Rand Paul

Rand Paul: How the West Might Be Won

|

Despite Donald Trump's march, despite often being heard many discouraging words, Rand Paul continues doing what he set out to do: speaking his message, trying to win hearts and minds and hopefully come next year a lot of votes.

outtacontext / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND

Reports about his current road trip, first from Olivia Nuzzi at Daily Beast. She lays out the grim bill of specifics about falling poll numbers and failing attempts at getting press attention, and, despite the fact that alas we have no solid data about why Rand Paul might be failing to keep his machine against the Washington machine going (we all have our theories) floats the idea that it's because he pivoted too far to the Mitch McConnell GOP center and too far away from the Ron Paul fringe. (That might be true. I'm not sure.)

Then the Rand Paul How the West Might Be Won tour agenda is analyzed:

Paul kicked off the week in Anchorage, which is not usually a high-priority campaign stop for candidates…..

Ron came in third in the Alaska caucuses, but he seemed to energize the libertarian-leaning Republicans in the state. Ron zealot Russ Millette was elected chairman of the Alaska GOP in 2012 (although he was thrown out in 2013)….

After Alaska, Rand traveled to other Ron Paul strongholds. He stopped in Washington State, which Ron Paul won in 2012; Wyoming, where Ron came in third; Idaho, where Ron won the straw poll with over 70 percent of the vote; and Utah, where he came in second.

But whether Rand will be able to convince his dad's supporters of his legitimacy remains to be seen. This time in August 2011, Ron Paul was averaging 9.7 percent in the polls….

David Weigel of the Washington Post is one of the very few reporters still actually following Rand around. He gives a very detailed report framing Paul's newfangled Western strategy, saying Paul is:

barnstorming the West because its Republican voters would cast votes in March 2016. Each of them had a large cache of delegates, and no one else was campaigning for them. In 2012, New Hampshire would send 12 delegates to the next Republican convention. Alaska, where only 14,130 people participated in the caucuses, would send 27 delegates.

Paul talks about how its easier to organize in caucuses, but as Weigel explains at length later in the piece the GOP has changed the rules to make sure that no amount of eagerness on the part of Paul fans at the caucuses or later regional or state level GOP conventions where delegates are chosen will allow his delegate counts to outweigh people who actually just show up at caucuses to cast the ol' beauty contest/straw poll votes.

Depth of support doesn't matter that much anymore in the GOP process. This was done very deliberately to make sure well organized "wrong" candidates like Ron Paul can never win any state at all anywhere ever. It's not good news for Rand Paul.

And these western states are still polling mystery lands, likely very much up for grabs, and can be very important:

Polling has been sparse or nonexistent in the states that will hold mid-March caucuses, despite the fact that they hosted some of 2008's and 2012's biggest upsets. President Obama's campaign flooded Western caucuses to gain a delegate advantage that Hillary Clinton never overcame. Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum won third place or worse first four contests after Iowa. He only became a threat to Mitt Romney after he took the Colorado and Minnesota caucuses.

But without a "caucus strategy" it's just winning hearts and minds one by one. And despite this "Western turn" and the hope to do surprisingly well on the backend in March, that doesn't mean Paul thinks the launching pad states can be ignored:

"You know, my dad didn't lose because of dishonesty," said Paul. "He lost because he didn't get enough votes. Ultimately, you do not have a winning strategy unless you win primaries. It's a great ancillary strategy to win caucuses, but we will work very hard in February to win or place very high in the first four primaries. If you don't score very high, it's hard to go on."

Advertisement

NEXT: The FBI Is Investigating Whether Hillary Clinton Violated the Espionage Act, According to Fox News

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. Caucuses are certainly better for a candidate who has less money to spend but inspires more devotion among his base, and that describes Paul well. In theory the Western part of the nation could be particularly receptive to Paul’s campaign, but that should also be true for New Hampshire I’d think, and he’s not doing well there so far (it’s early, but the most recent poll shows him falling to a very concerning 3% there).

    Under performing in fund raising hurts a candidate in this early stage. Paul should think about something like the fund raising ‘bombs’ his father engaged in soon, a successful one could raise his profile which is important right now.

    But also, he’s got to define himself. He seems to be struggling to out-anti-immigrant someone like Trump, out-religious-right someone like Cruz, or out-pro-military some of the other candidates. It just doesn’t seem believable to those crowds. I think Paul had his biggest following when he challenged the NSA. This recent court decision has brought that back into the news, he needs to find someway of bringing his opposition to that back into the limelight in a big way.

    1. Your analyses are as trenchant as always, Tulpy-Poo. Tell us more about what you think. It’s just so fascinating.

      1. I realize you don’t want anyone to steer this forum away from being your personal facebook page to being, I dunno, an actual site where the first major libertarian potential presidential candidate’s strategy might be discussed, but it’s interesting you continue with your ‘you’re Tulpa!!!’ line that even sociopath Warty has backed away from lately. Do you need this forum for your social needs that pathetically badly?

        1. I know, right? What kind of loser would come on a message board and not talk about what I want to talk about?

          1. I pretty much always talk about what the root article is about. It just seems respectful of my host, you know?

        2. Fuck off, Tulpa. You are absolutely an adult virgin.

          1. Like all college students, as your experience tells? lol

            1. And you walked back the ‘Bo is Tulpa’ the other day, are you, in the face of Epi, walking that back too? I’d say ‘pathetic’, but in regards to you a qualifier would be needed.

              1. So, Tulpa, do you even have a PhD? Or was that a lie too?

                1. OK, do you deny you walked back from the ‘Bo is Tulpa’ the other day? Or are you so enthralled with Epi you feel today you have to run with it, because he, lazily as usual, said it?

                  1. I don’t expect an answer from Warty, unless my question is ‘hey Warty, what’s your best workout routine?!!!’

                    Notice that Epi and Warty really have nothing to say about the topic of this thread: Rand Paul and his chances. Libertarianism and the realistic candidates for achieving it just aren’t on their minds. They’ve got tv shows to talk about, workout routines to brag about (on the internet!), and such. Libertarianism is something that kind of gets in the way of that, you can just handwave it with some hyperbole now and then, and then get the discussion back where it belongs: my social life.
                    Pathetic.

                    1. “workout routine”

                      /Grandmother

                    2. “yoga workout”

                      /hillary

          2. But it’s at least trying really hard to score with Jackass Ace.

            1. You’re such a partisan moron you don’t see I’m disagreeing with him.

      2. What? You don’t blindly accept analysis from a rank amateur and race baiting leftist? I can’t believe it.

        1. Goodness, you’re still on about the ‘race baiting leftist?’ Really touched a never there with you I guess. I asked you then, I’ll ask you now, unless you’re just flinging stuff on the wall hoping something sticks, how am I a ‘race baiting leftist?’

          1. OK, let’s go with ‘flinging stuff’ then.

      3. Fuck you, Epi-Pussy. You’re here to derail any semi-cogent discussion in favor of your shitty little vapid quips about nothing.

        1. Hey, ButtFuck, you aren’t licking those cankles hard and fast enough. What is up? Hillary looking like a loser here, it’s all your fault. Now get to those tongue exercises and lick those cankles!

          1. How does that Jeb Bush penis taste? Texas fake military man? Or more like a mayonnaise?

        2. Hi shill. How does it feel to suck Dem cock 24/7? Do you at least get paid well for it?

          1. How does Trump/Bush/Cheney cock taste?

            Let’s stack chairs, bitch.

    2. Yeah, but what time is your Jewish girlfriend showing up to give you a ride to the game?

      1. My girlfriend hates baseball. But then, again so do most people.

        1. By girlfriend do you mean a girl who lets you spend time with her, buy her stuff, and take her places, but, then, doesn’t have sex with you?

          I’m pretty sure that’s what you mean.

          1. Hahahhaahaa, bwahhhaaahhaaaa. GF, lol, right. People who have girlfriends actually have an obsession of posting on sites where they know everyone else disagrees with them and constantly makes them look like the stupid retard that they are, because they are far below the intellectual class they are trying to attack.

            How sad.

            1. I hope you’re not drinking in a Manhattan hotel; you’ll go bankrupt at this pace.

              1. I’m at home in good ol Balmer hon. Drankin but not going broke. Feelz good, dranks moar!

          1. As if any of our wonderful peoples would willingly consort with such cretins.

  2. I get emails from the Rand Paul campaign, and I have to admit…a bunch of shit on a tax plan that won’t go anywhere (even if I agree with it), defunding planned parenthood and anti-immigration stances don’t really speak to me. Nor does making references to the groundswell of Tea Party support he had in 2010. I don’t oppose much of what he sends out, but it’s not stuff that speaks to me, either.

    I don’t know what Paul can do. What is the Republican primaries about right now? Immigration. Trump made the entire shit show about immigration. Prior to that, ISIS and foreign policy crap with a lot of Republicans being hawks.

    1. What speaks to you is pillow talk.

      Admit it.

      1. I’m surprised that this article gives props to Palin’s Buttplug and no one has made an issue of it yet. This is just going to embolden him in future comment sections, you know.

  3. Rand Paul once met a bear in the woods. Rand observed the bear’s awkward gait, and could tell it was short-sighted. He approached the bear and punched it in the face. That bear is now the fiercest hunter on the range. Local Forest Rangers refer to the bear as The Terror of Lonesome Hill.

  4. Paul’s my guy in this race but he has the same chance as I do for winning the nomination. A big, fat zero percent chance. He’s run a terrible campaign and what the Hell happened to the dynamism he seemed to have a year or so ago?

    It’s a shame but that’s the way it is.

    1. I think because on some key issues, military spending, overseas interventionism, even immigration he is like all the others. I see him as a republican conservative who has some libertarian leanings. Reason has pointed out a few of his un-liberatian views. I have even read people on these sites that try, hopefully, to believe some of his stances are so he could get elected, that they weren’t, again hopefully, what he really believed. The former is bad enough, the latter just makes him no better than every other politician who will say anything to get elected. I believe it’s the former. I don’t think he’s the libertarian his father is, which is ok, he can believe what he wants, but he will never “stand out.”

      1. “I think because on some key issues, military spending, overseas interventionism, even immigration he is like all the others.”

        I don’t think you’ve studied his positions in careful detail at all and/or like to lump non-purists together.

      2. For the most part, I agree with your assessment of Paul’s overall political stance, although I’d say he’s a libertarian with conservative leanings but that’s neither here nor there. He’s not perfect but he’s better than any of the other candidates in the two major political parties.

        Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough is my overriding thought when I decide to support a candidate.

      3. Paul went from legitimate outreach to pandering in his pursuit of the minority and lefty vote. That was fine up to a point but it is no road to the GOP nomination. You’re supposed to pivot AFTER you get the nom.

        His Confederate flag comments would’ve been political suicide if his campaign hadn’t already collapsed.

        1. It’s clear SIV is a GOP shill. What does it say about the GOP that it would disqualify Paul for questioning the flying on public property of a flag designed to fly over forces fighting to preserve actual slavery?

          1. Are you saying the government were the real heroes that ended slavery? I call bullshit. They institutionalized slavery for 89 years, and took another 99 years to end jim crowe.

            Then, they indirectly targeted individuals through the drug war to further attempt to keep individuals they didn’t like down. And on top of that…..racial profiling.

            1. No. It’s obvious that the slaveowners themselves ended slavery. They realized that their property was based on theft, that it violated the non-aggression principle, and that it was economically inefficient to boot. But they were stuck. Subservient to a government that was institutionally demanding that slavery continue. You can imagine the relief they felt when people began to lobby for secession and formed a new government based on anti-state principles. And they were like – this close – maybe closer – to finally eliminating the government-imposed institution of slavery when that government invaded and started a bloody war to make sure that Jim Crow was imposed on the ruins of slavery.

        2. My issue with Rand has always been the pandering to the SoCons instead of maintaining a more libertarian stance and defending it, like his dad did.

          He’s still the best candidate, by far.

          1. “My issue with Rand has always been the pandering to the SoCons instead of maintaining a more libertarian stance and defending it, like his dad did.”

            Only a total idiot or someone who was locked in a cave during Ron’s runs could say this. You don’t think Ron pandered to SoCons (who are 1/3 of the GOP)? Lol.

            1. “Only a total idiot or someone who was locked in a cave during Ron’s runs could say this.”

              Isn’t your persona supposed to be a college student? So you were following Ron Paul’s political career when you were 12?

    2. Rand Paul is at less than 2% now. He told the few libertarians that supported him “Fuck you” in favor of Christ-Fag conservative assholes. He can rest easy now with his new pals who will never support him.

      1. You’re so cute, ButtieFuck, now admit that you love Hillary. Be honest, it will feel good.

      2. Rattfucking goldsucking peanuts!

        Funny how you and Weigel always reference polls.

        1. Yeah, only Weigel and me look at polls.

          Rand Paul is completely out of step with the GOP horde of greasy redneck racist asshole base. That is why he can’t get past 2%.

          Trump has tapped into it.

          Case closed.

  5. I side with Rand Paul, 82%. That’s seems about right

    http://www.isidewith.com/elect…..1289844107

    1. I got 91% Rand. Which was 13% higher than the next group of Perry, Rubio, and Walker which were basically dead even at 77% and 78%. Clinton and O’Malley were not surprisingly at the bottom well below everyone else. O’Malley was 13%.

      1. Carson and Cruz were right there as well with 73% and 74%. No one below those 6 count anyways.

    2. That quiz was simultaneously horrible and hilarious.

      94% Rand but “I side with Bernie Sanders on foreign policy, Marco Rubio on immigration, Cruz and Huckabee on social issues, Rick Perry on education and Scott Walker on the environment”

      I tried to give straight right wing anarchist “:party line” answers without over emphasizing my pro-life views and with a touch of hands off pragmatism on foreign policy. I think the Rick Perry/education comes from my answer that state residents should pay in-state tuition rates regardless of their US citizenship status. Scott Walker wants to abolish all government property and all subsidies? I’m not sure what happened with immigration, I guess I’m a closet cosmotarian. Huckabee and Cruz must oppose equal pay for women, like I do;-p

      1. Yeah, I saw some similar comparisons that were perplexing to say the least. I think whatever code they’re using to to that part of it is not working correctly.

        1. Just about anybody taking any form of quiz like this is going to think it’s working wrong. There’s nobody who knows your views as you do. We tend to exaggerate differences that observers from afar would consider hair-splitting. We’d say the same of them.

          1. That assumes people taking the quiz actually know something about the candidates.

            Most probably do know something due to selection bias. However, most Americans don’t have a clue about the what the candidates think due to rational ignorance.

      1. I got 83% Rand and now we got 50% trolls.

    3. I like these quizzes. I got 99% bernie sanders.

      1. Which, like the Bernster means ARE the 1%. Can’t fix stupid.

        1. you

  6. You know who else continued speaking his message and winning hearts and minds?

    1. Me

      1. Almanian, I’m willing to throw my support behind your presidential campaign (and the support of all the members of the Church of Jimbo). However, in return, I’d like the National Day of Prayer franchise and the right of first refusal on all Congressional invocations.

        * Make sure to delete this from your mail server once we agree on the details.

  7. Rand’s only hope is to go out on a high note with some flair, and thereby have a bit of influence in what issues are highlighted during the race. At this point Fiorina and Cruz are really the only hopes we have, and they are not great options.

    1. From all the times when I’ve heard Rand speak before he was running for Prez, he grabbed my attention with his well-reasoned, commonsense discussions. He always seemed to answer every question articulately and concisely and impressed the hell out of me.

      Yet since he’s been running for Prez, he seems to be trying to appeal to the Huckabee and Santorum supporters. Where’s that inspiring firebrand, who spoke to my free-market and liberty-loving soul?

      Instead, it’s Carly Fiorina who has been the compelling speaker and capturing everyone’s attention. I don’t really like her otherwise, though, and the Republican-hating press will have a field day with her past corporate screwups and other missteps if she actually gets any closer (or gets the VP nom).

      Rand, why couldn’t you have stayed yourself, you’d be doing a lot better. I’m not sure which nitwit adviser told you that pandering to the SoCons would be the best strategy for the most libertarian GOP candidate, but perhaps you should fire him or her and go back to what made everyone like you in the first place?

      1. “I’m not sure which nitwit adviser told you that pandering to the SoCons”

        Evangelicals are like 1/3 of the GOP electorate. I think he was just trying to cut losses and not make sure they were adamantly against him. He was often quite principled in talking with them (focusing on not sending money to ME factions that were persecuting Christians there for example). It’s a pretty honest and reasonable mistake.

      2. Who sent Ron back to Congress every two years? Who sent Rand to the US Senate in KY?
        Who voted for Ron for president in 2008 and 2012? Who do you need to get the GOP nomination, particularly when you’re essentially running on the “far right”?

        Ditching the evangelicals and SoCons leave a libertarian-leaning candidate with GayJay’s numbers. All the libertarian-leaning congressmen who get elected do it with the enthusiastic support of a good sized block of those voters you say Paul was “pandering” to.

        1. “Who voted for Ron for president in 2008 and 2012? ”

          Not Socons, they went for Santorum genius.

          Ron Paul’s support in his presidential runs was different than what he got in his home district.

          1. I mean, anyone who was working those campaigns who doesn’t see that, well, college and independent voters didn’t provide more meaningful support for Ron than SoCons is blind and deaf.

      3. From all the times when I’ve heard Rand speak before he was running for Prez, he grabbed my attention with his well-reasoned, commonsense discussions. He always seemed to answer every question articulately and concisely and impressed the hell out of me.

        Central reason why he won’t win. Ever.

    2. I agree with everything you said.

      1) Paul should triple down on NSA, drug decrim, free association, bring troops home, etc. Go down swinging and bring these things to the forefront at least a little.

      2) I like what I’ve seen of Fiorina in terms of how sharp she is, and I want to know where she stands on the above issues. I’m not saying these things will be discussed in the next “debate”, but I’m pissed she’s being froze out of it. If the Repubs had any balls, they would use their influence to get her in.

    3. In a country with millions of voters, nobody will ever have great options except for the few people voting for themselves as candidates. Each of the candidates for prez probably thinks, “Good thing I’m running, because nobody else would be adequate for me.” & remember there are literally hundreds of declared candidates for that office alone. Consider some of those others & you’ll be very glad that one of the major choices is going to be elected instead.

    4. The best that libertarians can hope for is Sanders. That way the inevitable economic downturn can be safely blamed on socialism.

  8. The fact that Rand’s poll numbers are inferior to his Dad’s confirms a suspicion I had about the Ron Paul “Revolution”: it was mostly personality cult mostly composed of undergrads and others looking for something to hang onto but have since mostly moved on.

    1. How crazy is it to think that Ron Paul would have a better ability to run a ‘personality cult’ among college students than Rand?

      Rand’s tried to walk a line between his father and the establishment. Like many candidates that try to walk lines he’s found it’s hurt him in what should have been his for the asking while not helping him a whit with the other. He should have appealed to his father’s base while just not saying the nuttier things his father did.

    2. I think the rise of ISIS also torpedoed his momentum. People were coming around to his less aggressive foreign policy and anti-surveillance state views but the barbarians have scared the piss out of a lot of people. It’s mostly an unfounded fear but people aren’t always rational.

      1. It would be great if he just said, “FFS people, 10 times as many Americans died in the past year in car accidents than got killed by Islamists in the whole history of the country. Is it really worth sacrificing the Bill of Rights over this?”

        1. Well, if our team will win, then of couse! What? Bill of Rights, what is that? Where do I sign to get rid of that? Go team!

          /desperate leftist trolls at Reason

          1. “Well, if our team will win, then of couse!”

            Wow, such drunken desperate flinging. Remember I started out tonight saying Paul should laser focus on NSA. But none of what’s actually said matters to Hyperion, he’s fighting what he sees as a ‘leftist’ contamination of his fav conservative gabfest site. There’s no principle or intelligence there.

        2. Well, Ayn Rand Variation, the thing is that sounds very much like the late-’90s Salon view: “Why are we so worried about terrorism? More Americans are killed by lighting and bathtubs!” Which may have been true, until 9/11… when it wasn’t true any more.

          1. nine
            eleven

            I lived it. I can see the new buildings from my window. Yet I’m more worried about the IRS and NSA and the pigs than I am of the Moosslims. Do you realize any clown can walk into the Port Authority or Penn Station or Grand Central Station at rush hour with a bomb and take out thousands of people and there’s nothing we can do about it? Why doesn’t this happen every day if the Mooslims are such a threat?

          2. Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not an apologist for that shitty religion and don’t want to come across as some peacenik appeasing prog. I’m just saying that what we’ve given up in the name of fear is not worth it. Yes, the fuckers have won.

            1. I’m not arguing for the TSA and ubiquitous NSA snooping, if that’s what you’re thinking. But I am worried about ISIS.

    3. A lot of Ron Paul’s support was 9/11 truthers and other – well – crazies who were only weakly ‘Republican’ (registered for caucus but then left). As well as people who almost enjoyed turning off everyone in real life who might possibly be interested. Who thought that a candidate could win merely by swamping online polls. The most anti-Dale Carnegie grassroots group I’ve ever seen.

      Those folks aren’t getting the same ‘code’ signals from Rand Paul – and every other grassroots group in the GOP still has memories of how annoying the Ron Paul supporters were. So Rand isn’t getting the same support – but still has all the unfavorables/caps

      1. You’re correct that a lot of Ron Paul’s support was weakly ‘Republican’; many were also weakly ‘libertarian’. A few of the literate ones have written articles about libertarianism for Salon.

        Libertarians can be offputting, even repellent, to country club Republicans. Despite Reagan’s statement that libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism, it really is a very different thing from conservatism.

    4. I don’t think Ron Paul was capable of inspiring a personality cult. Ron does have a personality, and I think he’s a genuinely good guy based upon my own experience. However, I don’t think anybody would characterize his personality as charismatic. I’ve been a Paul supporter since about 1980, but I have never thought his speeches and interviews were particularly engaging or clever. Instead, my support for Ron Paul was based on his consistent application of the limited government principles of the US Constitution and his advocacy of the ideals of Rothbardian libertarianism.

  9. But then again, it might not be people not giving Rand a chance or Rand not getting his message out there – maybe people just don’t like Rand and everything he stands for. A bunch of people who can’t understand how the hell anybody could possibly vote for Trump or Hillary or Bush or Obama might not have a clear idea of what people want. Maybe the problem isn’t that the libertarian message isn’t getting out there, maybe the problem is that people are rejecting it. Fuck ’em, they can all go to hell and I’ll wish them godspeed. Just don’t try to make me get in the truck or tell me I have to chip in for the gas.

  10. (we all have our theories)

    1. The “brain trust” was distracted and disrupted by that little federal indictment thing.

    2. Rand is either getting some terrible advice or making the worst possible decisions on his own.

    3.He seemed to lose ambition and interest even before his poll numbers dropped. Roughly about the same time he failed get big backers like Thiel or the Kochs

  11. He’s not getting press attention? Is there a conspiracy? No, you just chose to forget that today, money equals speech. And Paul has none. You know why Kasich is making headway in New Hampshire? He’s spending money there, and Paul can’t.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/…..hampshire/

    You loved Scotus saying money equals speech, and it’s your bed…lie in it.

    1. You make a good point.

      About half of posters here depart from ‘libertarian orthodoxy’ when it comes to immigration, veering towards the conservative position. Their grounds is ‘ok, there’s maybe a right to move and associate here, but we’ve got think that in the long run it undercuts liberty over all and oppose it.’ But that can just as, probably more so, be said, about campaign finance: rent seekers are always going to be more motivated to pour money into an election and they are of course not interested in anything like actual liberty. But nary a peep in criticism of the ‘libertarian orthodoxy’ on campaign finance can be found here. It’s so much easier for conservative-leaning posters whose raison d’etre is more ‘stick it to the Democrats!!!!’ than anything else to pay cheap lip service to the Paul’s, or even the LP’s, campaigns and just go with what seems to them to be bad for the Dems…

      1. It always amazed me that libertarians loved Citizens United. You know who will always have enough money from donors? Both the Dems and Reps. But libertarians? Nope. From the article about Kasich;

        “But in New Hampshire, he has pulled into third place behind Donald Trump and Ben Carson, making him neck-and-neck with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, according to a poll from The Boston Herald and Franklin Pierce University.”

        You need money now if you lag in the polls. Paul is doomed.

        1. You shouldn’t make the mistake that most regulars here are libertarians in any meaningful sense.

          This place has had quite a few anti-Obama and administration articles in the past years (as it should be, he’s light years from libertarian values). They have light registration restrictions, and sometimes you get a strange thing where a traditionally left-leaning magazine’s website becomes the home to a really fanatical, hardworking group of right-leaning libertarians (that’s too generous in many cases) and a core of just lonely people who use this site as a ‘meet-n-greet’ social site.

          Any person who has worked on actual LP campaigns, trying to get LP candidates on the ballot and such, knows to be a bit suspicious of something like Citizens United and how it was going to work out. Rent seekers are always going to be two-party whores, and they’re the most motivated and able to donate big sums.

          Having said that, there’s a principle at stake. Restricting advertising with men with guns is something I can’t support. Paul should counter with ‘money bombs’ and taking advantage of major current events.

          1. Money won’t by itself determine who will win for sure. But lack of it will eliminate fringe candidates. And Paul is that… Fringe. And libertarians are fringe. IMHO they should have been looking to make elections about ideas as much as possible. Instead, Reason for some reason wanted to make elections even more about money.

            1. There’s a principle at stake. It’s hard to stake out a position on the importance of personal responsibility and liberty and then be for arresting someone for exercising that liberty by putting an ad out. Surely you can think of things that might make things better for the candidates that you think will further, overall, the good but which could violate your principles and so you won’t support?

              1. To me, it’s as if Reason lost grasp of the old adage that money corrupts. They can chose not to believe it if they wish, but then they would be foolish. It always has, and always will. It would serve everyone’s interest to level the money playing field as much as possible, because money can dwarf ideas. This is particularly true when you are the underdog. And Paul is that.

                Brian above says Paul “is getting his message out,” as if that is the key component. OK then, you know who is getting their own messages out even more? Those who have money. Like Kasich in New Hampshire.

                1. You’re dodging what I asked. Do you think people should ultimately be arrested for running political ads?

                  1. I’ve got to go, but I’ll note you never answered my direct question.

                    1. Note away, but you would be wrong. I answered. Didn’t know I was on a time limit. Watching the Met game as well as responding.

                    2. holy shit, a duopoly of derp, bo and joe, the empire is lost….

                    3. Looks like they shut down computer access at the Institute at 10:00

                  2. I think there should be limits on how much they can spend. There already is jail time for improper use of money in other areas of society, so I’m not adverse to it here as well.

                    1. I think elections should be conducted like a cross between conventions & jury service. Nobody who’s sought candidacy publicly outside the room is eligible for office. Nobody’s allowed out until the body comes to a decision.

                      Failing that sort of reform, I propose campaign spending be made irrelevant by a massive amount of gov’t-provided media available to all candidates for all offices. If that means certain media are given over 24/7 to politics for the month before the election, so be it.

                    2. The 1st amendment says fuck off, joe.

              2. The only problem with Citizens United is that it didn’t force transparency – ie it is a 1st Amendment issue if people can’t voluntarily combine in order to effectuate their freedom of speech. Remaining hidden while doing that however is merely a corruption issue.

                In theory, yeah lets get money out of politics and get rid of wholesale politics and go back to retail politics. In practice, there is only way to do that and that is to increase the size of legislatures by 5 or 10 fold. To reduce district size so that wholesale politics loses much of its advantage. And in the process, raise the costs to rent-seekers that same 5 or 10 fold. Tell me when the LP comes out in favor of that. The only people I’ve spoken to who immediately understand this are people from New Hampshire (who have a huge legislature) and Greens

            2. Fringe?! He’s a US sen. If you want to see fringe candidates, look at the other hundreds of FEC-filed presidential candidates.

              However, it’s true that people respect $. When people find out someone has a lot of $, they tend to pay more att’n to that person even if that $ isn’t being spent at the moment. I’m not referring only to politics, but life in gen’l.

          2. You two morons have really figured it out. Bravo.

        2. about Kasich

          Kasich needs more name recognition, though.

          I propose a sticks-in-your-head slogan for a bumper sticker that will immediately get his name remembered by all:

          Hey Bitch! Vote Kasich.

          It rhymes!

          1. Actually, it’s pronounced KAY-sik.

            1. Go back to East Berlin you commie. In this country we pronounce “ich” like “bitch”. You can say you pronounce it as when you say “ich bin ein berliner” but we don’t kowtow to that here in the good old U. S. of A.

  12. It really cracks me up when people who have permanently lost their legitimacy go into a flailing and failing attempt to restore what was never really there.

    Now, let’s talk about Rand.

    1. *Rimshot*

  13. It’s too early to talk about Rand. Don’t underestimate this guy. He’s playing his hand well and knows what he is doing.

    Regardless, I am probably learning for Rand remaining in the Senate rather than becoming a POTUS who will have little control of anything because he won’t take part of the shameless bypass of Congress that Obama enjoys trying so much, and then having everything that happens for the next 4 years blamed on libertarians for the next 40 years.

    1. “I am probably learning for Rand”

      Holy cow, are you really regularly drunk at this time of night?

    2. There’s also the possibility that he’s settling in to something of a long game. That is, a serious enough candidacy this year but knowing he’s got little chance. At the same time building a base for next time. It’s not uncommon for nominees to run two cycles before they win the nomination.

      I know there’s no proof for this next statement but I honestly don’t think Obama thought he would win the nomination when he started to run in 2008. I think he was positioning himself for 2016. But then, shit happened.

      1. “But then, shit happened.”

        Yup, the turd sandwich won.

  14. Wow, the leftist trolls are engaging in a love fest of stupid. I am shocked!

    1. If by shocked you mean ‘bothered’ or ‘worried.’

      Reason is, currently and traditionally, a magazine of the more leftist tilt of libertarianism. For your more yokeltarian leanings, try Mises.

      1. Reason is, currently and traditionally, a magazine of the more leftist tilt of libertarianism.

        I’ve been a subscriber to the dead tree version of Reason since 1976; I have been reading it since it was black & white on newsprint. You are, as always, out of your depth and completely full of shit.

        1. Cue the pampers ad.

  15. If there’s ever been a thread on H&R that has been overran with desperate leftist losers, this must be it. I guess even they, as dumb as they are, know that their queen Hildebeast has fallen, never to be resurrected again. The tears are salty and sweet.

    1. Pathetic flinging.

  16. I love it when trolls come right out and admit it that they’re leftists. So predictable, LMAO.

  17. Tulpa shit this thread up pretty quickly.

    1. His wicked witch queen is melting. Cankles and all. No more cankles to lick makes leftists freak out.

      1. If you can ever, ever point to me making a positive statement of Hillary, I’d like to see it you pathetic flinger.

    2. I like parrots, do you?

  18. Jackoff Face AND Botox. Welp, see ya.

    1. Only missing Tony and Shreek for the perfect retard circle jerk.

      1. GO TEAM RED! GO GO GO!

        GO BUSH! WE LOVE JEB!

    2. “Welp, see ya.”

      Run, Forrest, Run!

      1. The point of that movie was that even someone who is mentally retarded could have a good life, as long as he follows conservative principles. Forrest joined the military, became an entrepreneur, and loved the same woman his whole life. The people who surrounded him–all democrats/liberals, mind you–lived miserable lives.

    3. I think Bo just tried to call you retarded, or maybe insinuate you banged a chick with with AIDS.

  19. Hillary supporters are shitting their pants. I really wish they would go somewhere else to do it, so that adults can discuss issues without being attacked by senseless race and ideologically based hatred.

  20. Enjoy playing with the troll(s), kiddos. I’m going to read a fantastically soporific book on the crusades that I got on the kindle store for $2 and then hopefully get to sleep in past 6.

      1. The Crusades by Thomas Asbridge. It’s not bad, but it pours me right to sleep.

        1. Sleep is good.

          1. My wife and son are in Memphis at grandmas, I’m going to sleep til like 8 am tomorrow.

            /I’m old.

        2. The Christfags are the good guys, mostly.

          1. All we really need to know is if those heathen infidels came from Eurotardia to South Murika before the Vikings discovered Canuckistan and defeated the Atlanteans.

            Just messing with you bro, remembering our discussion last night. Nice, troll free discussion.

            1. Sevo kept calling me a Bleever. I think he’s in the “cultivated sweet potatoes hitched a ride to Polynesia on a bird around 1000AD ’cause we all know those wogs are too dumb to sail to anything bigger than a dead corral reef or a volcano”.

              1. “Sevo kept calling me a Bleever’

                Yeah, that’s when the conversation is over. He gets…. weird…. about anything he thinks involves ‘religion’. Even if it doesn’t.

                I once mentioned something about the Historicity of Jesus …… and it turned into poop throwing in about 3 seconds because if you say “jeesus”, well that means you’re a Bleever.

                1. *GILMORE*|8.28.15 @ 10:47PM|#
                  “I once mentioned something about the Historicity of Jesus …… and it turned into poop throwing in about 3 seconds because if you say “jeesus”, well that means you’re a Bleever.”

                  Your memory is rather selective, G. You spent hours claiming that I was somehow nasty for pointing out there’s no evidence while you kept claiming it really didn’t matter to you.
                  Protest too much? Only by the gallon.

                  1. from the link

                    “There is “near universal consensus” among scholars that Jesus existed historically,[8][9][10][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] “

                    you referenced nary a one of them in your “NOPE. BLEEVER”-poop flinging.

                    I’m not making a big deal about it. It just is what it is.

                    And I don’t care. Its not even a subject i’ve spent more than a few hours on.

                    the issue of potential pre-columbian polynesian contact with latin america is probably more interesting.

                    1. *GILMORE*|8.28.15 @ 11:43PM|#
                      “There is “near universal consensus” among scholars that Jesus existed historically,[8][9][10][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] ”
                      you referenced nary a one of them in your “NOPE. BLEEVER”-poop flinging.”
                      Why would I reference bleever opinions minus any evidence?
                      As I recall, you referenced several of them in your “I REALLY DON’T CARE BUT YOU’RE A POOPY HEAD FOR BEING REAL” poop-flinging.

                      “And I don’t care. Its not even a subject i’ve spent more than a few hours on.”
                      I can tell, since every time it is mentioned, you spend time dragging up various gossip in support of what you don’t care about.

                    2. How old are you?

                    3. *GILMORE*|8.29.15 @ 12:05AM|#
                      “How old are you?”
                      What’s your eye color?

                    4. Brown.

                      Could you answer the question?

                    5. *GILMORE*|8.29.15 @ 12:08AM|#
                      “Could you answer the question?”
                      I’d rather not, since it is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.
                      So, no.

                    6. Apparently you didn’t notice that *you* were the issue at hand.

                    7. *GILMORE*|8.29.15 @ 12:15AM|#
                      “Apparently you didn’t notice that *you* were the issue at hand.”

                      Only to those bent on supporting bleefs absent evidence.

                    8. Well the “old-man-prone-to-juvenile-spasms” will have to remain just a hypothesis then.

                    9. *GILMORE*|8.29.15 @ 12:29AM|#
                      “Well the “old-man-prone-to-juvenile-spasms” will have to remain just a hypothesis then.”

                      Help yourself; you seem to be totally lacking in the knowledge of what constitutes evidence so any damn fantasy you invent will do as well as any other. Some gossip said it’s true!
                      I’d say I’m on much stronger ground with “bleever hopes to find some reason to discredit reality”. And blame messenger at the same time.
                      Sleep tight, G; that skydaddy is looking out for you!

                2. “I once mentioned something about the Historicity of Jesus ”

                  Oh, and that link?
                  When you find any evidence in it, please let me know:
                  “There is “near universal consensus” among scholars that Jesus existed historically”, strangely absent any evidence
                  And
                  “The sources for the historicity of Jesus are mainly Christian sources, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources have been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.”, so bleever X says junior existed ’cause Y, but bleever Z says Y isn’t true, but he had to exist, given A, and the circle-jerk continues.
                  Evidence, G.

                  1. you made the same dismissal last time even though i’d already pointed out the Tacitus thing

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

                    Not that i care. But you keep patting yourself on the back for being so reasonable while never actually reading fuck-all about anything.

                    1. *GILMORE*|8.28.15 @ 11:46PM|#
                      “you made the same dismissal last time even though i’d already pointed out the Tacitus thing
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

                      Sorry, noting that some people talked about something a hundred years after the supposed event isn’t “evidence” and you know it. That is convincing to bleevers; not to anyone else.
                      ———————————————-
                      “Not that i care. But you keep patting yourself on the back for being so reasonable while never actually reading fuck-all about anything.”

                      Again, protest too much? You damn betcha! Tell, me oh learned reader, where I might find some EVIDENCE of this amazing creature.
                      Speaking of fuck-all ignorance, you’re approaching the gold.

                    2. see what i mean?

                    3. *GILMORE*|8.29.15 @ 12:03AM|#
                      “see what i mean?”
                      Yes, you have no evidence. That seems to be what you mean. Oh, and you mean you hope some one believes it really doesn’t mean much to you, right?

                    4. You’re right.

                      How old are you?

                    5. *GILMORE*|8.29.15 @ 12:07AM|#
                      “You’re right.”
                      Thank you.

                  2. Sevo, random question, but do you believe that Attila the Hun and Socrates were real people? Or are anyone who accepts their existence from second hand accounts ‘bleevers’? In your world, if the description of a real person is only passed down by oral tradition, do they simply not exist?

                    Have you considered the fact that your own interpretation of Jesus’ historicity is a product of your own, clearly anti-Christian bias? It almost seems like you have an axe to grind that ruins your objectivity on the subject?

                    Sincerely,
                    An Atheist (Please, no ‘bleever’ nonsense)

              2. SIV|8.28.15 @ 10:38PM|#
                “Sevo kept calling me a Bleever.”

                Yeah, that’s because you are.

            2. Here you go:

              OK survey of pre-Columbian contact theory

              Has a lot of problems and doesn’t cover the Portuguese stuff I was talking about

              1. Well, bleever, that’s what we were talking about. I really love this stuff, I am a complete nerd on history. But when the Portuguese arrived in Brazil in 1500, they found a culture barely more advanced that the Stone Age. To have found a more advanced civilization, they would have had to go a lot more north and west to Peru, which the Spanish found in the early 1500s and the Mexicans, which the Spanish ran into in the early 1500s. There is really no indication of advanced civilizations that I’ve heard about, ever discovered in South America, south of Peru. Oh, and back on topic, no Europeans are known to have arrived in SA prior to the year 1500 give or take a few years.

                1. I’d have to look for it to refresh my memory but there are some strong hints the Portuguese had mapped/charted a good bit of the East coast before 1492.

                  1. SIV|8.28.15 @ 11:35PM|#
                    “I’d have to look for it to refresh my memory but there are some strong hints the Portuguese had mapped/charted a good bit of the East coast before 1492.”

                    Yeah, ‘refresh your memory’. And cite some evidence.

              2. SIV|8.28.15 @ 10:44PM|#
                “Has a lot of problems and doesn’t cover the Portuguese stuff I was talking about”

                Yeah, there’s a reason for that. From the link:
                “The scientific and scholarly responses to other pre-Columbian contact claims have varied. Some such contact claims are examined in reputable peer-reviewed sources, while other contact claims?based on circumstantial and ambiguous interpretations of archaeological finds, cultural comparisons, comments in historical documents, and narrative accounts?have been dismissed as fringe science or pseudoarcheology.[3][4]”
                I’m still waiting for evidence. Got any?

        3. Only a sociopath would find the Crusades boring.

        4. Warty|8.28.15 @ 9:44PM|#
          “The Crusades by Thomas Asbridge. It’s not bad, but it pours me right to sleep.”

          Dunno what to say. The Amazon reviews rave about it; it’s in my shopping cart.

        5. Thank you, my to-buy list is growing.

    1. Thanks for reporting in on your night! It’s critically important, unlike Rand Paul’s current campaign!

      How much you donkey squat, college virgin!!!!?????

      1. Say, bitch

        Vote for Kasich

        1. You’re talking to a die hard Hillary supporter. Forge it.

          1. You’re a fucking Jeb Bush boy!

            1. I sort of like you, ButtFace, you amuse me.

    2. You seem to enjoy it.

  21. My impression of Ron’s campaign was that it was less about winning then it was about moving the conversation closer to him which I think he was able to do. It seemed like the same candidates that were calling him crazy in the first debate pretty quickly saw that a lot of the GOP base were responsive to what Paul had to say. At least enough that they had to show his ideas more respect. The fact that he said what he believed was what gave him the support that he did have. Rand on the other hand does want to be president and it seems as though he’s trying to play not to lose which is often a good way to lose. Your not going to beat the true believers at their own game. He needs to differentiate himself not blend in.

    1. He is what he is. A Repub with some libertarian tendencies, which makes him the least worst thug in the gang. A full on no free shit/ free association libertarian has no chance of sniffing the presidency. Most people would would shit their pants and curl up into a ball if they were really free.

      1. Even for those that might consider it for themselves, freedom is not worth the price of not getting to tell everyone else how they should live.

      2. I like Rand. I think that I probably like Amash and Massie both better, but neither has the political skills and name recognition that Rand has.

        1. And neither are running

          1. Unfortunately

            1. Think about office politics. I’ve worked with very small and very large organizations, and there is no escape from it. Now imagine you just arrived in Congress as a newly elected Senator or Rep. It might help a lot if your dad worked for the company for the last decade and had been considered for president.

              1. Oh yeah, name recognition is huge. If we could find a tall, halfway decent looking libertarian with the last name of Kennedy to run we would be golden. Most people have no clue about the issues.

                1. I don’t like Rick Perry, but I know women who wet their panties at the site of him. Since it’s basically a beauty pageant, I wonder why he gets no traction while Bush was able to win twice?

                  1. Rick Perry has some serious political skills but they don’t seem to scale up well.

                2. How about Kennedy? Does it count as a last name if it’s her only name?

                  1. She could single-handedly destroy Americans desire to ever watch television again if she were in one of the debates.

              2. I got swallowed up by it at an investment bank. I have zero political skills and they ate me alive. I honestly don’t know how those people sleep at night. ( That’s one of the things I said in my exit interview)

  22. The trolls are starting to slip up in their incestuous like defending of each other and their timing for showing up here. I see patterns. I’m having an epiphany…, lists are being made, names taken, patterns noted. The NSA ain’t got shit on me! Ok, let me rephrase, as a Reason poster, I’m sure they got lots of shit on me, but my analytical and data analyisis + web skills are second to none. Trolls, be gone, and please be free to jump off a cliff now, and die!

    1. Trolls = escaped the GOP Plantation.

      1. Shut up. You know there is no GOP plantation. There is only a Democrat plantation. Now go count your stock market losses and lick cankles, you’ll feel better.

      2. “Trolls = escaped the GOP Plantation.”
        Trolls =
        turd; licking D ass always, and an ignoramus besides.
        Tony; mostly the same, more inventive in lies and straw men.
        Commie kid; truly dismal in attempts to satarize positions taken or supported here.
        trueman; sophomoric tries at ‘profound’ posts, regulary self-contradictory.
        Bo; insufferable twit who is probably here in that any meat-time is dangerous.
        tulpa; hopes to appear as ‘profound’ as trueman, fails.
        Jack; preacher of the end times, but strangely unable to tell us when we’ll see the rapture.

  23. Seen on TheHill.com:

    Warren/O’Malley 2016

    She can make it rain. He can tax it.

    1. I’ve been saying for years (ever since she spoke at the last Dem convention) that she would be the next Dem nominee, and I’m sticking with it. Hillary is toast, and since they have to run a woman or a black person, she’s the only option.

      1. I don’t know. She’s pretty unseasoned. But some people are saying Biden/Warren.

    2. I had to look up the second half of the joke

      “O’Malley didn’t hit just the rich with his tax hikes; everyone from Ocean City to Cumberland felt the pain. The state sales tax rose to 6 percent and was applied to an increasing number of items. On the campaign trail, O’Malley may come to regret his infamous “rain tax,” which imposed a fee on property owners due to storm water management efforts. “‘

      1. Wow, only 6%? You Charm City folks have it made in the shade.

  24. I would like to confirm the existence of another female libertarian. That’s right. I saw her tonight with me own two eyes at the Reason LA event. She slipped in, drank most of the beer, made some decent small talk, and dipped out. It was like seeing the great white whale. Doyers out.

    1. “She slipped in, drank most of the beer, made some decent small talk, and dipped out.”

      YOU DIDNT GET A PHOTO!??!

      1. She swung her arms like Bigfoot, she did! Only kidding, but I wasn’t in a creepshotting mood. Gillespie was on patrol.

        1. it would have been good if you’d staged an intentionally-blurry shot to go with the story

          1. I only creepshot drunk bitches at bars.

            1. lol, no i meant a completely fake prosthetic device to make the story funnier.

              as in, “IN SEARCH OF = FEMALE LIBERTARIAN”

              i watched that show in my formative years. And i thought it was hilarious then.

            2. Oh, and Los Doyers, to hell with Clayton Kershaw and your Dodgers. 14 strikeouts! At least Rizzo went deep off him.

              Hopefully Lester can step it up tomorrow and the Cubs can salvage a bit of this West Coast swing.

              1. Eh, y’all are facing Latos. He’s shown promise this year, but I won’t hold my breath. As long as the Giants lose and die, that’s my motto.

  25. Donated blood yesterday. A few hours later went drinking with some prog coworker friends of mine who thought it a fine idea to alternate between red and white wine. One guy says to me, “You’re a Trump fan, right? I mean, he’s an extremist like you”. I woke up with a raging hangover and I don’t think it was due to the lack of blood.

    1. ” One guy says to me, “You’re a Trump fan, right? I mean, he’s an extremist like you”. I woke up with …

      if it were me, that would have ended with, “blood all over me and small pieces of glass embedded in my palms…i spent the morning piecing together potential explanations for people who might not have been there”

      1. Bigby. I like it.

    2. Hopefully you didn’t skewer him with a shish ka bob skewer. J/K

  26. Rand is too Republican for libertarians and too libertarian for Republicans.

    And you’re never going to win the Republican primary by ignoring terrorism. Not when there’s seemingly an incident (always “isolated”) every couple of months. You won’t convince them by saying them it’s workplace violence or a lone nut, or by appealing to the fact that it’s less common than getting killed by driving.

    And did I mention Al Sharpton? Black lives matter, but sucking up to Al is not the way to convince anyone of it.

  27. Fucking Ars technica man. They’ve become as bad as Scientific American – both the writers and the commenters.

    http://arstechnica.com/science…..get-loans/

    This guy actually has the temerity to say –

    DOE officials shouldn’t have had to read documents that carefully to spot discrepancies, as there shouldn’t have been discrepancies.

    As if that’s enough. Oh, its not the DOE’s fault, they were *over-worked* and these meanies at Solyndra took advantage of them and *lied*.

    Solyndra executives lied to DOE officials to get loans.

    Welp – I guess that completely exonerates the DOE then. I mean, how could the DOE possibly get information on the technology and business plans of the companies that are begging them for money from any place except the companies themselves.

    I mean, its not like the private sector lenders passed on these loans because the risk was shite.

    Its not like a casual survey of the state of the tech at the time would show that the company would never see an ROI without massive government subsidies. That the Chinese were already able to compete with a comparable product at a lower cost.

    These are just poor schlubs at the DOE doling out hundreds of millions of dollars of public money in loans – how can they be expected to actually be *accountable* for all that money?

    Due diligence – how does it fucking work.

    1. I don’t know. I sort of get why this happened. You got an organization staffed to handle the care and feeding of one major project by the end of corporate year. Suddenly, mid-way through the corporate year, you have five or 10 major projects to take care of by the end of the year. You can’t hire anybody because by the time you train them the corporate year will be gone. You can’t borrow anybody else from elsewhere in the company because they are similarly swamped. You suddenly need to start answering questions from 3 management levels up because their good friend who works for the company applying for one of the new projects is wondering what is taking so long. You can’t skip any steps because that would cause big problems and many more meetings that would take more time than doing the steps in the first place — even if the steps are unnecessary. You can’t say your group can’t do the job because their are five people who think it can — and they are either your boss or want your job. And if you don’t do your job perfectly you will get complaints from people who no idea of how to do your job who “know” they could do your job better.

      For the record I’m not saying they didn’t fuck up. They did. The real problem lies with upper management who gave them a task any idiot would have known they couldn’t complete.

      1. Yes, upper management of the DOE. But still, this loan app should have been ringing alarm bells for any semi-competent loan officer.

        The very fact that they are *at* the DOE asking for money should mean that this loan program is already well staffed to handle sever scrutiny of the applications. So when an applicant *lies* (because, gosh – people lie to get money) there’s someone who will catch it.

        Sure, they got an influx of ‘stimulus’ money – due diligence would have required them to not spend it until they were sure.

        DOE bowed to political pressure – and so heads should roll at that agency. At the very least they shouldn’t be *defended* by anyone.

        1. A couple of things.

          This organization existed before Obama. You can’t tell me when the President of the United States says he wants to give a lot more guaranteed loans in a specific area a lot more companies would not apply.

          Secondly, government money does not exist forever. I’m betting this was one year money. So it had to be spent by the end of the fiscal year or it would lost. And in the government it is a mark against the organization if they don’t spend all the money given to them.

          So you are right the, DOE bowed to political pressure. Why would heads roll at an agency that did what it’s bosses wanted?

          In all honesty I’m not really defending them. I like to think I’m more explaining how this could happen. I’ve said for years the government acquisition system is designed to maximized schedule and costs. This is just part of that.

    2. I see this as a textbook example of why a government simply cannot competently run a Keynesian stimulus program.

  28. Von Die Freie Staats Nachrichten

    Ihre Papieren, bitte!

    It’s not America if we have checkpoints on the roads.

    1. They were authorized by a judge, so that makes it okay.

  29. Former Pennsylvania State Trooper turned firearms trainer sentenced to two weeks in jail for accidentally killing a state trooper

    Prosecutors found Schroeter did not follow critical steps to ensure that the firearm he was teaching with was completely unloaded.

    Kedra’s family said after the sentencing they were disappointed with the light sentence and said Schroeter should have faced stronger charges.

    “We don’t believe he was charged with my brother’s death,” Kedra’s older sister Christine said on Friday.

    Since Schroeter’s arrest, the Kedra family has said they believe he should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter. However a grand jury ultimately voted against pursuing the felony charge and instead recommended prosecutors charge Schroeter with five counts of recklessly endangering another person.

    Immediately following the hearing members of Kedra’s family confronted prosecuting attorney Samantha Cauffman saying that she could have done more to secure a longer jail sentence for Schroeter.

    “It’s OK if you accidentally shoot somebody if you’re a cop that’s the message I got,” Christine Kedra said after the hearing.

    She said anyone else under the same circumstances would be more severely punished.

    I’m going to be classy and not comment on the bolded part.

    1. I liked this part:

      The commonwealth in this case did everything we could have done to see David Kedra got the justice that he deserved as a victim as well as justice for the defendant’s conduct. I believe that was served with today’s sentencing.”

      Two weeks.

      1. Here’s another good one:

        In court, David Kedra’s older brother Kevin asked Montgomery County Court Judge Garrett Page to impose a just sentence. He said his family has been torn apart from the loss of David Kedra.

        “There needs to be accountability,” Kevin Kedra said. “For the past year I’ve watched my family fall to pieces.”

      2. So the killer is a “victim” now? Christ on a cracker.

    2. This discharge happened as the department was switching from a Glock pistol to a Sig. This link (it is not well-written, but it provides many links to other stories) explains why the department was switching from Glocks to Sigs.

      Spoiler: many discharges, including this gem:

      The pregnant wife of a Pennsylvania state trooper and her unborn child died in their home Friday afternoon ? possibly the victims of a tragic accidental shooting by the law enforcement officer.

        1. Ahh… “and nothing else happens”:

          None of the troopers who have had negligent discharges have suffered career consequences, let alone criminal charges. In the tragic Miller case, some have complained that, because Miller was a trooper he got a deal a normal Pennsylvanian wouldn’t get. The prosecutor disagrees, criticizing Miller rather strongly, while not charging him.

          1. So an average non-LEO could reasonably hope to be strongly criticized by the prosecutor, rather than charged, after “accidentally” killing someone?

      1. Are the dumb thugs leaving their Sigs in single action mode? Maybe they went out for a donut when the instructor was teaching “decocking”.

      2. possibly the victims of a tragic accidental shooting by the law enforcement officer.

        Weren’t they certainly the victims of a shooting by the cop, which may possibly have been accidental (or possibly not)?

        Or is there some controversy about who actually shot them?

  30. An action before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court could result in AG Kathleen Kane losing her law license.

    Multiple media outlets are reporting the board which files disciplinary action against attorneys in Pennsylvania has filed an action against embattled Attorney General Kathleen Kane that could result in the loss of her law license.

    The action filed with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, first reported on by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, would likely seek to suspend Kane’s law license. Without a license, Kane, a first-term Democrat, would be forced from office.

    Also from the story, sometimes the government does enforce grand jury secrecy:

    Patrick Reese, the head of Kane’s security detail, has also been charged with violating a court order by gaining access to secret information from the grand jury investigating Kane. Reese will appear before Montgomery County Judge William Carpenter on Sept. 9 for a hearing.

    1. Without a license, Kane, a first-term Democrat, would be forced from office.

      Why?

      1 – She’s an elected law enforcement officer. *Insanity* is not enough to get an elected judge off the bench.

      2 – She’s an elected law enforcement officer. There’s no need for her to have an attorney’s license, anymore than a chief of police or sheriff. Sure, she may not be able to appear before a judge to argue a case – but when would she do that anyway? She has a staff for that.

      1. From the PA Constitution:

        ? 5. Qualifications of Governor, Lieutenant Governor and
        Attorney General.
        No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor,
        Lieutenant Governor or Attorney General except a citizen of the
        United States, who shall have attained the age of 30 years, and
        have been seven years next preceding his election an inhabitant
        of this Commonwealth, unless he shall have been absent on the
        public business of the United States or of this Commonwealth. No
        person shall be eligible to the office of Attorney General
        except a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

        (May 16, 1967, P.L.1044, J.R.4; May 16, 1978, 1977 P.L.365,
        J.R.4)

  31. Neighbors report on some guys building a greenhouse, and the report leads to a pot bust

    Barbara Falk, 64, and Jerrold Graham, 53, each face a felony possession with intent to deliver and a misdemeanor possession charge after officers searched their home at 2294 Charleston Drive.

    The raid of the house was part of a joint investigation involving Ferguson Township police, the Centre County Drug Task Force and the state Attorney General’s Office. Ferguson Township police were made aware of suspicious activity at the home last September, when residents of the area called about a large homemade greenhouse that was built in the backyard.

    1. The raid of the house was part of a joint investigation

      It really was their lucky day! They were only investigating to find a joint, but instead discovered a whole farm. Just like hoping to get a beer and walking into a brewery.

  32. OT:
    For a normal, decent person, an apology starts the healing process; it demonstrates that an error has occurred and helps the two parties resolve things and move forward. To an SJW, though, an apology is like blood in the water?it’s an acknowledgement that the SJW was correct to attack, and an invitation to attack further.”

    1. I followed the link to the Amazon page for Vox Day’s book. I was not surprised to see some of the negative reviews attacked him and not the book.

  33. Socialism is good at entrenching itself once it’s established, so not quite.

  34. Rand went belly-up with any centrist-liberals when he made a bunch of noise about defunding Planned Parenthood.

    It didn’t even by him any Tea Party cred because Donald Trump offered up the magic words: “Mexican Boarder Wall” and they flocked to his side.

    He probably made inroads with Conservatives who love welfare, though. Someone’s going to get stuck feed the unwanted kids.

  35. If anyone thinks Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio and maybe even Carson, Walker and Fiorina are going to be dropping out of this race after the first few states, they are stupid! There are a lot of candidates with a decent amount of support, who all have enough money to stay in this for the long haul and Rand Paul is certainly in that mix. The thing is, if this goes all the way to the convention, this could be a race like nothing we have seen in recent history and who knows what happens then. Maybe there’s a conservative block that gets together and we nominate the most conservative candidate for once, instead of drifting to the mushy middle. Rand Paul 2016!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.