    12. “since we’re retroactively applying modern concepts to an arena in which they have no meaning”

                      Not sure how you think being denied the right to gather fuel from Crown land is without meaning. To the peasants it meant risking their necks to get fuel or staying cold. A thousand years ago, people still needed fuel to keep warm. Things don’t change that much.

                      The issue addressed by the Charter of the Forest was not about the King confiscating land from the peasant or anyone else. I can’t figure out where you get that. The issue is that peasants had long had the right to hunt and forage on Crown lands. The King revoked that right, and some peasants turned to outlawry. Eventually, the King restored these rights.

                    13. Oh, and on the topic of the ecological disaster, my point was that when the Crown came along and seized commons for its own purposes, one of the most common reasons given was that the commons were overrun with trash, animal waste, and were overgrazed and generally overused and abused. So the Crown need to, you know, step in with the benevolent hand of government to save the land from mismanagement by the peasants. Sound familiar, Maoist?

                      My other point was that that’s what happens with communally held land. When land is held by individual property owners, they care for their land. But Norman land law didn’t work that way. Which is one big reason the term “privatization” has no meaning in the 13th century that is comparable to any meaning it might have today.

                    14. “Which is one big reason the term “privatization” has no meaning in the 13th century that is comparable to any meaning it might have today.”

                      How so? Until the King enclosed his forests, the land was open to the public. After, it was reserved for his private use. Why is that so incomparable to the way we think of privatization today? What was once public becomes private.

                    15. And you still dodge around the question of “by whom?”

                      I will dodge no longer. King John (the King) and the Sheriff of Nottingham (the Sheriff) for a start. I didn’t think it was necessary because even the cartoon version Rocket Robin Hood featured these characters prominently. No mention made in the TV show of the Forest Charter, though, or any “left-wing arguments” backwards or otherwise. Hence all the discombobulation on the board here, I figure.

                    16. Yay, a moment of honesty! By “privatization” you mean “confiscation by the king.” Same thing, right?

                      The early Robin Hood tales are actually set during the reign of an unspecified Edward, not King John at all. Those tales came later. What they all share is that the villains are universally aristocrats and church officials, never merchants or other “private” citizens.

                      The “closing of the commons,” FYI, started with William I, continued aggressively under William II, and then was extended even more aggressively under Richard I, whose younger, stupider brother John followed in his footsteps.

                      The “left-wing arguments” (and their rebuttals) to which I referred are to be found less in the cartoons, and more in the sort of adult-level historical analyses one comes across sometimes, but you seem less aware of those . . .

                    17. Yay, a moment of honesty! By “privatization” you mean “confiscation by the king.”

                      By privatization, I meant enclosing commons. I didn’t mean confiscation by the King.

                    18. “By privatization, I meant enclosing commons. I didn’t mean confiscation by the King.”

                      From your earlier post:

                      “”And you still dodge around the question of “by whom?”

                      I will dodge no longer. King John (the King) and the Sheriff of Nottingham (the Sheriff) for a start”

                      I don’t understand the distinction you are making between “King” and “King.”

                    19. I don’t understand the distinction you are making between “King” and “King.”

                      If you have any questions, please ask them.

                    20. “King” and “Sheriff” sounds a lot like political positions, even if appointed or inherited rather than elected. They certainly made/enforced the law and had a monopoly on violence, since the common folks weren’t allowed to have things like swords and other military arms of the times.

                      How is this possibly a winning anti-libertarian position for you to take?

                    21. I’m not really going for this one at all.

                      I’d be happy to rebut the anti-libertarian arguments in Robin Hood.

                      However, I’m on Salon, and I’m busy rebutting some anti-libertarian arguments in the Three Stooges.

                    22. “since the common folks weren’t allowed to have things like swords and other military arms of the times.”

                      They weren’t allowed to but they did it anyway. They weren’t called outlaws for nothing. Today’s Libertarians have far more in common with today’s tea partiers. And very little in common with the original tea partiers or the outlaws of Sherwood Forest. I’m all in favour of courageously resisting injustice. Today’s Libertarian whining, I can do without.

                    23. Plus, when you say something like “Robin Hood was fighting to regain the commons lost to privatization. Whine all you like, but you’re not going to get away with re-writing history” when ROBIN HOOD IS NOT ACTUALLY A HISTORICAL FIGURE, you invite criticism.

                    24. But it was not me who wrote:

                      “Robin Hood stole back money *from tax collectors* to return it to the *working peasants* whose money it rightfully was.”

                      As a good Maoist, I urge you to engage in self-criticism.

                    25. “As a good Maoist”

                      You can’t be serious.

                      Are you still waiting for the “tendency of the rate of profit to fall” to destroy capitalism? They just keep waiting and waiting.

                      They were just unlucky that communism destroyed communism first.

                    26. “Capitalism’s very success undermines the social institutions which protect it, and “inevitably” creates conditions in which it will not be able to live and which strongly point to socialism as the heir apparent.”

                      Schumpeter, seriously.

                    27. And, so, they keep waiting, and waiting.

                      Like devout Christians waiting for the revolution to unfold, they await the day that will prove them right, no matter how silly they seemed beforehand.

                    28. I tend to think of political thought as a continuum, and, when considering libertarians, the most important axis, I think, is individualism vs. groupthink.

                      So, at one end of the spectrum, you have anarchists, proceeding to minarchists, then limited government fans (all of which would probably fall under some form of libertarianism), and, as the groupthink progressed, you transition on to progressivism, socialism, communism, and, then, you finally reach the apex of groupthink, which is scientology.

                      I’m not sure where you maoists fall on the continuum, but I’ll give you credit for any gap you put between yourself and the pinnacle of groupthink.

                    29. “the most important axis, I think, is individualism vs. groupthink”

                      It certainly seems that way. Marxists, cold warriors and Libertarians will no doubt agree. These groups are gradually being left behind though and are becoming less and less relevant, and have little to say about the issues of the day. I think the future direction, thanks to theories and practices of newer disciplines like feminism, ecology, etc, a new axis will emerge: an aesthetic axis which will have Marxists and Libertarians at one end and these feminazis and ecotards at the other. It should be interesting to see this paradigm shift. The old one you speak of is certainly due for a trade-in.

                    30. Yes, I eagerly await the feminist aesthetic moment. any day now.

                    31. “Yes, I eagerly await the feminist aesthetic moment”

                      That makes you rather special. Most here look upon the day with dread.

                    32. Most people here look upon that day the same way they do the book of revelation: filed under “shit that will never happen.”

                    33. “But it was not me who wrote:

                      “Robin Hood stole back money *from tax collectors* to return it to the *working peasants* whose money it rightfully was.””

                      Precisely – because you have demonstrated that you have not read these stories. This is why you have trouble distinguishing an accurate statement about them from an inaccurate statement about them.

                    34. Square,
                      mtrueman is a lying POS. Don’t waste your time.

        3. Robin Hood was the first commercial mascot – his stories were spread by the newly-middle-class cloth merchants of Lincoln, who held a monopoly on a type of red dye called “Lincoln graine,” which is often mis-translated as “Lincoln green.” The names of characters are often associated with the color red – Robin Hood, Will Scarlet, etc. Robin Hood wasn’t a champion of the peasants, he was a champion of the rising bourgeoisie.

          In 500 years mtrueman will be regaling us with tales of how the REAL Captain Crunch spoke out bravely against American involvement in Vietnam, or something.

    2. Yeah. They are thinking of Dennis Moore, not Robin Hood.

        1. Bloody lupins.

  14. Another, bigger problem for Democrats is the fragging of their own coalition by Obama. The guy has not just sucked all the O2 out of their room, but will probably take it with him when he leaves.

    Obama has built his own organization, Organizing for America, and big Donkey demographics, namely the identity-politics and Carbontology set, are loyal to the President and not the Democratic party. They are akin to Republican ‘tea party’ insurgency, but unlike the amorphous tea party they will have a different organization and social infrastructure to go flock around, namely the one Obama has built.

    For all the Clinton-crap, the Clintons invested considerable time and effort into building the Democratic party, and building it stocked with their allies and associated social infrastructure. Its one of the reasons they do not go away.

    But Democrats are to Obama what unwitting capitalists were supposed to be to Lenin under NEP: The morons who get hung with the rope they sold to their executioner.

  15. This article is wishful thinking. Notice he never mentions who all of these younger candidates who Clintons scared off actually are. That is because they don’t exist. Even before 2010, the Democrats had been in a long decline at the state level. The last three elections have just accelerated that. The Democrats are now completely uncompetitive in large areas of the country. Meanwhile, the Republicans are competitive in even the most blue states outside of California. So, they don’t have any successful governors or well known center left legislators to turn to. Everyone is either old, full retard Prog or saw their political careers end in the last six years. Even O’Malley is a total retred whose career should have ended when his designated successor lost in 2014.

  16. “Robin Hood taxes”

    I just have to say – this phrase has always bugged me. The Left doesn’t get to have Robin Hood. Robin Hood didn’t steal from evil capitalists to give money to the non-working poor. Robin Hood stole back money *from tax collectors* to return it to the *working peasants* whose money it rightfully was.

  17. The reason is actually pretty simple: while the Rs and Ds have been going back and forth over the last decade+ at the federal level, the Rs have been quietly but effectively winning at the state level. Combined with the effect of the Tea Party at the national level (say what you want about their policies, they undoubtedly have shaken things up), this has given the Rs a much deeper field, particularly of people with executive experience. It also helps (at the very least, in perception) that R states have, on average, been doing fairly well over the last couple decades when compared to D states.

  18. Robin Hood taxes, and jacking up the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Progressives who think those are winning national issues

    Sorry dude’s, but if I were you, I wouldn’t let these things out of your peripheral vision just yet. They’re definitely winning local issues, and that has energized the blue-state crazies like you wouldn’t fucking believe.

  19. “If Hillary Clinton weren’t running, we’d have a field that looks like the Republican field ? young and vibrant and diverse.”

    Of course we would.

  20. Washington is the only place in America where a bunch of 50 year olds is considered ‘young.’

    1. What about Florida?

      1. Speak up!

    2. Washington is just like every industry except entertainment. If you have real power you either have grey hair or you are the exception that proves the rule. It takes time to work your way up in an organization and politics is just two organizations duking it out.

      1. But politics is mostly entertainment…

    3. They are when you consider the position. The President is the CEO of the government. Any CEO of a major corporation under that age of 50 would be considered young. Shit heads out of college don’t get to be CEO right off.

      1. Then why have so many politicians never done anything after college, and still act like they’re in college?

        1. We’re talking about biological age here, not mental and emotional maturity.

    4. Clearly you’ve never been to a shuffleboard tournament.

  21. Asking why they are old and tired is sexist, or something.

    1. Ageist. And tiredist.

  22. if I were you, I wouldn’t let these things out of your peripheral vision just yet. They’re definitely winning local issues, and that has energized the blue-state crazies like you wouldn’t fucking believe.

    Seattle isn’t America (PRAISE CTHULU!).

  23. Old, tired, overweight, nasty white woman: Vote for Granny Clinton!

  24. The “international arena” is heading toward expanding chaos and an economic quagmire.
    The domestic situation is an economy stifled by an ever-expanding government engagement into the burning of productivity, and a greater disconnect between the people supposed to represent the citizens and the citizens. You can argue how much of a mess it is, or how long before some shit hits the fan, but it is not a trajectory toward expanding prosperity and civility.
    The Democrat Party has NO IDEAS and has killed any oppositional opinion. They’ve lost congressional power since 2008, and my guess is that in 2016 we will see a continuation of congress in Republican control and probably a Republican president. (Not that that will be any great shakes – they slip into plunder mode again as always.)
    All the Dem’s have to offer are burned out douche bags,the same old socialist/collectivist policies, and smears against Republicans. The question is how many people will come out to vote and once the Hillary is finished off, who will come to the forefront.

    1. I think what we really need is a good run of one-term presidents. Why do people keep reelecting these assholes?

      1. What would need to happen is that we figure out a way to “fix stupid”.

        1. Take the warning labels off of things and stupid will start fixing itself.

      2. I am willing to bet that whoever wins in 2016 will be one term-especially if its Hillary.

        1. I have no doubt Hillary would be a one-termer. She has to be very careful with her upcoming political failures, including possible election loss, so as not to singe Chelsea though.

  25. “Why Are the Democrats So Old and Tired?”

    I makes perfect sense when one looks at the demographics of likely voters. Those most likely to vote are the 50-and-up crowd, so it’s vital that a party focus its messaging on them.

    The younger demographic groups are the pools from which a party gets its volunteers and activists, but isn’t a huge source of actual votes. That’s why political messaging for younger demographic groups are more about calls-to-action than about voting.

    President Obama was a bit of an anomaly because he was able to tap into the large pool of previously-non-voting African Americans, but even then his voting base skewed older.

    Not to mention that a successful political career depends on one’s ability to build contacts and personal networks. Older, more established individuals with long careers behind them will naturally have an advantage in that area over younger up-and-comers.

    Breaking in to a career in politics is a pretty high-risk venture. Young people will be more likely to say to themselves, “I’d rather make some money than roll the dice on an election.” Older candidates have less to lose.

  26. see, in the middle ages when the government seized property for its own use, that is privatization in derpworld.

  27. This is a ridiculous useless article.

    You could have made this exact same article regarding the 2012 Republicans (Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee, Santorum: those guys started their political careers in the early/mid-1990s, if not earlier). These things go in waves. The Democrats currently do not have a young cohort fighting for the top spots which is not at all unusual. The party has gone through a particularly horrible spate of two midterm elections which weeded out a bunch of up and comers.

  28. The dems can keep picking their candidates from nursing homes and they will still get elected because (1) enough people like the idea of the freebies they promise (2) the GOP has scared enough women shitless with their positions on abortion. If the GOP could moderate somewhat on (2), they may get somewhere.

  29. “I know it’s fashionable among some to bemoan the “clown show” of the 2016 Republican presidential field, but at least there’s an actual contest there, and a detectable pulse.”

    This part seemed so silly; it’s like, “Republican primaries are awesome because they might actually elect a crazy person.”

    Interesting though, it’s not just the presidential candidates, the average in the House of Representatives is 64 for dems and 53 for reps.

    1. Ahh, so the Republican party is the party of youngsters?

  30. Well, if you are familiar with Sith lore, the more you use the Dark Side, the more shitty you start looking.

  31. It’s entirely appropriate that democrats run geriatric candidates. The whole federal government is evolving into a giant AARP elderly benefits and entitlement program. Best way to insure you’ll get your federally subsidized share of life support money is to have some other old Depends wearing geezer watching your back.

  32. It’s entirely appropriate that democrats run geriatric candidates. The whole federal government is evolving into a giant AARP elderly benefits and entitlement program. Best way to insure you’ll get your federally subsidized share of life support money is to have some other old Depends wearing geezer watching your back.

  33. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…………..

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

    1. Spoken like a true Libertarian……….oh, you’re a spammer?………never mind.

  34. Their ideas are old and tired. Why shouldn’t they be?

    1. They have gone from primarily only enslaving and owning blacks to trying to enslave and own everyone. The whole enslaving and owning people may be old and tired ideas, but they still aggressively and energetically pursue them as if they were still young plantation whip-crackers.

  35. Why do Libertarians sound so much like bitter old Republicans, because they are?

  36. you know who else was old and tired in April mid decade?

  37. Because reality has had close to a hundred years to kick the shit out of the rationale for their beliefs. The first 10 times their policies fail they can justify and rationalize away but after a 100 years of their bogus bullshit they are finding those rationales thread bare, seriously worn and shabby to the core.

  38. Even though I’m a well seasoned man I’m still repulsed by the grotesque geriatric parade of nasty old rotting pols all assuming they’ve finally made it to the front of the line and will now realize their royal right to rule o’er we the vile peasantry.

  39. “..we’d have a field that looks like the Republican field ? young and vibrant and diverse.” ..Folks…I’ve voted GOP from Nixon through to Bush Jr’s 2nd term and there are no “young and vibrant and diverse” Republicans out there. What we have are illiterate, right wing religious freaks who’ve sold out to big business, and are quite happy to stiff the American citizen in their eagerness to obey their Israeli masters. That is not the makings of a healthy party, nor is it good for our country.

    1. You admit voting for GW and Tricky Dick…and now lament that no candidates can measure up to those lofty standards?

      Wow. Libertarianism is cool….

      I do agree with the idea that the current GOP won’t be happy until we are all throwing nukes back and forth in the middle east. It very well could happen…..which perfectly suits the bible. We Jews will get one chance to convert to the one true religion…and then we all will head up to heaven from what’s left of Israel.

      1. current GOP won’t be happy until we are all throwing nukes back and forth in the middle east.

        No rampant hyperbole there.

  40. I generally agree with the sentiment of this article – BUT, we must remember that Obama WAS that young guy who came charging from the field to beat Hillary before…..and liberals such as myself would love to see similar candidates emerge.

    Also, you must remember that the GOP loves old people! After all, the average age of the audience for most right wing hate machine programs is over 65. Reagan was the oldest prez yet and the GOP attempted to put Mac in the White House. It’s only because all of those guys are either dead or hopeless that they have to trot out the new young sell-outs. There will always be lots of people willing to be bought…so the GOP will never run out of candidates. What they will run out of are people who are like the “old” Republicans like Ike or even Daddy Bush. Those types have been long cast out of the tent.

    1. you guys want to send shock troops to arrest pizza restaurant owners just for NOT discriminating against gays, and just slightly extending a non-leftist-dogma opinion, and WE’RE the hate machine? Are you kidding me?

  41. Dunno. Perhaps its because they were old and tired 10 elections ago and nothing’s really changed since then.

  42. The Democrats are so old and tired because their ideas are so old, tired and should be retired.

  43. I think the issue for Dems is, and it will only get worse, is the type of person who is hard left is basically a whiner who expects others to give them something, or do something for them.

    There is no leadership in that position. Leaders take charge and make things happen. They don’t demand others make things happen.

    I don’t see them actually developing any leaders for the foreseeable future.

    The other issue is despite that a lot of young lefties will not speak ill of Obama he has sucked the life out of his party. They invested a lot of emotion and hope in this guy, and he’s essentially useless. If he had been even successful from a leftie point of view, ie raised minimum wage to $15, instituted a national carbon tax, and so on. All terrible stuff, but it would have energized the base. They watched his only real enthusiasm be for his golf game. He probably isn’t much more of an empty suit than 99% of them, but he is an empty suit, and I think this really has taken the energy from the party.

    Last, notice how all the young left movers and shakers are women? And they are the likes of Sabrina Erdeley. Whether people like to hear this, or not, but young male energy is what makes things happen. I don’t see any young male energy in the left movement. All yappy women.

  44. We could add other Democrats over 70 years old like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel and John Conyers.

    We know McCain want to re-run again at the age of 80 and there some others besides the ones then I already mentionned.
    http://www.ijreview.com/2015/0…..ow-retire/

  45. Debbie Wasserman Schultz as a “laughably dishonest hack.” Props to you, sir, for just getting that bang-on perfect in about the fewest possible words.

    That guy from San Antonio will never go anywhere because of his mother. He’s an empty suit, sure, but I can just imagine him running nationally with that albatross around his neck. (Mum was one of those “La Raza” radicals who explicitly agitated to give the entirety of the US west of the Mississippi to Mexico as reparations for the Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo or some shit.)

  46. Hell, I’m still trying to figure out how come all of their women are so damn ugly.

  47. my best friend’s mom makes $63 hourly on the internet . She has been fired for nine months but last month her income was $16725 just working on the internet for a few hours. look at here………………. http://www.work-cash.com

  48. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  49. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.incomejoin70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.