3 Reasons Eric Cantor Lost - And Why Republicans Will Continue to Lose


For more on this topic and links to all the facts and figures below, go here and here.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's primary loss isn't just historic, it illustrates why the Republican Party is in big trouble if it doesn't get serious about its legislative agenda.

Here are three reasons Eric Cantor lost—and why Republicans will continue to lose unless they change their wicked wicked ways.

1. The Party of Big Government

Despite rhetoric in favor of small and limited government, George W. Bush and the Republicans increased spending by more than 50 percent in inflation-adjusted terms and spending on regulations by even more than that. Cantor, who took office in 2001, voted for No Child Left Behind, Medicare expansion, the creation of the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, Troubled Assets Relief Program, and the auto bailouts. None of that reflects fiscal responsibility.

2. The Party of Intolerance

With a few exceptions, the Republican party is opposed to marriage equality and pot legalization, both of which are supported by large and growing majorities. Despite attempts to paint him as soft on immigration, Cantor wanted a militarized border with Mexico and had a 100 percent rating from a leading anti-immigration group. Sixty-four percent of Republicans—and even higher percentages of independents—support immigration reform.

3. The Party of the Status Quo

As Majority Leader, Cantor pushed a GOP budget plan that would grow annual spending from $3.7 trillion to $5 trillion over the next decade. He supported increasing military spending and a hawkish foreign policy. He pushed crony-capitalist institutions like the Export-Import Bank, which subsidizes purchases of U.S. goods and services.

Cantor stood for a status quo that Americans find increasingly intolerable. He lost because he personified all that is bad and hypocritical about the Republican Party. And until the GOP demonstrates it is serious about limiting the size, scope, and spending of government, they will keep losing elections.

About 2 minutes.

Written by Nick Gillespie. Produced by Joshua Swain.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

For more on Cantor's loss and links to all the facts and figures mentioned above, go here and here.

NEXT: Ralph Nader Q&A: How Progressives and Libertarians Are Taking on Crony Capitalism and Corrupt Dems and Reps

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. It is factually incorrect to blame the Republicans for the bailouts of Chrysler and GM.

    Obama was able to twist GMAC financing's problems into a technical qualification for TARP funds for GM--but the Republicans did what they could to block that.

    The Obama Administration orchestrated that bailout on behalf of the UAW--Gettelfinger broke off negotiations with GM and started negotiating directly with the Obama Administration for a government takeover.

    There wasn't anything about that mess that the Republicans approved of.

    The rest of your spiel about how the establishment Republicans became a disgrace on spending during the Bush Administration under the leadership of John Boehner and others is absolutely true. Every time I think of the Republicans having control of the House, the Senate, and the White House--and squandering that opportunity on scaremongering and the prescription drug benefit--it makes me feel nauseated all over again.

    Barry Goldwater's corpse would have made a better president that George W. Bush--and it's an amazing achievement that Barack Obama was able to exceed Bush in the magnificence of his incompetence.

    1. You're full of shit again, Ken. Dumbya provided GM enough funds to survive on until he could shovel his entire fucked-up mess on the new Negro.

      1. They provided a loan.

        There was a loan.

        If you think that's the same as using taxpayer money to nationalize GM--and give 90% of the shares to the U.S. government and the UAW, you're out of your mind.

        The Bush Administration extended a line of credit.

        The Republicans did not approve of nationalizing GM.


        1. Yes, they were all loans or more accurately DIP (Debtor In Possession) financing.

          The Bushpigs "nationalized" over $1 trillion of our private firms. Hugo Chavez was proud of Dubya.

          1. I see jargon, I see claims and probably lies, since you rarely post without them.
            I see no evidence.

            1. Hell, even Governor Mitt Romney opposed the bailout at the time.


          2. "The Bushpigs "nationalized" over $1 trillion of our private firms."

            What are you talking about?

            Obama nationalized GM and Chrysler in 2009.

            George W. Bush wasn't the President of the United States in 2009. Barack Obama was.

            You have internet access. Go look it up yourself.

            1. Bush signed TARP - $700 billion.

              Bush regulators took over the Commercial Paper market - $2 trillion.


              1. Yeah, TARP sucked.

                No question about that.

                I said TARP sucked; I've always said TARP sucked; the whole thing was a disgrace. I opposed it all as it was happening, and I still oppose it now.

                But the existence of TARP doesn't make Bush specifically responsible for Obama nationalizing GM. That was Obama's doing.

                He's a big boy. He's responsible for what he did. It's part of being the President of the United States. The President being responsible for what he does--it's in the job description.

                1. So, Ken, lay out for us the number of dollars lost - in terms of the GM deal.

                  Then compare that to to the total current and future bills re: Iraq.

                  Are they even comparable?

                  "The final cost of the GM bailout cost the U. S. taxpayer $12 billion ($10.5 billion for General Motors and $1.5 billion for former GM financing GMAC, now known as Ally)"

                  Cost of the Iraq and other such debacles - not including your loss of rights and freedom and the torture fun and games, etc.
                  =approx. 3-4 Trillion in the short term, probably 5+ Trillion longer term.

                  Which of these things is not like the other?

                  Why worry about "facts" when you can just present opinions as to not liking something and act as if it's the same as a couple trillion?

                  1. Cost of the Iraq and other such debacles - not including your loss of rights and freedom and the torture fun and games, etc.
                    =approx. 3-4 Trillion in the short term, probably 5+ Trillion longer term.

                    Only 5 trillion dollars? Social security cost $773 billion in 2012 alone.

                    3-4 trillion dollars over 11 years doesn't seem that bad considering that Social Security alone was 7-8 trillion over the same time frame.

                    Then there's the public education system, which is an abysmal failure in addition to being a pro-government propaganda institution, and costs $15,171 per student. There are 75 million students in America, so the cost of education in America per year is 1 trillion 170 billion dollars. Also, the worst school districts, such as Camden and Chicago, actually spend far more per student than superior school districts do.

                    Hell, the Iraq War seems like a bargain!

                    Why worry about "facts" when you can just present opinions as to not liking something and act as if it's the same as a couple trillion?

                2. When Obama does something Buttplug doesn't like, it was because he was forced into it by Republicans. When Obama does something that can at all even remotely be connected to Bush, then Buttplug says it was Bush's fault.

                  Obama has done no wrong.

        2. Sorry Dude,

          The Republicans were actually pretty slick here, or thought they were. Bush provided the loans and pushed it forward to Obama to bail out. Obama betrayed them by burning the secured creditors and bailing out the UAW.

          The demonstrates that the GOP is trusting and stupid, not that they were not setting the stage to bail out GM. They just planning to protect different interests when they did so.

      2. "Dumbya provided GM enough funds to survive on until he could shovel his entire fucked-up mess on the new Negro.

        Why are you so thoroughly convinced that Obama can't do anything for himself?

        Never mind your inability to deal with the facts, do you really believe in your heart that Obama was incapable of orchestrating a bailout?

        Does Obama do everything Bush tells him to do?

        What are you really saying?

        P.S. Your racism is appalling.

        1. Ken, it was a matter of timing. GM could not last until Obama was sworn in Jan 20, 2009.

          1. Um...no.

            It was not a matter of timing.

            It works this way in private finance, too!

            Just because I extend you a loan doesn't mean I'm going to take you over--and fulfill all of your other obligations in the future. That would require another transaction--another decision.

            I thought you were proud of the way Obama nationalized GM?

            You know you can't play both sides of that issue, right? You can't condemn George W. Bush for the auto bailout--instead of Obama--and then praise Obama for having the courage to do a master bailout too.

            Well, I mean, you can, but you can't do that and not elicit laughter from other people.

            1. You're right. I can't condemn Dubya for his GM bridge loan to save GM until 2009. I applaud him for it.

              1. Can anybody explain what this is supposed to mean?

                1. "Can anybody explain what this is supposed to mean?"

                  Yes, it means shreek is eating his words and hoping to wave enough arm that no one notices.
                  I'm amazed that anyone here is civil to the slimy turd.

                2. Yes, you are a shill for the GOP.

        2. Why are you so thoroughly convinced that Obama can't do anything for himself?

          Never mind your inability to deal with the facts, do you really believe in your heart that Obama was incapable of orchestrating a bailout?

          Does Obama do everything Bush tells him to do?

          The fact that progressives continue to forgive Obama for every single policy failure because of simply how deep Bush's damage was tells you just how weak they believe their own president is.

          It appears that progressives are banking on the stronger candidate for 2016: Clinton/Biden.

          1. Look at the way they play both sides!

            When people are complaining about the bailout, they blame BOOOOOOOOOOSH.

            When people are talking about what a great idea it was, it was all Obama's doing all along--and the damn Republicans fought him on it every step of the way.

            Listening to Shrike talk about Obama is like listening to Tom Cruise talk about L Ron Hubbard.

          2. Biden's not eligible for any more terms as VP.

            1. Is that a statutory rule? AFAIK the 22nd Amendment only applies to the president.

      3. Palin's Buttplug|6.12.14 @ 10:06PM|#
        ..."Dumbya provided GM enough funds to survive on until he could shovel his entire fucked-up mess on the new Negro"

        Damn, that Bush is a GENIUS!
        Not only does he control Obo, but he's infected the mind of a asshole named shreek!

        1. And it all seems to be really clear in Shrike's mind...

          Shrike doesn't understand why we can't see it, too!

  2. 3 Reasons Why Eric Cantor Lost - And Republicans Will Continue to Lose

    Uh...Nick. Who do you think beat Eric Cantor? I don't know how you can use the example of Eric Cantor losing to a more conservative Republican as evidence that Republicans will continue to lose.

    1. I think what Nick is saying is that establishment republicans continue to lose...

      And as the GOP keeps foisting establishment politicians forward *cough*Romney*cough* they keep wondering why they (as a party) keep losing.

      The issue I took with Nick's video is whistling past Cantor's immigration graveyard.

      Brat is (apparently) very against immigration reform, but there's some chatter about how much of a central issue Brat made it.

      1. Brat is (apparently) very against immigration reform, but there's some chatter about how much of a central issue Brat made it.

        And the only people surprised about that are the people who haven't visited western Pennsylvania.

    2. The Democrats are tied to ACA and gun control. Therefore the Republicans will campaign on traditional marriage and right to life.

  3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....im-go.html

    This is unbelievable.

    1. The Iranians are sending troops in.


      It's a regional civil war.

      1. Who does one root for?

        1. root for both sides to lose, so that those remaining will have no choice but to turn to secular democracy in the future. Then, this fever will infest other middle Eastern countries, and the region will soon be stabilized!


        2. IF there were a God of Accurate Shooting, one might offer up a prayer for him to shower his blessings down on both sides...

          Just sayin'...

          1. Oh shit. Replying to old comments again. *sheesh*

      2. Good, assuming we have no troops left.

        You want to ferment a revolution to topple Iranian theocracy, then letting them get mired in an interminable war next door is a good move.

        1. So the US has no troops in Iraq?

  4. Ah so it looks like Ontario really loves its free shit. I guess the libertarian moment will have to wait in Ontario...

  5. Maybe I could run for the Libertarian Party in 2018 against Wynne. Not sure how hard it would be for me to get the nom...

    1. I thought it might be Liberty's new vibrator.

    2. So if you use an isopropyl-based glass or lens cleaner in your car just before driving past one of those you're screwed...

      1. What about the ethanol in gas?

  6. 3 Reasons Why Eric Cantor Lost - And Republicans Will Continue to Lose

    Libertarians know how to lose so I guess the title is appropriate.

  7. Seriously Gillespie and co. keep talking about the libertarian moment and the libertarian era but wouldn't that require libertarians to make headway in the Blue States too? The Dems ruining California, Chicago and Detroit haven't harmed them at all.

  8. And until the GOP demonstrates it is serious about limiting the size, scope, and spending of government, they will keep losing elections

    That's a pretty big assumption.

    1. It also assumes most Americans are secretly libertarians who would welcome an actually small government GOP.

      Most Americans will gladly vote for an ever bigger government until boots are coming down on their necks and they're being marched to the gulag. I hardly think a legitimately libertarian GOP would win many votes.

      1. So one hand Gillespie argues that the GOP has to support gay marriage and pot because of polls yet they should cut the government despite the polls. Isn't that pretty much the definition of concern trolling?

  9. So the Mariners can only get people on base when the Yankees make two errors in one play. Yay. And then they lose even that opportunity.

  10. So what government programs would the public actually support cutting or abolishing? And would the public support an actual plan to cut those things and to support politicians who would implement those actual plans?

    1. Most people are very stupid and don't know what they want.

      Americans want to cut spending, but don't actually know where the spending goes, and are therefore incapable of making decisions about what's important and what isn't. The average American thinks we spend something like 15% of our GDP on foreign aid, when in reality it's like 1%. Most Americans don't realize that we spend more money on education than any other nation on Earth per student, and therefore believe that if we just spent a little more money the problems would be solved.

      In short, they don't know what they want to cut because they aren't informed enough to know what programs actually exist, what they do, or what is spent on them.

  11. "until the GOP demonstrates it is serious about limiting the size, scope, and spending of government, they will keep losing elections."

    So why doesn't this apply also to the DNC?

    1. So why doesn't this apply also to the DNC?

      Free Shit, FEELZ, useful idiots, media cover, the enduring myth of socialism.. did I leave anything out?

    2. Because that would contradict his narrative of the Impeding Libertarian Era?

    3. Well, for one thing:

      "Two-thirds of Republicans (68%) say they have a favorable view of the Iraq war, while nearly 9 in 10 Democrats (88%) have an unfavorable view"
      (during height of the war).

      "Two-thirds of Republicans (68%) say they have a favorable view of the Iraq war, while nearly 9 in 10 Democrats (88%) have an unfavorable view"

      So, there is a vast difference there as to who is into limiting the power of Gubment. Anyone can see that.

  12. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.


  13. Three reasons Nick Gillespie is full of shit and a true LIBERALtarian:

    1.The Party of Big Government
    Liberal Dems and Progressives" are more big government than anyone on the planet and yet continue to win, though Nick never makes this assertion.

    The Party of Intolerance
    2. Nobody on the planet is more intolerant than Liberal Dems and "Progressives" and yet continue to win though Nick never makes this assertion.

    3. The Party of the Status Quo
    Nobody on the planet espouses continued spending, debt increase, and cronyism more than Liberal Dems and "Progressives" and continue to win yet Nick rarely makes this assertion.

    Nick Gillespie is reason #65,749 why Libertarian will continue to be a fringe party.

    1. Libertarian Party candidates make these assertions all the time, yet they continue to be a fringe party. So what is the answer, Harvard?

      1. Rand Paul seems to be pointing you to it.

        He isn't using the Libertarian Party as his vehicle, rather is working to make the Republican Party more libertarian.

        He's also careful to keep silent about any "open border" bullshit that he might believe.

        It doesn't take reinventing the political wheel.

        1. He's careful to be silent about ANYTHING when any depth is involved.

          Hence his reluctance to discuss reproductive choice, full drug legalization, actual policies which work, etc.

          Making the Republicans more "libertarian" in most matters means....making them like the left (drugs, anti-war, human rights).

          Today's GOP is still very much hawkish and pro-Big Defense. One person or ten people or 100 people can't change that. You could appoint Rand President tomorrow and he wouldn't be able to cut a dime off the big picture nor hold back the forces of our Military Industrial Complex (which, I should note, is also largely Republican although those in uniform don't declare)....

          Sure, the Dems talk the talk too. But, at heart, the dems and progressives are MUCH less hawkish. They have to go along politically in some cases because, frankly, that's the only way to survive (the American people are still warlike).

          What you suggest would take a complete reinvention of the political wheel. You may not realize the depth of the Military Industrial Complex. What do you think - that the millions making their living and whose families have been involved for generations are going to become flower children? Ain't gonna happen.

          1. You're not very well read are you?

            1. Can't stomach the Fiction Writer, if that's your drift.

  14. This is highly deceptive, poorly done, and disappointing to see such sloppy thinking on Reason.

    1. Yes, this one is correct. See comments on 3 below.

    2. Wow, this is deception worthy of the major parties.

    "Immigration Reform" is favored by the majority.
    BUT, what that means to them covers a wide range
    of positions. On one extreme, some of those who
    favor "Immigration Reform" want the borders closed
    and immigration of all sorts stopped. The other
    extreme wants the borders open and no controls at
    all, and there are positions at every point in
    between. Claiming that the majority wants to
    essentially open the borders based on this polling
    point is just a hair short of an Obama class lie.
    Very disappointing.

    3. Nope, the GOP is the party of "Democrat Lite".

    Status Quo, as in keep it the same, hasn't even
    been one of the choices. The two major parties
    have basically been somewhere between Socialist
    and Fascist, the only difference being how fast
    to get there and what part to do first.

  15. Unfortunately, long-time incumbency exacerbates crony capitalism and government begets government.

    However, I take exception to the characterization of Republicans as the "party of intolerance" simply because they do not share your personal views (isn't that itself intolerant of an alternate viewpoint). While I am a libertarian purist when it comes to social issues - I certainly respect others with a different viewpoint and praise the Republican party for at-least professing a desire for smaller, more limited government.

  16. Is Reason really going to go through this every time a prominent Republican loses an election? That is, trying to make it look like the lack of embrace of all things libertarian is the culprit for that loss. The first point of the video was actually accurate. Yes, Cantor was a big government Republican who lacked any claim to fiscal responsibility and had his hand in cronyism/corporatism. This was a focal point of Brat's campaign and he was able to garner support as a result. But then, the video delves into social issues despite there really being no evidence that they played any role in this election upset at all. While it's true that the American public in general is more supportive of gay marriage and pot legalization, there really is no evidence that this election had anything to do with either of those issues. Brat's website (http://davebratforcongress.com/issues/)doesn't mention many social issues outside of abortion (which he is pro-life). And would Brat have really benefited from making pot legalization or gay marriage support an issue in a conservative suburban district in Virginia?

    1. Yes.
      Reason and other Koch publications want a republican victory, so they are going to attempt to continually rally the troops even though they have little idea what they are doing.

      They hope that if they keep talking, you will keep tuning in. And, based on past history, they are 100% correct!

  17. This isn't the first time Reason has attempted a bogus claim like this. After Romney's defeat, Reason ran "3 Reasons Mitt Romney and the Republicans Lost Big in Election 2012." Among these reasons was "stay out of the bedroom, for good." They then cited Akin and Mourdock's election costing comments about rape and abortion. However, when we look closer at what was actually said and what the actual results were, we can see how misleading this claim was. The reason Akin's comments offended so many people was that they reflected an extreme ignorance of a woman's reproductive capability and by uttering the phrase "legitimate rape," he made it seem like a women who gets pregnant via rape was not really raped. None of this reflects any desire for the expansion of government to deal with the abortion issue or "get into" anyone's bedroom. If we look at what happened in the election that year, we see that Mitt Romney won the two states (IN and MO) where the offensive comments were made despite him losing most other swing states. In polling, we can see that a majority of American voters and even a majority of Democrats said that they didn't think Akin's comments reflected the views of the Republican Party. So there's no evidence based on these comments that Republicans desire any kind of government expansion to deal with abortion or that the comments effected any race outside of the candidates who made the comments since Romney won the two states in which the comments were made.

    1. Of course, Romney was from the most liberal state in the nation and had been Gov when we put together the Obama...oops, RomneyCare as well as when gay marriage was legalized.

      He also went along with women's rights in our state - heck, he had a notebook full of women!

      So he's not exactly indicative of the national Republican Party - which is exactly why he lost! He as not nearly conservative enough for y'all.

      A guy like Santorum is probably more reflective of the large socialcon wind of the party - which overlaps with the christian conservatives.

      Without this part of the GOP, the party does not even exist! So it's not like it's a fringe part of the party....it's the core.

  18. So once again, it appears that Reason is seeing what they want to see. If they wanted to cite the actual libertarian reasons Brat was able to upset Cantor, they should have just stuck with Cantor's record of fiscal irresponsibility and crony capitalism. But apparently, this wasn't good enough for them. They had to use Cantor's unseating as a jumping off point to criticize the GOP for a lack of all things libertarian. Hopefully they will cease making these intellectually lazy arguments in the future any time a big name Republican loses an election to someone on the left (Romney vs. Obama) or on the right (Cantor vs. Brat).

  19. As long as nick gillespie is writing for this rag, it will remain a piece of leftist garbage. It looks like I need to add another loser publication to my spam file.

    1. Don't fret.
      The Koch's have financed many other writers and publications of different "depths" - you will find one that perfectly agrees with your world view.

      After all, that's the idea of reading other opinions, right?

  20. Government fails to follow the commands of the founding documents. Perhaps you call a nexus between freedom and religion. Marriage is and always has been a religious ceremony. That the States would intrude on that for any reason is a blatant violation of the first amendment. To make any law respecting religion is a violation. A bar is a bar; government is barred from making laws regarding religion or the practice thereof.
    Ergo, the government can make or invent a marriage right. Any law that coops Christian religion is void on its face despite what men in a robes may say. We must respect all the commands of the founding documents, rather than pick and choose. And, law is replete with decisions that respect as valid a decision where other reasonable means to a end are available to petitioners that allow the historical practice and law to remain unchanged. Ditto for a religious practice which the government cannot regulate by its feeble laws.

    Therefore your assumption that the admitted clods in the GOP are intolerant fails beyond redemption, at least in the second venue argued here. (They are failures for fair greater reasons than this accusation.) The founding documents do not say that government shall enact no laws regarding atheism and atheists. It can, it does and it should. Atheism is the lack of religion and god and is very fair game. ?2014 All rights reserved.

  21. Let's get back to why modern Libertarians and Koch's are really financing the GOP:

    "The billionaire Koch brothers and their political network are planning to spend almost $300 million during the 2014 election cycle, some of which will go toward a renewed effort to combat unprecedented carbon regulations unveiled by the Obama administration last month.

    According to The Daily Beast, industrialists Charles and David Koch will announce a new energy initiative this weekend at a California resort featuring Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and libertarian political scientist Charles Murray. While its scope isn't clear yet, the group will be spearheaded by the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, a 200-member organization that has funneled millions of dollars to various nonprofits in the Koch network."

    1. You really are our dumbest troll. There are literally a dozen unions that spend more money on politics annually than do the Kochs.

      Unions, by any measure, have far more control of Democrats than the Kochs have of Republicans.

      I also like this part:

      The billionaire Koch brothers and their political network are planning to spend almost $300 million during the 2014 election cycle

      The reason they have to add 'and their political network' is because a lot of these organizations they claim are part of the Kochs political network actually get most of their money from non-Koch sources. Reason has an annual fund raiser, for example, which wouldn't be necessary if the Kochs just financed everything the way progressives imagine.

      By claiming these organizations are part of the Kochs' 'political network' they can falsely make it seem like the Kochs themselves are giving the 300 million dollars, when it actually comes from thousands of different people and organizations.

      You're easily manipulated, aren't you Craig?

  22. So, we're recycling stories again? Meh.

    1. No, this is new stuff. Do you consider the control of our government by private resource extraction corporations and a couple wealthy individuals to be a good thing?

      Or is it a negative?

      Or, you think it doesn't matter?

      1. I guess the answer has to be to give the government more power so that it can control these corporations..

      2. You're right, our government should totally be owned by a tiny mom and pop general store from the 1800s and a couple of hobos.

        That's sort of implied, but people would laugh at you if you came out and said it. Because there's about as much chance of the government being controlled by poor, simple folk as it being controlled by rainbow-farting unicorns.

      3. No, this is not new. This story was posted on the 12th. Where you been, masshole?

      4. Hello there once again Mary Cecilia Stack.

        Of 8113 Sun Meadows Court, Fort Worth, Texas 76123, phone number 817-263-4116.

        1. Want the SSN?

  23. The Patron Saint of the RINO movement, Ronald Reagan, was responsible for pushing "welfare" through the constitutional ceiling to change the country into a welfare state - in which we are all subjects - destroying traditional marriage and other human rights in the process. You know the RINOs are going to keep losing by listening to them express their dreams of being successful Conservative-Talking Big-Government shysters, just like Saint Ronald. It's really pretty obvious. Enough people felt the pain and realized they'd been fooled ... leaving not enough people willing to continue support for the parade of tin-hat con men in the party.

    1. destroying traditional marriage and other human rights in the process


      1. Yeah, if there's one thing I remember about the Reagan presidency, it was his support of gay marriage.

        1. And drugs. And sex with animals. And sex with gay animals while high on drugs.

          That Reagan was a real prevert.

    1. Yes, because one guy with a sign is statistically significant.

      1. Hey - he's got three signs.

        1. The problem with the view of some conservatives on immigration, is that like their bros on the left, the proglodytes, they often lack the ability to look at things in an objective manner. It's all or nothing, you know, everything's only black and white.

          So you have the conservative media taking stories like the one about gang members coming here from El Salvador and saying outrageous shit like 'the government is going to take care of us'. So people see this and they apply it to all immigration. Like the left think that any type of border control is racist. The teams thrive on this shit.

          1. I'm beginning to change my mind about open borders. I used to believe in the possibility that some immigrants might come here for access to welfare. Other commenters assured me that that this could not be the case. Immigrants only cross the border to offer their labor to willing employers because we all own ourselves. I doubted this until ten thousand or so of the incoming unaccompanied minors showed up at the wrought iron gates of my velocipede factory with their neatly typed resumes asking for job application forms.

            1. The question is really: Do you trust the Congress to negotiate, write, and pass immigration reform that's an improvement on our current system without including a boondoggle of unnecessary give-ways and crony exemptions? And, do you trust the executive branch and federal law enforcement to faithfully implement this legislation? Are they even capable of this?

              Our current system is undoubtedly super fucked up, but would anything passed by Congress, signed by the president, and implemented by the feds be an improvement? Perhaps I'm more cynical than most, but my answers are no way.

              1. the question is really: Do you trust the Congress to negotiate, write, and pass immigration reform that's an improvement on our current system


              2. I agree completely with Lady Bertrum. As fornicated up as the existing system is, the current government would only screw things further.

                Because here's what "reform" would mean. Lobbyists, Obama minions and anonymous legislative staff would write at least a thousand pages of new carte blanche permissions to the bureaucracy, special favors to interest groups and goodies for bribing hold out legislators. There would be no public debate on the bill and the text of it would appear on legislators's desks 15 minutes before voting on it. Although legislators would not know any of the details of the draft, each of them would be informed by their party's leadership of the rewards for voting aye and the punishment for voting nay.

                Then they would pass it after which they would let us see what's in it.

                It would suck an Obama would do whatever he wanted to anyway so why bother.

                1. I agree completely with Lady Bertrum. As fornicated up as the existing system is, the current government would only screw things further.

                  I'll say this much. We're waiting for my wife's green card renewal, and I have prayed to the invisible sky god that the all benevolent government does NOT 'reform' immigration until we have said card. That gives us another 10 years for her to either apply for naturalization and put an end to this draconian non-sense, or move somewhere else.

                  1. This is the real pissoff about amnesty: it makes suckers out of those who've tried to follow the law.

                    We'd be in damn big business straightening out the Kafkaesque clusterfuck we've allowed the immigration bureaucracy to construct before legislating any more bright ideas.

        2. Hey - he's got three signs.

          Statistical outlier!

          1. 30,000 tea partiers on the national mall:


            12 protesters with climate change signs:

            The people have spoken!

            1. I think the actual real-world comparison is

              "millions of voters electing gop candidates with fiscal conservative agenda"


              "1000 idiots compain about rape culture in Change.org petition"

              - MSNB headline story!

  24. Does Nick think there are any issues at all facing the country besides Mexicans, pot and gay sex? While those three things might enable a feller like Nick to have a great weekend in Vegas (NTTAWWT), theyight not be the totality of issues or even the most important issues people are voting on.

    1. He sort of embodies the Thomas Sowell quote, "I believe in libertarian principles but not in libertarian fetishes."

      1. Actually, I would understand the preoccupation among libertarians with certain issues if they were a slippery slope to more freedom. But for every anti-drug war/open border libertarian I can point to five progtards who want the freedom to smoke pot on their way to the free healthcare office.

    2. Does Nick think there are any issues at all facing the country besides Mexicans, pot and gay sex?

      Nick believes that if he were running the Republican party (and why haven't they made the offer yet?) there would be a wave of victories from the newly libertarian GOP.

      He completely ignores that 20% of the Republican base still consists of SoCons, that many libertarian reforms are unpopular with a wide subsection of Republicans and independents, and that politics is far messier than just having the best ideas.

      The fact that libertarian ideas aren't popular doesn't make us wrong anymore than an abolitionist in 1750 was wrong because most people were cool with slavery, but it does mean that the Republicans can't just adopt libertarian ideas and magically start winning elections.

      This is Nick's most annoying tendency. He thinks that Republican leaders are just too dumb to implement all the libertarian ideas, when actually they're smart enough to realize that they'd lose their base if they tried to.

    3. To be fair, he's probably concerned about food trucks.

  25. I live here and the author doesn't have a clue why Cantor lost.

    1. You mean in VA, right? Do tell us why he lost.

      1. I'm going to guess he never once bothered with any kind of actual 'representing his constituents'? and instead just launched headfirst into a self-promoting campaign to become an even more inside-the-beltway schmuck, completely divorced from VA voters interests.

        Long shot there, i know

        1. launched headfirst into a self-promoting campaign to become an even more inside-the-beltway schmuck

          And was looking at being very successful at it.

          I don't think that's a long shot of a guess. It would be my first guess, also.

          1. "It would be my first guess, also."

            yes, my sarc - it is subtle.

  26. Someone writing for Salon pretends to "defend libertarianism" by bringing up a bunch of concepts/topics I've never even heard of or considered as particularly relevant...

    Like, "information blocks, experiential blocks, economic blocks", all of which seem to add up to the idea that "individuals can't have perfect government, because of X, Y, and Z", ergo = libertarianism?

    It seems some kind of stupid workaround for a prog to use to rationalize 'individual rights and responsibility' to other progs = not because it has any particular benefits by itself, but because 'well, see, government doesn't really work the way we progs want to imagine it does'... 'libertarian as backup plan' in the event Progtopia turns out to be unattainable, or something.

    ... i don't know whether this guy is more or less retarded than the other person claiming they are 'rejecting' their libertarianism;

    Note = Salon is *totally fucking obsessed* with libertarians.... yet NEVER ONCE have i ever seen a single story there ever link to, cite, quote, or actually provide readers with any example of a real-life libertarian article/POV/argument, etc.

    Both articles are so bone stupid i can't get more than 1/3 through them. have at them yourselves...

    1. Your first link doesn't go anywhere.

    2. Jacked up the first link

    3. I don't know he rings up some good points as to why large government is not a god idea - by highlighting the things the US government does in our name (that progs are against when a Dem is not in the WH) and showing how little control over those things the voter has.

      He is, in a roundabout way, rehashing the 'someday your political enemies will have control of the machinery you're building' argument, adding in examples of how those political enemies *already* have a strong grip on the controls.

      1. meh. like i said, i got about 1/2 through it, and found it too mealy mouthed in general

        If he came right out and said, "Government screws everything up! JUST LOOK!"
        i'd have been more enthused. instead, he seemed to lay it on thin suggesting 'yeah, well its not perfect, like it *should be*...'

        I normally dont get suckered into anything Salon/Slate. It just so happens I went there *on purpose*, and lo and behold, moar Libertarian pieces.

        I think my more germane point = they write these pieces *all the time*, but never once actually ever link/cite/or refer anyone to 'actual libertarian' writings. Its always these stand-in Proggy-20-something stooges who 'escaped from Libertarian Cult Worship!' or something.

        1. That's because libertarian works are published in Black Speech.

          Just reading the words puts your immortal soul in peril of eternal damnation.

          Only those with the mental fortitude to withstand the daemon's lies and maintain faith in the state are allowed to peruse the writing of these foul creatures.

          Remember: A small mind is easily filled with faith.

      2. The other guy, however, is kind of an idiot.

        He points out that libertarianism doesn't prescribe appropriate actions for *every* human interaction. And then simply rejects it for one that does, seemingly without caring if his new philosophy has any internally coherent structure or self-imposed limits of control.

        He doesn't seem to understand that libertarianism is silent on religion for two reason - 1. Which religion? They can't all be right. 2. Freedom. Pick your poison (buddhist, christian, or mooslem and lie in the bed you've made.

        He picks the 'child being starved by parents' (an extreme case highlighting the idea that you have no duty to serve others) and says that since libertarianism (as a core principle) would permit that then its abhorrent.

        But you don't see these people criticizing communism because (followed faithfully) requires the enslavement of its population to 'the greater good'.

        Both are textbook cases and at least libertarians are willing to modify their ideology to conform to their people (compared to communists who try to modify their populations to conform to their ideology - no matter how many have to be killed in the process).

        1. He keeps harping on how libertarianism is an 'incomplete social philosophy'. OK - show me one that isn't.

          The choice issue - he seems to believe that if circumstances force you to make a hard choice, well then you really haven't chosen. Fucking 'fairness'. It snot 'fair' that the CEO can make different choices than the factory worker. SO we shouldn't have sweatshops, because its *more fair* to take even a poor choice from that guy.

  27. Eric Cantor lost, but a Republican won this primary, as I recall.

  28. Republicans need to get on board with referring to pet owners as "parents", so that they're not seen as othering people who genuinely and sincerely love their pets, er, children.

    They also need to be willing to call people by their self-identified gender without regard to physical reality concerning chromosomes and reproductive organs.

    They need to call tax cuts "expenditures" and tax increases "revenues". They need to call reductions in the proposed increases of government spending "cuts".

    Language doesn't matter. Words can mean whatever we want. If you think differently, you are a hideous bigot (depeding, of course, on your personal definitions of what the words "hideous" and "bigot" are).

    1. They also need to be willing to call people by their self-identified gender without regard to physical reality concerning chromosomes and reproductive organs.

      I'm not even certain why this is an issue. Especially among libertarians.

      We're all about personal choice and, anyway, we should be trying to get ahead of the transhumanist future where gender and sexuality will be truly mutable.

      1. I'm not even certain why this is an issue. Especially among libertarians.

        Yeah, you're probably right. I mean, it's not like this issue can be used by the government to compel people to act against their religious beliefs, or anything. Even if it does, those religious people are icky, and deserve to be assessed fines and such for being intolerant bigots.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.