Election 2022

From Pat Toomey to Dr. Oz: The Pennsylvania Senate Race Reflects the GOP's Descent Into Madness

Donald Trump's staying power and the decline of fusionism are on full display in this primary race.

|

Usually, when a twice-elected senator retires from politics, at least some of the candidates hoping to fill his seat will attempt to position themselves as the heir apparent—the one man or woman who can hold the coalition together and continue the party's winning streak.

And in Pennsylvania—a crucial swing state that could determine the Senate majority next year—a place where Sen. Pat Toomey is the only Republican to win multiple statewide elections since the start of the Obama administration, you might expect someone to try to follow in his footsteps. Or at least say something nice about him once in a while. But when six of the GOP candidates hoping to replace Toomey met for a forum in the suburbs of Harrisburg last weekend, they barely mentioned Toomey's name at all—and when they did, it was only to complain.

Toomey engaged in "the ultimate betrayal" when he voted to convict former President Donald Trump for Trump's role in instigating the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, declares Sean Gale near the end of the forum, in which each of the Senate hopefuls was asked about his or her views on Big Tech, Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, China, and America's most recent ex-president. (The field is nearly unanimous in holding unfavorable views about the first three, but strongly favorable opinions of the fourth.)

Per the agreed-upon rules of the forum, the six candidates are forbidden from attacking one another directly—so Gale turns his fire toward someone who isn't present. He says the Pennsylvania Republican Party shirked its responsibility by refusing to censure Toomey—as other state parties did to Republicans who supported impeachment, like Rep. Liz Cheney (R–Wyo.)—and wraps up by declaring that Toomey is no better than Arlen Specter, the Republican-turned-Democrat who Toomey, then a hero to Pennsylvania conservatives, helped oust from the Senate in 2010.

It's a blustery day outside, but you don't have to leave the confines of the Penn Harris Hotel to judge which way the political winds are blowing.

"President Donald Trump is the best president this country has ever had," Gale bellows. He's not the only candidate to earn applause for expressing that sentiment during the event.

Gale is a fringe candidate whose campaign is more noise than substance. Even so, his blistering attack on Toomey is revealing—mostly because of what wasn't said. If not for Gale, the 90-minute forum would have passed without a single mention of the twice-elected sitting Republican senator with a long track record of supporting conservative policies and deep ties to the very political convention where the event was taking place. While the six candidates on stage tripped over one another to prove their MAGA bona fides, none of them made even an implicit attempt to frame their candidacy as a third term for Toomey. Each professed a desire to win Trump's endorsement; none even mentioned the current senator—except to call out his "ultimate betrayal" of the former president.

Toomey is the negative space in the Republican primary in one of the most important Senate races in the country. You can see the outline of what a pre-Trump conservative candidate in a purple state would look like by drawing a line around everything that this GOP primary field—which includes a television personality, a real estate mogul, a former state boxing commissioner, and a hedge fund CEO—isn't.

None of this is unique to Toomey, or to Pennsylvania. Republicans in Congress who voted to impeach Trump are either gone from the national stage or on their way out (with perhaps the rare exception of Sen. Mitt Romney in Utah).

More broadly, Toomey's retirement and the clown car of candidates seeking to replace him are a useful microcosm for understanding the demise of the longstanding conservative-libertarian alliance on the political right—and the political staying power that the defeated former president has within conservative circles. Someone is going to win the Republican nomination for Senate in Pennsylvania, but it's not going to be someone capable of filling Toomey's shoes.

In fact, they're not even trying.

***

Any politician who doesn't die in office eventually outlives his or her welcome with the voters. And the conservative activist class has been particularly quick to turn on its one-time darlings in recent years—particularly when an incumbent appears to have sold out his values or tarnished his voting record.

What's happened with Toomey is a little different.

As a congressman in 2004, Toomey nearly toppled Specter in a Republican primary battle that was a prelude to the "tea party" insurgency later in the decade. Toomey, then 42, was described in a New Yorker profile of the race as "a conservative Republican of rigorous doctrinal purity: anti-abortion, anti-taxes, anti-spending (except for defense); a fiscal hawk, appalled by big deficits, a crusader for school choice, tort reform, Social Security privatization, and a smaller federal government." With the backing of then-President George W. Bush, Specter won a narrow victory. Six years later, with primary polls showing Toomey leading a potential rematch by a wide margin, Specter switched parties in the hopes of preserving his spot in the Senate. He failed.

That background is essential to understanding the Toomey-shaped hole at the center of this year's Pennsylvania Leadership Conference (PLC), an annual gathering in the Harrisburg suburbs that attracts hundreds of conservative activists, politicians, and personalities, along with plenty of would-be and has-been officeholders. Think of it as the Keystone State's equivalent of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the national gathering that's been a launching pad for the political careers of just about every anti-establishment Republican since the Bush era.

But while CPAC has become an increasingly cartoonish bacchanalia dominated by fringe elements of the right wing, the PLC mostly remains a meat-and-potatoes gathering of conservative activists focused on policy rather than personalities.

It's a little weird, as all such gatherings are. It's the type of place where you're likely to turn away from a conversation about the importance of the 10th Amendment and bump into someone wearing a Trump T-shirt and hawking fake hand grenades full of hot sauce (an experience I had this weekend). But this isn't a MAGA rally by any means; even on a Saturday morning, there are far more suits and ties wandering around than there are red baseball caps.

For decades, this has been—or at least was—very much a home game for Toomey. Fresh off his near-miss against Specter, Toomey gave the keynote address in 2006. He delivered another keynote at the conference in 2009 just prior to announcing his bid to challenge Specter again. Lowman Henry, president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Leadership Council, the nonprofit that organizes the event, estimates that Toomey has made more than 10 appearances over the years.

Once the recipient of thunderous applause in the main ballroom, now it's difficult to get anyone to talk about him—and not just on stage. Privately, many longtime conservative activists gathered at the PLC this past weekend will praise Toomey's principles and voting record. Some will even say they agree with his vote to convict Trump for January 6—but such statements are kept off the record and uttered only in hushed tones.

If Toomey has sold out, though, it doesn't show up in his voting record. Toomey's votes during the most recently concluded session of Congress were more conservative than fellow Sens. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) and Tom Cotton (R–Ark.), according to Voteview, a project of political scientists at UCLA, the University of Georgia, and New York University that attempts to rank members of Congress ideologically based on their voting records. Toomey has been ranked as one of the 10 most conservative senators in every session since 2010, according to Voteview's analysis. He was a proponent of Trump's failed attempt to repeal Obamacare and helped write the 2017 Trump tax cut bill—but he also voted against using public funds to build Trump's border wall and was one of the Senate's most vocal critics of Trump's tariffs and other anti–free trade policies.

All of that is in line with small-government principles, but those principles occasionally clashed with Trump's agenda.

Toomey's always been a "strong fiscal conservative," says Curt Schroder*, a former Republican state lawmaker who now runs the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, a legal policy nonprofit. But, he adds, "the political landscape in Pennsylvania has shifted" under the senator's feet.

Perhaps that's why conservative activists no longer see Toomey as one of their own. An April 2021 survey of 3,000 political activists—that is, people who had been local party chairs, run for elected office, been paid political staffers, attended political rallies, or donated to a campaign—conducted by FiveThirtyEight, HuffPost, and YouGov found Toomey rated as one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate.

"A politician's support for Trump has come to define who party activists think of as conservative," wrote Dan Hopkins, a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, in his analysis of that poll for FiveThirtyEight. Along with Toomey, Sens. Mitt Romney (R–Utah) and Ben Sasse (R–Neb.) were similarly rated as fairly liberal despite their conservative voting records. Meanwhile, the activists polled ranked Trump as more conservative than all but 10 of the politicians in the survey, "despite his ideological heterodoxies," Hopkins noted.

That fits with Gale's attack on Toomey. The senator's "ultimate betrayal" was not the selling out of his principles or his ideology, but his willingness to vote against the interests of Trump—even though Trump was already out of office when the second impeachment trial occurred, and even though Toomey's vote changed nothing about the outcome of the proceeding (Trump was acquitted).

"The impeachment vote aside, I've always said I don't know how you elect a more conservative senator than Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania," says Henry. "And if you look at his record he is one of the most conservative members of the United States Senate."

But the impeachment vote can't be set aside, it seems. Toomey, who declined to be interviewed for this piece and has avoided commenting on the race to determine his replacement, had already announced in October 2020 that he wouldn't be seeking reelection, so it's not accurate to say that the impeachment vote ended his career. If anything, Toomey was freer than many of his colleagues to vote his conscience about the events of January 6.

For what it's worth, Toomey has publicly disputed the notion that Trump has altered the very definition of what it means to be a conservative.

"People know that in Congress and in the Senate there have been Republicans who have been, let's say, much more deferential and loyal to Donald Trump than I've been. People get that," Toomey told The Philadelphia Inquirer earlier this year. "Donald Trump has been seen as arguably one of the most aggressive and vigorous warriors against the left, and he was joined in battle. And so to some degree, the guy that's taking the fight to the other side most aggressively, it's easy to have a shorthand if the only choice you give a respondent is, 'Is he conservative?'"

But there's little doubt that whoever emerges from the seven-way contest to become the GOP Senate candidate in Pennsylvania will have more in common with Trump than with Toomey.

***

The Republican primary on May 17 will determine which of the seven GOP candidates in the field will be trusted to defend Toomey's seat in November. That's an open seat in a swing state in a year when the Senate is divided 50–50, so it's not a stretch to say that Pennsylvania voters might very well get to determine the Senate majority for the next two years.

To put it mildly, the race is not a contest to see who can be the biggest critic of big government.

Indeed, Saturday's candidate forum kicked off with a question from Pittsburgh-area talk radio host Rose Tennent that seemed to reject out of the hand the idea that conservatives should seek to shrink government at all. "Big Tech definitely needs to be held accountable," Tennent told the candidates. "What would you propose to do, if you were elected, to break up that monopoly?"

"The only way for us to fight back is to take out Section 230," said Mehmet Oz, the longtime host of The Dr. Oz Show, referring to the portion of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that is widely considered "the internet's First Amendment," because it ensures that websites can allow users to communicate freely without fear of being held legally responsible for what might be posted. These days, some conservatives (incorrectly) blame Section 230 for allowing social media companies like Twitter to remove posts or ban users—like, for example, a certain former president—even though there is nothing in the law that mandates viewpoint neutrality from online platforms. It is a rare situation where the culture war feuding that drives much of contemporary conservative politics intersects with actual policy.

Oz doesn't elaborate on what an internet without Section 230 might look like—but, after all, miracle cures have always been his schtick. He claims the law was written "to ostensibly protect new companies that were like fax machines so they weren't responsible for the paper coming out of their machines." Seemingly aware that this makes little sense, Oz quickly pivots to argue that Section 230 "has been used and weaponized" to allow "sex trafficking children, because they can hide behind Section 230"—though it is never exactly clear who "they" are. One gets the sense that Oz's candidacy is not based on a deep or thoughtful understanding of federal telecommunications policy.

With his background in television, his tenuous grasp of policy, and his ability to bullshit his way through any topic while seeming charming, Oz is at first blush the obvious quasi-Trump in the field. But there's actually robust competition for that title. Carla Sands, a former soap opera actress and California socialite who married real estate mogul Fred Sands and took over as CEO of his empire when he died in 2015, is eager to remind the crowd that she was Trump's pick to be ambassador to Denmark (too bad for her that deal to buy Greenland fell through). During the forum, she draws a big round of applause for calling Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter founder Jack Dorsey "modern-day totalitarians" and later declares that "there is no doubt Donald Trump was the greatest president in our country's history."

When policy and principles are sidelined, politics is about little more than personality. Sands and Oz have plenty of it, and since there's no voting record or signature set of policy ideas for which they can be attacked, their opponents are mostly left to point out the fact that neither of them is much of a Pennsylvanian.

Oz resides in New Jersey, though he's claimed throughout the campaign to be living at his parents' home in the Philadelphia suburb of Bryn Mawr. Sands is the prodigal fresh princess of Bel Air—she was born and raised in Pennsylvania but spent most of her days since 1987 in California. She recently sold her homes in Malibu and, yes, Bel Air and bought a condo overlooking the Pennsylvania Capitol in Harrisburg, according to the Associated Press.

There's a third carpetbagger in the race too: David McCormick, a veteran of the George W. Bush Commerce Department who now runs hedge funds after stints at McKinsey and Bridgewater, high-powered films with loads of political connections. He's a resident of Connecticut and the only candidate not to appear on the PLC stage—prompting the others to sling barbs about how there must be too much traffic today. He's the leader in the polls, though a seven-way primary race is difficult to poll accurately, and both Oz and Sands could also lay claim to being the front-runner.

There's also George Bochetto, the former Pennsylvania boxing commissioner, who proudly reminds the assembled crowd that he was one of the lawyers who helped organize Trump's legal defense during his second impeachment trial. And Kathy Barnette, the Army vet and Fox News commentator who narrowly lost a Pennsylvania congressional race in 2020. And there's Gale, the attorney who condemns Toomey and pledges to be a "disruptive force" in the Senate by modeling himself after Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas).

In more normal times, this might be Jeff Bartos' race to lose. A real estate developer from the Philadelphia suburbs and a longtime Republican fundraiser who is coming off an unsuccessful bid for lieutenant governor in 2018, Bartos says he would welcome Trump's endorsement wholeheartedly, but his campaign has an old-school vibe to it. He raised millions of dollars to help small businesses hurt by COVID-related lockdowns and talks a lot about the importance of community, a nice throwback to when Republicans valued individual action over state power.

But he's not shy about using state power, either. "We must remove Section 230 or we should otherwise break up Big Tech companies through the antitrust process," he says.

It's also worth mentioning that one of the reasons why the field is so wide open—and why each of the candidates is angling so hard for Trump's favor—is because Trump's endorsed candidate, Sean Parnell, dropped out of the race in November after allegations of spousal abuse leaked out during a messy divorce proceeding. Like I said: clown car.

"None of the Senate candidates are pitching themselves as [Toomey's] heir apparent because the Trump base, in particular, is in an uproar over Pat's votes on impeachment," Henry, the PLC organizer, helpfully summarizes.

Fine. But is it too much to ask for one of them to try to be something other than a facsimile of Trump?

Toomey was an avatar for the strand of small-government conservatism that briefly dominated the Republican Party in the wake of the Bush presidency. That strand might be properly understood as the final form of fusionism; the last evolution in the decadeslong alliance between the cultural conservatives and free marketers who originally joined forces during the Cold War. Now, in the wake of the Trump presidency, it seems there's little or no room in the Republican tent for those voices. That's a loss for libertarians, who could rely on politicians like Toomey to be, at least most of the time, skeptical about exercising state power and growing the size and cost of government—even if it meant putting up with less than ideal social policy in some cases. It means fewer voices in Washington willing to stand up for values like free speech and the importance of free markets. 

But it's likely also a loss for conservatives, who are discarding a vital part of their political coalition in order to chase the dragon of Trump's narrow 2016 victory. Yes, Trump was the first Republican to win a presidential race in Pennsylvania since George H. W. Bush* But he lost one too. In a place where Republicans generally have to fight an uphill battle to win statewide elections, Toomey is one of only two members of his party who have won multiple statewide contests in the 21st century. (The other is Tom Corbett, who was elected twice as attorney general in 2004 and 2008 before winning one term as governor in 2010, but he's perhaps even less of a Trumplike figure than Toomey is.)

Isn't that a model worth considering when control of the U.S. Senate is at stake?

I asked Schroder to engage in a thought experiment: If Toomey were a member of Congress with his exact same opinions and voting record—including the impeachment vote against Trump—and he were now one of the candidates running for this open Senate seat, against this field of competitors, would he have a chance of winning the GOP nomination?

"Whether he could win today," the former state representative pondered for a moment, subconsciously stroking his mustache. "I'm just not sure."

CORRECTION: This piece was updated to correct the name of former state Rep. Curt Schroder, and to clarify that George W. Bush won Pennsylvania in 1988.

NEXT: Koch Network Smeared as Pro-Russia for Suggesting Sanctions Might Not Work

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. Indeed. The GOP's transformation from the party of neocon preemptive regime change wars (early 2000s) into the party that supports totally insane ideas like "border enforcement" has been nothing short of tragic.

    #LibertariansForABetterGOP
    #PutTheNeoconsBackInCharge

  2. I don't follow the ticky-tack politics, so I didn't know Toomey voted to impeach Trump. Which impeachment did Toomey support? If he supported the first impeachment, then I think it was Toomey that was descending into madness.

    1. Technically he never voted to impeach-impeachment happens in the House. He voted to convict after January 6.

      Here's the thing-once the facts about Jan 6 started emerging and it turned out that the rioting at the Capitol started before Trump's speech ended, it became very difficult to claim that Trump incited it. The problem isn't that GOP Senators "betrayed" Trump, the problem is that they came down as anti free speech through the result of their votes.

      And after what happened in 2016, it's hard to claim that Trump did something exceptional for claiming there was election interference after he lost. The rioting at Trump's inauguration was about on par with the rioting 2020, but nobody was trying to impeach #Resist politicians.

      1. The rioting at Trump's inauguration was about on par with the rioting 2020, but nobody was trying to impeach #Resist politicians.

        I got to this and let's just say my eyebrows went up through the ceiling. "on par with 2020"? How many people did the rioters kill, how many buildings and businesses were burned to the ground, and how many federal, state and local governments gave the Jan 6 rioters material support?

        1. No, I think he meant to compare the January 6th riot to the rioting at Trump's inauguration, rather than the massively violent and destructive BLM/Antifa riots of 2020. And just messed up and wrote 2020 instead of 2021.

          1. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an 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... http://jobscash.tk

  3. I'm dumber for having read this.

    1. You actually read the intros to the comments?

      1. There were no comments when I started reading, so I was stuck with the article.

    2. I award Boehm no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.

      1. He has no soul. Giving into he progs consumes it. Progs are all soulless unclean things. At least metaphorically.

      2. His soul, fuck that. What about my soul for being exposed to this insane crap?

    3. I think sullum and Eric started fucking. I thought this was a sullum diatribe at first.

      It was bad.

      1. Didn’t check the byline before starting to read this bilge, and had to go back and see if it was in fact Sullum.

    4. Imma vote for the dude with the best forehead wrinkles, so I only have to look at the picture, don't need to read no article. Definitely the dude on the left.

    5. I'm not sure that's even possible.

    6. Reading Boehm’s articles does generally have that effect.

  4. the clown car of candidates seeking to replace him are a useful microcosm for understanding the demise of the longstanding conservative-libertarian alliance on the political right

    Sure, that's it. I'm sure that alliance was just going strong when certain prominent "libertarians" (hey, they play one on MSNBC) declared that libertarianism was not part of "the resistance" or insisted that "Cosmopolitanism is the essence of libertarianism". Or when libertarians started talking about the national security state as selfless public servants whose judgements are to be accepted implicitly. Or when said libertarians decided things like due process or the presumption of innocence could be ignored, as long as it was BadOrangeMan we were talking about.

    The libertarian establishment sold their souls. I suspect Pat Toomey's story is not much different.

    1. Don’t forget all the pedo-apologists.

    2. > The libertarian establishment

      No such beast has ever existed.

    3. the clown car of candidates seeking to replace him are a useful microcosm for understanding the demise of the longstanding conservative-libertarian alliance on the political right

      Hey, when your Libertarian candidate for president cozies up to a Marxist organization whose principal aim is "destruction of the nuclear family", then it's understandable why Biden becomes your preferred candidate.

  5. Go suck bidens cock you totalitarian cunt.

    1. I guess crazy people read libertarian sites, too.

      1. It's bohem. He constantly pushes on how everyone one should vote for democrats, and then is shocked when they do the stupid shit they listed on their website. As we are coming up to the midterms he is doing the same crap.

  6. There are no nutters in the Democrat party. None at all.

    1. You mean like the shining star of intellectual thought that is AOC?

      1. That stupid bitch actually has a pretty good shot at being Speaker one day. She is the future of the democrat party.

    2. Reason pushed the Russian conspiracy for years. No apology. No admittance.

      They pushed the J6 officers killed narrative for months. No apology. No admittance.

      They pushed the Biden is a moderate narrative for months. No apology. No admittance.

      They have pushed every major leftist narrative that has been wrong. But it is others that are crazy.

      1. Russian conspiracy is verified in the Mueller report.

        Officers did die on 1/6.

        Biden is a moderate. See AOC for a real progressive.

        Any more comments to add dumbass?

        1. "Russian conspiracy is verified in the Mueller report."
          Complete horseshit. Total nonsense.

          "Officers did die on 1/6." How many as a result of the riot? Oh yeah. None.

          "Biden is a moderate. See AOC for a real progressive." Biden has zero principles.

          Try again, dumbass?

        2. Exactly which officers died on J6?
          The only one murdered was Babbit, killed by an officer, who not only suffered no consequences but is back at work supervising other officers.

        3. Russian conspiracy is verified in the Mueller report.

          No, it is not. Categorically, unarguably wrong. The opposite is what was verified.

          Officers did die on 1/6.
          Of natural causes.

          Biden is a moderate. See AOC for a real progressive.
          This is so utterly batshit insane I don't even know how to respond to it.

          Any more comments to add dumbass?
          Painfully ironic...

        4. You’re a really stupid credulous faggot. Were you aware of that?

          1. The Russian-Trump collusion is confirmed in the Mueller Report and the the GOP led Senate Intel Committee Report of 2020.

            ") The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin directed the hack-andleak campaign targeting the DNC, DCCC, and the Clinton Campaign. Moscow's intent was to
            damage the Clinton Campaign and tarnish what it expected might be a Clinton presidential
            administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican
            nominee, and generally undermine the U.S. democratic process. The Committee's findings are
            based on a variety of information, including raw intelligence rep

            (U) The hack-and-leak campaign was conducted by the GRU through specialized cyber
            units, executed using established GRU infrastructure, and planned and coordinated by GRU
            headquarters elements. Starting in March 2016, the GRU used spearphishing techriiques to gain
            unauthorized access to the email accounts of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign,
            including Campaign Manager John Podesta, and stole thousands of emails. In April 2016, the
            GRU leveraged stolen credentials ofJsome of these individuals to obtain further unauthorized
            access to the networks of the DNC and DCCC, where it identified and carefully exfiltrated tens
            of thousands of politically sensitive documents from April through June 2016. 1112 The GRU .
            continued to conduct hacking operations to obtain additional material from accounts associated
            with the Clinton Campaign until at least September 2016.
            (U) The GRU quickly integrated the materials it stole during its hacking operation into
            an influence operation that relied on two primary fake personas-Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks-to
            promote and disseminate the hacked documents. The influence activities using these personas
            spanned June 2016 through the election, and included attempts to obscure Russia's responsibility
            for the hacking operation. 1113 In addition to publishing the stolen documents, the Russian
            personas used social engineering to seed information with specific individuals associated with
            the Trump Campaign. The GRU also relied on U.S. social media platforms and media attention
            for its influence operations.
            -WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian
            campai~knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort. The
            Committee found significant indications that Julian Assan e and WikiLeaks have benefited from Russian Govt support."

            https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

  7. But the impeachment vote can't be set aside, it seems.

    Of course it can't, because the only justification for impeachment was partisan animus. You vote to impeach Trump, you show yourself to be a cynic who thinks s/he can score points with...somebody...by recording a ridiculous injustice that doesn't even affect his office.

  8. some conservatives (incorrectly) blame Section 230 for allowing social media companies like Twitter to remove posts or ban users—like, for example, a certain former president—even though there is nothing in the law that mandates viewpoint neutrality from online platforms.

    Huh? Does this say the opposite of what you wanted? Or does "the law" mean everything aside from that section? I thought those conservatives wanted to mandate viewpoint neutrality, so that's why they were complaining.

    1. There is no government-mandated viewpoint neutrality imposed on private companies by the Communications Decency Act.

      Section 230 means that the private companies hosting posts/comments/peer-to-peer communications are not held liable for those statements.

      Both of those things are good things. Why should Reason be legally responsible for the pro-Putin insanity of Nardz? Or the pro-kill-the-Democrats statements of the Paleoconservative Mutual Admiration Society (or teachers-are-grooming-children or immigrants-are-rapists-and-murderers or abortion-is-infanticide or gay-people-are-pedophiles or any other hyperbolic hand-waving moral-panic idiocy)?

      And a private company being allowed to set standards for using their services is a bad thing ... why?

      Libertarianism is about decreasing, not increasing, censorship by the state. Which means that many things that are said or done by others will upset you. It is inevitable. It is a feature, not a bug. Because people shouldn't be forced to follow your worldview if they don't choose it for themselves.

      Which means a company can decide that leaving posts up that say that Covid vaccines magnetize the human body or that Democrats are Satan worshipping pedophiles who kill babies are bad for their business. And they can choose that people who constantly say insane, untrue, and inflammatory things aren't welcome on their platforms.

      Big Tech is a problem because, like any other effective monopoly, they are not constrained by competition. That is an essential feature in capitalism. Without it, capitalism doesn't work. Antitrust action is the way to allow the power of competition to contain and restrain abuses.

      So if you want to push for an antitrust approach, sign me up. If you want to dismantle protections for companies from content and actions that they are not a part of, absolutely not.

      1. What all of this ignores is the indisputable fact that government is leaning on social media to censor us, and they're gladly doing it. How do libertarians address that?

        1. Get rid of them. If you haven’t come to the conclusion that the increasing amount of Marxist authoritarianism inflicted on the American people can’t be resolved amicably, you’re delusional. These people can only be removed through decisive action.

  9. "the strand of small-government conservatism that briefly dominated the Republican Party in the wake of the Bush presidency."

    There never was any such strand. There was only hatred of Barack Obama, and a hatred of any program that was thought of as helpful to black people. Republicans under Reagan, Bush, and Trump all cut taxes but increased government spending, and increased budget deficits. Notice a pattern there?

    1. Confession via projection, as all leftists do.
      Eat a bullet, racist groomer.

      1. Eat a bullet, racist groomer.

        It's Venal Analman, quite possibly the biggest asshole 'round these parts. His one move is to swoop in with an incredibly stupid comment (e.g. to imply the president writes the budget legislation) then disappear as soon as his point is ripped to pieces. Right now he is squatting in a pile of his own shit, giving himself third degrees mastubatory burns while fantasizing about his intellectual prowess.

    2. "...Notice a pattern there?"
      Yep. Every one of your posts proves you are full of shit.

    3. WTF? Cutting taxes IS small-government conservatism. As for increasing spending - you have a point. That aside - if you're going to be against increased spending, don't whine about cuts to programs that are "helpful to black people."

    4. Are you talking about all the big spending democrat bills written by democrats in congress?

  10. It is remarkable to me that Republicans seem determined to blow the golden opportunity Democrats are handing them. Trump's influence will wane unless the Democrats nominate such a poor Presidential candidate next time that Trump actually wins again, which is possible.

    Libertarians, the most important voter access issue is not what the two parties are fighting over, voter registration requirements, mail-in ballots, gerrymandering. It is that third party candidates have higher barriers to ballot inclusion than Democrats or Republicans do. Changing this to level the playing field, and supporting ranked choice voting, are among the most important practical policies Libertarians could focus on.

    1. Yup. It's the Republican's election to lose, and it looks like they're doing their damnedest to lose it. The GOP is pure pandering now.

      They've got their base locked up. They always have. But they're about two inches away from calling the swing voter "a bunch of deplorables". Which if you recall is how Hillary lost the election.

      As some level you have to pander to the fringe. But you can't do it in a way that alienates the winning votes that you need to win. Because your fringe isn't enough to win the election. You have to move towards the center in the general, and I don't think the current crop of MAGA head candidates understand this.

      We are doomed to Biden presiding over a Democrat controlled Senate, and it will be the Pennsylvania GOP who gave him that gift.

      1. The Reps always pander to their base and fuck them in the ass when they get elected.
        That's why Trump beat 16 of the GOPe's finest. McCarthy and McConnell, besides redoing the office furnishings, wont do much to undo Biden's damage or bring about small government. They'll be too busy purging the Trumpers. The last GOPer who wanted to do something about the size of Government was Gingrich and his fellow party men tossed him over the side at the first opportunity.

      2. Vote Romney yelled the leftist posing as a libertarian.

        1. A leftist encouraging people to vote for Romney? Why would they? His voting record, like Konzinger and Cheney, is deeply and consistently conservative.

          1. The guy who tried single payer healthcare in Massachusetts? Yup, sounds conservative to me.

            If you're that far to the left, even moderates seem like MAGA types.

          2. You don’t know what a conservative is.

    2. Completely agree.

      1. Leftist concern trolling seems to have agreed on a narrative.

    3. Hey, a new leftist sock puppet.
      Not that it matters, since fabmonster is just the same hivemind as brandybuck and collectivistjeff.
      The fact you Falcons continue existing, and commenting, when you've fucked up the country so badly is an injustice.
      Cancer must be fought, and destroyed.
      Leftists are literally cancer.

    4. I'm a huge fan of ranked-choice voting. Breaking the power of the two major parties is the first step to getting more reasonable, rational representation by elected officials who will have to consider the middle of the voting pool, not just their base.

  11. Will someone just give me a party to vote for that actually spends only as much as it takes in and respects the constitution? No half measures. No "coldest molten lava pit in hell". No "at least its not as bad as XYZ". Balanced budgets, and a firm understanding of words like "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" mean.

    1. The only person you can vote for is massie

  12. Sooooo much whataboutism in the comments. People can't seem to handle how much of a flaming clown car the Republican Party has turned into.

    Like it or not, clowns like the Madison Cawthorns and the Boeberts and the MTGs and the Matt Gaetzs are on the ascendancy, and serious principled conservatives like the Toomeys are being drummed out of the party.

    Old and busted: White papers on privatizing entitlements so that they don't bankrupt the country.
    The new hotness: Twitter rants about how Biden is a MARXIST who is DESTRONG AMERICA

    1. Still waiting on your whole proof of Laura loomer as a white nationalist.

      Youre a leftist jeff. You call anything to the right of Mao to be a clown car while defending all the insane authoritarianism through moral justifications.

      Get the fuck back to rightwingwatch.com

      1. I’m hoping in his zeal to stuff more food into his pie hole that he ends up choking on a footlong.

  13. "Toomey engaged in "the ultimate betrayal" when he voted to convict former President Donald Trump for Trump's role in instigating the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol,"

    Trump's alleged role. Nobody has yet produced any evidence he actually played a role in instigating any of that violence. So far, the connections to the FBI are less speculative, and they're not exactly solid, either.

    1. When I read some of the "libertarian" columnists here, I often think I clicked over to DailyKos or something.

      1. Makes you wonder if Boehm has a side job writing for the moronic talking heads on MSDNC .

  14. I didn't vote for Trump and likely never will. That being said, I thought both impeachments were complete horseshit and not supported by the evidence, as a result I will not vote for any candidate that voted for them. They made their bed and decided to put politics ahead of justice, and they deserve everything that happens to them. Fuck off Eric. Didn't Boehm vote for Biden? Yeah, the GOP should completely follow his recommendations. Fuck Romney, fuck Cheney, fuck Toomey, fuck Murkowski and all those fucks, can you find a bigger group of losers who represent the opposite of what classical liberals and libertarians stand for (in the GOP at least)? Whatever fucking Trump was guilty of, Biden is ten times worse (at least).

    1. I also see Jeffy is back again today with his totally individual take that sounds almost exactly like what MSNBC said on the website today.

    2. other than the -didnt vote for trump - i totally approve this message!

      I preferred Mittens over Obama but boy he sure has shown his true colors lately... just so disappointing. all those you mentioned are worthy of the trash heap of candidacy.

      1. Mittens and his family are neck deep in the DC corruption so keeping those more complicit than his family in power serves him well.

    3. can you find a bigger group of losers who represent the opposite of what classical liberals and libertarians stand for

      The whole point of this article, is that at least as far as Toomey is concerned, his views represent pretty rigid adherence to what classical liberals and libertarians stand for at least on a few key issues, like spending and taxes, and yet they are being shoved out the door in favor of morons and grifters whose only policy idea is "how to destroy Big Tech".

      1. Yet he sold out in defense of an IC and deep state narrative propagated by the left.

        What don't you fucking get?

        1. Yes, I don't care how close you stick to classical liberalism if you vote to convict someone for wrong think, and support prosecutions based on little to no evidence, and dismiss exculpatory evidence, and do so based solely for political points, then in my book you aren't a classical liberal. If you ignore the tenets of basic justice, nothing else fucking matters. You could fart roses and cure cancer but if you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty, and examining the evidence rather than the polls, you're a shit bag in my opinion.

          1. I'm not sure if any of the people running for his seat are better or not, I haven't really examined it enough to say. I don't live in Pennsylvania, therefore I don't get a vote in it, and that is fine by me. Unfortunately, the one person I really want out of office in my state, doesn't run again until 2024. And I would not be surprised if Tester weasels out and retires before then.

            1. But I'll take Tested over Schumer any day of the week. Can't stand either of them, but Tester at least sometimes remembers who he represents. Schumer... Well, let's just say, I wouldn't buy a horse from him.

    4. Trump tried to blackmail a foreign leader to claim he was going to investigate a political rival using congressionally mandated aid.
      Yeah, sure, that's legal. Dumb ass with no morals.

      Trump tried to stop our electoral process so he could continue to hold office.

      Yeah, sure, that's legal. Dumb ass with no morals.

        1. which would make it pursuit of justice - not blackmail.

      1. No faggot, you’re confused. Biden blackmailed a foreign leader to fire the prosecutor that was a threat to his grift in that country. Trump just wanted to find out if this was indeed true,

        I can see where leftist trash like you becomes confused on the subject.

  15. Pathological liars are despicable, and legitimate targets.
    Boehm would be wise to end its pathetic excuse of a life now.
    We've about fucking had it with your totalitarian bullshit.

  16. Boehm needs to stuff his TDS up his ass.

  17. Eric still taking it up the ass from bad orange man. How's that biden thing workingbout for you eric?

  18. Those of you that can’t understand how bad this is and how ridiculous he Republicans are becoming. Trump couldn’t beat a senile joke like Biden - and now he’s got 1/6 hanging over his head in the minds of a lot of swing voters. Odds of him winning again are not great.

    So y’all with your Trump obsess are pretty much condemning us to rage great progressive future. Anyone other than Trump could pretty much put an end to it, but y’all are insistent on drinking the poison that is Trump.

    Yell at me all you want, but it ain’t me that’s paving the way for the progressives. It’s you.

    1. DeSantis is my (early) choice, if the libs decide to run another SJW.

    2. Who is drinking poison?

      You people calling out bullshit impeachment on political narratives as trump cultist behavior?

      Lol.

      What is worse. J6 or the treatment of non violent offenders and the actions of the J6 committee? Answer honestly. It will say a lot about your views.

      1. First of all you need to stop the bullshit about “you people”. I didn’t call any impeachment. I don’t support the progressives in any way.

        Trump lost because he had the self control of a five year old and enough voters got tired of his drama and bullshit. Losing only made it worse. The Biden administration might well be the most incompetent I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen back as far as JFK. But Trump is soooooo unappealing, and the blatant effort of so many Republicans to suck up to the guy is pathetic and embarrassing.

        Biden is giving the right a huge opportunity and the right is willing to piss it away over a guy who gives no shots about anything but himself.

        When AOC is VP or whatever you’ll be able to look in a mirror and be proud of your accomplishment.

        1. Sure, if you ignore the rules changes and the late night ballot dumps and the rest of the out in the open fraud. Go fuck yourself you complicit cunt.

          1. Only 2 dozen court findings of illegal election changes.

            Wisconsin investigating 40k nursing home votes (voted at near 100%! Including invalids and those determined to have living guardians!)

            Thousands of double voters in multiple states.

            Who cares.

          2. Also statistical consistency. A Biden win was inconsistent with every metric other than total votes, and within its own data.

        2. You are essentially defending Boehms take here by calling out J6 as hanging over his head. Everyone here condemned the riots for being riots and violent. But the actions since then in response to the riots have been far far worse. And that includes the weak willed conservatives who hopped on the anti trump train and lost all credibility for rights. And yes, your comments implies you are on that side of the issue. Your comment is solely about Trump and not the coordination of the state against him, the latter being way worse. You dont condemn that part at all.

          So yes, you are a part of it.

          The principles here are abuses of the state for political gain. Both impeachment were such. The j6 trials are such. Ignorijg these is way worse than liking some of trumps policies and not giving a shit about his words. Some of us don't elect people based on daddy figure issues.

          1. Bullshit. I think it’s silly and overwrought to call J6 an insurrection. People who simply walked in the capitol that day should have been fined and sent home. The few that did violence or actually intended to change the election results deserve worse.

            And Trump’s behavior contributed to the riot. Whether it was intentional or not I don’t know.

            Everything isn’t black or white. Just because I think you’re full of shit doesn’t mean I’m part of anything on the other side. Trump is repulsive. AOC and Biden and the progressives are repulsive. A pox on both of your houses.

            1. Wait wait wait, let me guess. Jesse pulled his "you didn't say you opposed X therefore you support X" schtick, right? Right?

            2. "...And Trump’s behavior contributed to the riot..."

              According to TDS-addled piles of shit like you.
              Fuck off and die; make your family proud.

            3. And Trump’s behavior contributed to the riot. Whether it was intentional or not I don’t know.

              No, it did not. That's a bald-faced lie. The agitators were the government and the antifa types. Trump DISTINCTLY said to not do anything violent.

              TDS is a bad disease. You may wish to see a doctor for it.

              1. This TDS-addled pile of shit is beyond treatment. He should simply fuck off and die.

            4. "...A pox on both of your houses."

              No, asshole, a pox on YOU, as an idiot incapable of discerning that Trump was doing better than any POTUS in the last century, given your affliction with TDS.
              Fuck off and die; the world will be a far better place. Fuck off and die painfully; you own part of droolin' Joe, pile of shit.

        3. "...Trump lost because he had the self control of a five year old and enough voters got tired of his drama and bullshit..."

          No, asshole, Trump lost because TDS-addled piles of shit like you have an adolescent focus on personality instead of results.
          Stuff your TDS up your ass.

          1. "results"

            What results? The only thing the admin actually did was a series of tax cuts engineered by Paul Ryan. Thats it. Nothing else was done. Even the Supreme Court ended up being a massive disappointment. So what exactly? A series of destructive trade policies?

            So fuck off with this holier than tho "I focus on results and not personality" bullshit. There are no results to speak off.

      2. "J6 or the treatment of non violent offenders and the actions of the J6 committee?"

        J6? Obviously? Did anyone else see the videos? Non-violent? Are you serious? I suppose the clashes with border police were doctored then? You criticize BLM but this is even worse. I dont understand how you all could be so fucking deluded from reality. You consume whatever crappy media you visit and ignore what anyone can see with two eyes.

    3. Trump against Covid, Fauci, Media, Twitter, Facebook and came up like 200,000 votes "short" of winning. Sure, he totally underperformed.

      Let's see Romney or McCain (and I think his decaying corpse would run a better campaign)_perform better against THOSE head winds. Damn, people really think ANY Republican would have one against that? Maybe, just maybe, Reagan. Ford, either Bush? Fuggadabout.

      1. Has any incumbent, in any race at any level, ever improved on their prior (victorious) vote performance by more than 15%... and lost?

        1. Or won Ohio and Foorida- and lost?

    4. The polling shows Trump beating Biden in a hypothetical match up right now.

    5. I can't imagine being so stupid that I'd sincerely believe the 2020 election was legitimate.

      1. Just so we're clear, your evidence is "derp that's a big number," correct?

      2. Sigh. Idiots. Your only evidence is that Trump repeated baseless claims over and over again. Thats it.

    6. It's a tough situation. You could run a Mitt Romney, but Mitt Romney lost on grounds of being an out-of-touch wealthy dweeb. (Apparently all he needed to do was put on a fat suit and pretend his IQ was 50 points lower.)

      The party is practically all base, but I suspect they would be happy to leave an increasingly senile Trump in a ditch in favor of some even meaner asshole who actually paid a little attention in college. At this point I think they have enough basic survival sense left not to actually nominate Marjorie Taylor-Greene for president, but this is all speculation. Ron DeSantis's gay past might come out for all we know, and that would be the end of that prancing princess.

    7. "Yell at me all you want, but it ain’t me that’s paving the way for the progressives. It’s you."

      We don't have to yell at you, you steaming pile of shit; it is YOU and you prove it every time you show up here attempting to justify your imbecility.
      Stuff is up your ass, and then fuck off and die.

  19. Oz is a vanity candidate. As for the other GOP hopefuls, someone should tell them that saying "Trump" like a trained seal isn't a qualification for office.

  20. Preface: Being on the opposite coast from Toomey, I don't know all that much about him.

    That being said: IF I was a Republican, it would make a whole bunch of sense to have a proven winner in Pennsylvania who seems to vote pretty solidly in favor of conservative issues than somebody who is attempting to ride on Trump's coattails.

    Part of me thinks these other candidates are simply wannabe Trumps. Sorry folks, for better or worse, and no matter what you think of him, there is only one Trump.

    1. You mean a proven winner like Amash and his self-destruction for the exact same reason, sucking marxist proggy cock?

      1. Yawn...

        1. Amash supported the totalitarian state fabricating cause in an attempt to frame a candidate for treason.

    2. Could it be, that 6 years ago Toomey was electable, but he no longer is, because voters now prefer policies closer to Trump and or Trump's style of pushing back?

      1. A reasonable possibility. I just don't think Trump is all that popular in Pennsylvania.

        And, while I would have voted for Trump over Biden if I wasn't living in Oregon (where he didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell), we had a quite a few wannabe Trumps running for congressional seats, and most of them were pretty unimpressive.

        1. Trump barely lost Pennsylvania in 2020 and won it in 2016. I believe he isn't particularly unpopular, especially outside Philadelphia.

  21. The left's new campaign slogan is "We support pedophiles!" and "Pedophiles make the best teachers"! and they are saying the right is descending into madness?

    1. What is the obsession with calling everyone pedophiles? Every issue involving children doesn't make those on the opposite side pedophiles.

      The only thing that makes someone a pedophile is having sex with a child.

      The only thing that makes you a supporter of pedophiles is supporting people having sex with children.

      Even an evidence-heavy example of pedophilia and those that support pedophiles (Matt Gaetz and the MAGA folks who enable him) doesn't expand to MAGA nation, writ large, or Republicans.

      Pretending that Democrats support pedophiles is disgusting on so many levels.

      1. Cindy, you're getting flak because you're over the target. Dems REALLY hate this attack, because they really have no defense against it.

        Here's the juice: if you're a teacher, and want to share stories with your 5-8 year old students about your sexuality, then YES, you are a pedophile, or at least grooming these kids to be easy targets for pedophiles.

        Own it.

  22. I mean, this has been going on for a while now.

    But hey- look at the comments here. The idiots and the fascists LOVE IT. It's not so much a problem of the GOP (besides being spineless shits) but their base which will gladly turn this into a Republican dictatorship as soon as they can. They're fine with a king so long as it's theirs. They're fine with insane anti-democratic laws so long as it targets the "other." Hell- look at every single law crafted in the style of Texas's abortion bullshit.

    1. Says the guy who supports a party in which prominent people are pushing Biden to ignore the SC and saying themar the next Republican senate should be ignored.

      Sure, pal, it’s the Republicans who want a dictatorship.

      How ‘bout you clean your own fucking house before criticizing the guy across the street?

      The tone of all of your posts show you to be an insufferable prick - you’re the Nardz of the left - so don’t worry about responding.

      1. Whataboutism!

        There's apparently no such thing as heterodoxy or classical liberalism (you know, fiscally conservative and socially liberal). You are either all GOP or all Democrat.

        One side is pure and decent and right. The other side is corruotion and darkness and evil.

        1. fiscally conservative and socially liberal

          Those are called "moderates". They're the ones who hedge their votes in one direction or the other, based on which way the wind is blowing.

          Social liberalism and fiscal conservatism do not go together. Period. Name a government program that's supposed to help the poor (social liberalism), that is "fiscally conservative".

          1. Social safety nets are quite fiscally conservative. You don't want starving poor children on your front stoop, so you give a little in taxes to feed them. Payment for service.

            I suppose rounding the poor up and feeding them to dogs might be cheaper, but that's where the "socially liberal" comes in.

          2. "Those are called "moderates". They're the ones who hedge their votes in one direction or the other, based on which way the wind is blowing."

            From my perspective, and I know quite a few people who describe themselves as "socially-liberal and fiscally-responsible," (including me), it has little to do with supporting immense left-wing social programs -- rather, it has to do with being tolerant (or, if you will, "liberal," in respecting other people's ideas, lifestyles, rights, etc.

            That, to me that seems the very definition of "classical liberalism" or, if you will, libertarianism. Then again, it does appear that the current generation of politicians (and many of their supporters), have co-opted the definition of much of many words, including "conservative."

      2. Bevis will tone police all his fellow prisoners as they board the trains.
        Just because you've lived in a bubble your entire life and don't have the ability to see things becoming anything other than what they've always been doesn't mean it won't happen.
        Go ahead and name one thing I've been wrong about...

      3. Bipolar tu quoque detected.

  23. PA, like MD, and VA is mostly conservative dominated by 103% - 0% Blue urban districts. It leads to some cognitive dissonance. Among the commentariat as well, apparently. :/

  24. Maybe people who love Donald Trump need to be reminded of a few things.

    Trump supported Hillary Clinton for the U.S. Senate in 2000. In describing himself as a friend of the Clintons, Trump remarked that, at the very least, Hillary would be a great Srnator.

    So, what happened between 2000 and 2016, that caused Trump from being a fan a supporter to describing Mrs. Clinton as "Crooked Hillary"? Critics of Hillary in 2000 questioned her ethics going back to Whitewater and her futures trading.

    In 2014, Trump made two contributions to Kamala Harris' campaign re-election as California Attorney General.

    Was that to curry favor with the California AG's office for business dealings of The Trump Organization, or did Willie Brown, Harris' political mentor, twist Trump's arm?

    I'll say it before, and I'll say it again. Trump has tapped into the frustration that many people have for government today, either because politicians look out for every possible minority group, or because very wealthy and powerful corporate leaders and fund managers put the pursuit of every last penny of profit over keeping the U.S. as a strong manufacturing power.

    To become a leader of this movement, without descending into Trump's ego morass is possible, but no one seems interested.

    At the same time, I am so fed up with the anti-elitism, particularly from politicians who attend elite universities.

    It's one thing to know that ignoring people who are blue collar is bad politics. But, a politician with multiple degrees from elite colleges should act smarter than than the blue collar worker.

  25. Good. It will just make it easy for a Democrat to win PA.

    1. Keep telling yourself that. Republicans have convinced four registered Democrats to change to registered Republicans for every one Republican who changed to Democrat. Here's a clue, whistling past the grave doesn't mean the boogie men won't get you.

      1. You must be referring to <a href="https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/politics-issues/2022-02-19/signatures-of-florida-voters-whose-registration-changed-to-republican-different-than-prior-samples"that time that residents of a chain of buildings in Florida had their party affiliation mysteriously changed to Republican.

        Otherwise, I just checked the numbers, and they've been remarkably stable for decades. About 30 to each party and 40 to independent.

        I'm sure Republicans stealing supreme court seats and trying to steal the election has nothing to do with the fact that they are suffering a demographic collapse within those numbers.

  26. Of course, that doesn't say anything about why they switched. Not too long ago the GOP was whining. Not unusual, but this particular grievance was that Democrats and Independents were switching their registration to Republican and that would make it harder for a "real" Republican to win the primary.

    I still believe that most people aren't on either screaming fringe. We are a center-right country. We change slowly, but steadily.

    Right now the partisan extremism is worse than any other time in my life. But I believe we are at the extreme end of the pendulum swing that started with Obama's election.

    I am an optimist. I believe that, over the next twenty years, acceptance of extreme partisanship will become disdain and moderates will ascend. My happy place would be the establishment of a third, moderate party that would force the two parties from their fringeward movement, but I know that isn't very likely.

    1. It's all a very predictable result of gerrymandering.

  27. You're making a bad faith argument about section 230.

    People want it repealed because if companies are going to censor people, they shouldn't have blanket protection

    You either have free speech, or you don't. And if you don't, then why should they have special protection?

    1. You could have stopped after "you're making a bad faith argument," and would still have been correct about anything Boehm writes.

  28. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1512208604421496832?s=20&t=jzJgF7Ns8S9r42p9IOOH-A

    Polyamorous gender fluid preschool teacher who is also a witch.

    Disney running a "queer" agenda right out in the open.

    Biological males competing on women's sports teams, demolishing women's records AND BEING CELEBRATED FOR IT.

    The fucking PRESIDENT expressing approval for "gender affirming care," up to and including physical mutilation of pre-pubescent children.

    CRT rampant in public schools and almost every university.

    Libs STILL suffering from COVID mania. Fucking TODDLERS still wearing masks in one of the bluest cities on earth.

    The concept of a fucking WEALTH TAX is now so mainstream among democrats, the allegedly moderate president is pushing it.

    Tell me some more about the republicans' descent into madness.

    1. I forgot to mention TDS, which is basically the herpes of the progressive community.

      You guys just CAN'T stop talking about Donald Trump.

      1. Because he helps us win elections, stupid.

        1. Yeah, that worked out well for you in Virginia. Keep running on that.

    2. Isaac Asimov pointed to exponential (girl-bulliers can look it up later) population growth and pointed out that homosexual couples were actually making that particular problem less dangerous. This was back when there were half as many people competing for resources and voting for force-initiating looters.

  29. https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2022/04/07/bogeyman-trump-is-under-the-bed-democrats-possible-dark-midterms-strategy-n1587913

    Boehm is a useful idiot. Carrying out orders like a good little commie.

    Please go get a job at Salon. That's about the quality of your work.

  30. This is a MAGA board, only more insane and morally crippled. Only Republicans buy the idea that our future is one drummed up culture war issue after another, to be solved by banning books and claiming your opponents are pedophiles. That's not from the backbenchers and party crackpots, that's from governors and senators. Hey, Mitch McConnel just announced that if he is next majority leader, no Biden SC nominee will get a hearing, like he did to Obama. He apparently has a problem with Presidents American voters choose and with the constitution. Trump didn't feel a responsibility to follow an election he lost. You see a pattern here? This is overt autocracy. You're not for freedom or democracy ir America, you're for raw power and reactionaryism.

    1. Skyrocketing inflation and homicide, war aboard, chaos at the border, excrement and homeless camps parading around big cities

      "The republicans are descending into chaos!" Reason

      1. On the contrary, they are being rather orderly in their book and abortion banning.

        1. Tony contributes a lot here by bringing up the girl-bullying nationalsocialists only like to mention when theirs is the whip hand. And the current mania for book-burning is a confession that after running out of issues, the fascisti now emulate Big Bill Thompson, Chicago's 'Murrica Fust book burner, in their reversion to hysterical Comstockism and Lebensborn laws.

    2. This is a MAGA board, only more insane and morally crippled.

      No, this is not a "MAGA" board. This is a board that is mainly populated by people who oppose progressivism. Most people here didn't vote for Trump and don't particularly like Trump.

      It's only to insane leftists like you that anybody who opposes progressivism automatically is a Trump supporter.

      Hey, Mitch McConnel just announced that if he is next majority leader, no Biden SC nominee will get a hearing, like he did to Obama. He apparently has a problem with Presidents American voters choose and with the constitution.

      Not at all. The Senate can withhold its consent to any and all nominees for as long as it wants to. Perfectly constitutional

      Trump didn't feel a responsibility to follow an election he lost.

      Trump did nothing different from Hillary Clinton or Stacey Abrams; those politicians still claim that they actually "won" their elections.

      You see a pattern here? This is overt autocracy. You're not for freedom or democracy ir America, you're for raw power

      That's rich coming from a supporter for an autocratic leader and a party with fascist, nationalist tendencies (i.e., the Democrats). You are projecting your own faults onto others.

      and reactionaryism.

      "Reactionary" is a term used by socialists to denounce to people who oppose a socialist revolution. You better believe that I am a reactionary, unapologetically so.

      1. It's truly astounding how badly the democrats have made a complete disaster of everything they've touched for the past 6 years. It would be comical if it weren't so dangerous and financially painful. And the two driving forces behind their absolute disasters are their surrender of the party to rabid progressives, and TDS, which has just lead them to do increasingly more stupid things.

        The impeachments were both a complete sham and waste of taxpayer's time and money, and their sole purpose was to give progs some red meat to chew on so they wouldn't get distracted by the fact that life got better in general for ALL Americans under the Trump admin.

        I didn't vote for him in 2016 because I thought he was a clown running a vanity campaign. But I did vote for him in 2020 because he surprised the hell out of me and did a significantly better job than I thought he would. I still didn't like him as a human being. But I wasn't voting for a fishing buddy, I was voting for president. He didn't have to be nice, he only had to be effective at his job, and for all his personality flaws, Trump was pretty effective.

        That's the difference between me and a raving prog nutter like Joe Friday: I can separate my personal feelings from my professional evaluation of someone.

        1. If by disaster you mean passing an infrastructure bill Fatso wanted but couldn't get, quickly getting vaccines out to Americans so that the the deaths and hospitalizations were among MAGA unvaxxed idiots, improving on employment numbers, and trying to pass legislation blocked by republicans which would combat world wide inflation, facing the music and getting us out of Afghanistan after Fatso kept putting it off, and organizing world wide resistance to Russia's invasion - 93 nations just voted to kick them off the UN Human Rights panel - which Trump had enabled by trying to take apart NATO and the EU, signaling weakness and confusion.

          Yeah, I'll take that record and a fact based debate anytime, anywhere. Bring it!

      2. NYOB, most of those here not MAGA are that only because Trump wasn't right wing and autocratic enough for them.

        The senate has a constitutional duty to ADVISE and consent. Blocking the President's right and responsibility to appoint justices is a reading only an idiot would claim was the founders' intent.

        Hillary did not try to block Trump's election after the vote and in fact conceded and congratulated him late the night of the election. She also had the patriotism and balls to show up for his inaugaration. Where do you get your news, Facebook?

        Please describe what you think are autocratic acts by Biden and the Democrats. Can't wait for your response.

        Please describe what is socialism and revolutionary that requires book banning and pretending opponents are pedophiles.

        1. Your unqualified, Marxist, judicial activist, pedophile friendly nominee should have been blocked for being highly unqualified.

    3. "Only Republicans buy the idea that our future is one drummed up culture war issue after another..."

      Lulz. It's not Republicans that are drumming up culture war issues. Most conservatives would be perfectly happy to let progs do whatever absurd nonsense they want to, as long as they do in their own cities and leave the rest of us alone. But the progressive ideology is incapable of leaving people alone.

      And in case you haven't noticed, it's not just conservatives who are fighting back against the progressive culture war. Regular people who have been sitting on the sidelines are now getting involved and pushing back.

  31. Donald Trump's staying power and the decline of fusionism are on full display in this primary race.

    Well, that's actually good news. Fusionism needs to die, as do much of the Republican old-timers.

    Toomey engaged in "the ultimate betrayal" when he voted to convict former President Donald Trump for Trump's role in instigating the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S.

    Yes, and what Toomey betrayed was the rule of law and the Constitution, as did anybody who voted to impeach Trump. That view has nothing to do with Trump and everything with whether the impeachment of Trump was legally justified. So: good riddance to that p.o.s.

    Toomey's always been a "strong fiscal conservative,"

    That became irrelevant when he trampled on the US Constitution and the rule of law.

    But it's likely also a loss for conservatives, who are discarding a vital part of their political coalition in order to chase the dragon of Trump's narrow 2016 victory.

    I'd rather see a socialist or communist take that Senate seat than someone like Toomey. People like Toomey are giving the Republican party a bad name.

    1. "Yes, and what Toomey betrayed was the rule of law and the Constitution, as did anybody who voted to impeach Trump. That view has nothing to do with Trump and everything with whether the impeachment of Trump was legally justified."

      It was legally justified! Read the constitution! So atop with your BS that to you it has nothing to do with Trump, it has everything to do with Trump.

  32. Fusionism needs to die, as do much of the Republican old-timers.

    And not to be misconstrued here: I don't want Republican old timers to literally "die", I want them to be kicked out of office in disgrace. They can retire to their mansions in Virginia or DC or wherever.

  33. Oz may be a lot of things but he is no conservative, just a less liberal dupe running as one.
    Impeachment? On a prove lie, Russiagate has been dis-proven. Hillary Clinton was behind the whole thing, and the impeachment was a farce, like every other lie about Trump. Capitol riot retracted. Find the fraud retracted, Bountygate retracted. Incitement, didn't happen and never charged.
    As a libertarian I voted for neither Trump or Biden, but Trump certainly had better polices.
    If anyone is descending into madness it is the Democrats, who put an elderly person in cogitative decline into office, things we should end fossil fuels when we have no current alternatives, wants to indoctrinate children to change sex, prints and spends money recklessly increasing inflation, policies are causing supply chain shortages and food shortages, violence in cities, their polices are causing war in Europe and probably soon in Asia, and the open borders more problems like Fentanyl deaths and gangs, criminals and terrorists entering our country in large numbers. Consider the Democrats desire and trying to federalize elections, pack the courts and make Democratic cities into states that would end our democracy for good. Throw in the corruption we see with the finally admitted Hunter Biden laptop which was called "Russian disinformation during the last election and what is sad is Reason is descending into that madness with the Democrats.

  34. Benedict Arnold was so respected, they were going to have a Fort named after him; until he handed over the defensive plans to Major Arnold (before his final trip to an Oak tree); so that the British could take West Point. Arnold escaped to England. So voting or acting 99% of the time the 'right way' is meaningless - each decision has to be given its due weight. Giving in to the left on a non existent case of impeachment is not just unjustified, it's unforgivable, no matter what you did before that. We are battling to save America and like a Benedict Arnold, he decided to give billions in arms - but to the 'Russians' instead of to 'Ukraine'.

    1. "Giving in to the left on a non existent case of impeachment"

      God, yall are so delusional.

  35. "Descent into madness" sums it up, but this is far from the first time. The Republican Party was enlisted by Imperial China to billy-club the rest of the world into not offering to sell enjoyable drugs. The resulting Pure Food & Drug act wrecked the economy, then so threatened dope economies of England, France and Germany that WW1 resulted. Postwar Prohibition wrecked the economy yet Gee-Oh-Pee buffs kept pushing until Germany left the League and went to war. Bush Jr was the 3rd madness to take its toll. You know what they say about three strikes...

    1. Fuck off you drooling, senile oederast.

  36. Toomey = RINO. Sorry. His support for gun rights infringements tore away the curtain.

    1. Bingo. Boehm is an idiot. Toomey betrayed his constituents with that. He violated the the Constitution with that and the conviction vote, because Trump was out of office and hence not eligible to be convicted.

  37. The Republican Party has truly descended to depths never seen before. Their conduct during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings was some of the most disgraceful public conduct by American politicians in history. They have become a bunch of despicable thugs like Matt Gaetz and Ted Cruz, who engage in despicable conduct at every public opportunity. and are not worthy of anybody's vote. I feel sorry for Mitt Romney--he's getting close to being the only decent Republican left. Even Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins didn't have the decency to stick around and applaud the new Supreme Court Justice they had just voted for.

    1. Ok, I'm fairly anti-Trump republican, but ... come on man. Republican conduct during these hearings was disgraceful? What about the conduct during the Kavanaugh hearing? That was better?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.