Reach for the practical center

Chris Christie kicked ass in deeply Democratic New Jersey, winning 61% to 38%. Terry McAuliffe won by a narrower than expected margin in purple Virginia, 47.9% to 45.5%. There is a lesson here. Politicians can win big by being pragmatic, while appealing to party bases and attacking opponents may eke out javascript:void(0);a win, but is not good for anyone.

Let's take Virginia first. A majority of voters voted AGAINST the winner and the margin of victory between the winner and the loser was only 1.4%. BTW, Obama won Virginia by 3%. McAuliffe won almost exactly the same percentage as Romney got when he lost the state. This means that on a different day with slightly different conditions it could have gone the other way. Do we really want to elect leaders like this? Do you we really want leaders who the majority did not elect and a significant minority probably hate, sometimes with good reason?

This is what little men pursuing negative campaigns get you.

Now consider New Jersey. Chris Christie is a big man, physically and in personality. He can be inclusive. He beat his Democratic opponent by 23% in a state that elects Democrats almost all the time. Obama won by more than 15% the first time. That a Republican can win there at all is remarkable. That he can win by such an ass kicking margin is almost unbelievable.

We need another big man. We have no had one since the great Ronald Reagan. When he left office, we knew we would not soon see his like again. But we CAN have another.

The time is right. Our times are a lot like the 1970s. Back in those depressing days, there was a lot of talk about American decline. The economy was in the doldrums. There were deep divisions in society. Elections were won narrowly. Carter beat Ford by 50.1% to 48%, This looks a lot like the Obama-Romney results, as the times look a lot like the late 1970s. Then Reagan came along and it was morning in America.

History doesn't repeat, but it does have patterns. Good times are followed by bad ones and then we come out of them.

We can have good times again. Many young people have never experienced good leadership in a president. This is not our fate as Americans. We have a great capacity to renew. It is time to become Americans again.

I know that we are stuck for the next three years, but there is hope and I still have confidence in the future. We will have our country back again. By that, I mean at a mimimum have someone leading us who most people like most of the time.

Posted by Christine & John at November 7, 2013 6:00 AM
Comments
Comment #373784

“He beat his Democratic opponent by 23% in a state that elects Democrats almost all the time.”

You say that but yet the run of Democrats is just a recent thing. In fact only 8 of the last 20 years has there been a Democrat as Governor and they won by small margins.

“Do you we really want leaders who the majority did not elect and a significant minority probably hate, sometimes with good reason?”

Any time there’s a decent 3rd candidate on a ballot you run the chance of having the winner come in under 50%. Christie himself only won by 48.5% his first time out. You just can’t always win with a majority but if you’re like Christie you can get people to trust you and win big the second time out.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 6, 2013 8:05 AM
Comment #373786

Adam

Christie, unlike Obama, became more popular as people go to know him better.

Other winning candidates in New Jersey have had those close races we are talking about. New Jersey is a heavily Democratic state. It would be like a Democrat winning Texas by a landslide.

Re Christie - 61% is a big win, no matter how you count it. And it is more interesting in a Democratic state won by Obama.

The lesson is good for both parties. Moderates like Christie can win big. And people with big visions like Reagan can appeal to large parts of the electorate. Divisive types, like Obama or McAuliffe can win, but they don’t bring with them much momentum. When half the voters or more don’t like you, you are not doing well.

I understand that Democrats will soon feel the urge to attack Christie, BTW. They will work to drive down his positives. It will now happen sooner, rather than later.

Posted by: CJ at November 6, 2013 8:50 AM
Comment #373794

Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” will require personals on Christie by the left. That is how they operate.

Re/Christie’s chances on a national ticket…I give him 33% chance. He would first have run the gauntlet of conservative straw polls and state primaries. Christie is not a moderate, he is a liberal. The litmus test for a conservative 2nd Amendment rights and abortion. This is the litmus test placed on conservatives by both parties and the MSM. How does he rate on the two things. Do you honestly think conservatives are going to vote for a man who would place anti-2nd Amendment justices in the SCOTUS?

Romney was more conservative than Christie and yet Romney lost because conservatives failed to show up to the polls. You speak of being moderate and thus being able to work across the isle. Reagan was a conservative and yet was able to reach across the isle. The truth is, we have a nation split right down the middle. One side wants a socialist state, and the other wants freedom. prior to his election, Obama was talked about, “is he a moderate”, “can he reach across the isle”, “is he a liberal”, is he , is he, is he… Well, we know what he is…a socialist pushing for a socialist state. Do you honestly thing conservatives are going to support another “moderate”, is he, is he, is he???

I don’t think so…

Posted by: Political Hostage at November 6, 2013 10:28 AM
Comment #373797

I voted for 3rd party as usual. Cunnicelli might have won had there been no 3rd party candidate.

Seems the Corpocracy wasn’t willing to put money behind a tea party like candidate.


Apparently Obamacare didn’t carry much weight in the Va. election.


Obamacare is here to stay, IMO. The Corpocracy has to love it what with the folks paying double or triple for coverage. And, those who can’t/won’t pay for coverage will be subsidized much like they are now. Won’t be the insurance co’s funding those folks.


A sign in a hospital nearby says something like ‘no one can be refused treatment at this hospital, including pregnant women and treatment for an unborn child’.


Really doesn’t matter about Obamacare or ‘socialism’, come 2016 we will need a woman for president and the Corpocracy has got to $like that idea.


Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 6, 2013 11:23 AM
Comment #373801

I was in a local hospital about 15 years ago in Ohio. There was a sign in English and Spanish which said, “We cannot refuse to treat you, we cannot ask you if you are an American citizen, you do not have to provide proof of Insurance”. The claim that 30 million Americans did not have HC coverage was the original lie, and we have been lied to ever since.

The race is to block the shutdown of obamacare and sign up as many people as possible. Once several million are signed up, and when obamacare self implodes (as it will), the left will begin their cries of “millions” are already signed up and “we must pump millions in to save this program”. Obamacare will become the cry of the Democratic Party, “The Republicans want to steal your Social Security”, “The Republicans want to do away with Medicare”, and now, “The Republicans want to steal your HC”.

Posted by: DSP2195 at November 6, 2013 11:46 AM
Comment #373808

CJ,
I am not sure Christie will even run for president. A recent tell-all book about the Romney campaign in 2012 has been receiving a lot of press recently, and the insiders from the Romney camp thought Christie was unelectable due to a whole raft of ethics problems. When the Romney people sent Christie’s people the paperwork for vetting for VP, they refused to answer a lot of questions. This made the Romney people highly suspicious. They did not think he would even make it through the primary vetting process. What that means is Republicans will destroy Christie long before the Democrats lift a finger, just like what happened to Cain the GOP primaries. In addition, Christie’s weight is a real concern. Romney was brutal about this, making fun and disrespecting Christie for being obese, but then, that is the kind of guy Romney is. Personally, I am not sure Christie is physically capable of withstanding the kind of stress that would come with the Oval Office. If Christie can successfully address the physical issue and overcome questions about ethics, he would be the only strong candidate the GOP has to offer in 2016. But like I said, Republicans will destroy him long before he obtains the nomination.

When the Republicans from the 112th Congress adjourned without voting on relief for Hurricane Sandy, Christie said:

“Last night, the House of Representatives failed that most basic test of public service and they did so with callous indifference to the suffering of the people of my state.”

“There is only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims: the House majority and their Speaker John Boehner.”

It is worth noting that four Republican Congressmen from CO voted against relief for Hurricane Sandy, but voted for relief when their own area was hit by floods. Same for the Texas Congressman representing the district where the fertilizer blew up a town.

Meanwhile, the race for AG in VA is too close to call. It is a great example of the GOP War on Women, but I do not think most females know why. That Republican candidate wanted to require all women to report miscarriages to the police within 24 hours. Nice.

As for the VA Governor race, the Republican Establishment’s rejection of the Tea Party base caused those offices to be lost.

Posted by: phx8 at November 6, 2013 12:19 PM
Comment #373809

Good point, DPS2195. Reminiscent of the immigration debate, ‘already millions here and we can’t deport all those folks’. Even as those folks transit back and forth to visit the home country two, three times a year.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at November 6, 2013 12:34 PM
Comment #373810

There is a question everyone should be asking re Christie, but no one is pursuing it beyond face value.

Why did the Democrats not bother to oppose Christie in NJ?

It is common knowledge that the Democratic Party did not put time or effort or money into the opposing Christie, even though the Democratic candidate was a sound campaigner with 20 years experience in the state Senate. It is also common knowledge that Christie’s poll numbers were high and that he would be the strongest candidate the GOP could field at this point for 2016; in fact, polls show Christie is the only candidate who even comes close in a match-up with Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the Democrats merely shrugged because it seemed like a lost cause, or decided to accept a landslide by Christie because he was just so awesome.

Now, Obama and Christie may have cut a deal after Hurricane Sandy. Christie would support Obama right before the 2011 election, and in return, the Democrats would not oppose Christie in 2013.

That may be. But it does not answer the underlying question. Why would Democrats make the deal in the first place? Obama would have won without Christie, and vice versa. So why make the deal not to oppose Christie?

If you think about it, the answer is obvious. The Democrats do not think Christie will ever win the White House. There are two possibilities as to why: 1) Democrats know something about Christie that will make him a sure loser in 2016, or 2) Christie really does NOT have any intention of running in 2016.

Posted by: phx8 at November 6, 2013 1:23 PM
Comment #373811

Phx8

“Republicans will destroy him long before he obtains the nomination.” I think this is almost exactly what you told me about Romney.

Re VA - The governor’s race was closer than anybody expected. The Tea Party has lots of energy. In a democracy, there is always tension between popular ideas and more established ones.

Posted by: CJ at November 6, 2013 1:30 PM
Comment #373812

CJ,
Yes, the Republicans damaged Romney badly in the extended primary process. The Party had to call off the dogs after Gingrich beat him in the SC primary with attacks on vulture capitalism and destroying companies for profit. But really, the GOP never did have a candidate strong enough to beat Obama. Romney was merely the best of a weak field.

As for the voting last night… The voting was closer. The Tea Party candidates in VA and one in Alabama came close, but lost. The one in Alabama was a true birther, an inexperienced politician with no money, and despite the Establishment Republican spending a lot, the Establishment candidate won by only 5%.

The Tea Party- the base- will slowly but steadily kill the GOP and Establishment Republicans, become increasingly regional, and lose against Democrats, because “demographics is destiny”.

Posted by: phx8 at November 6, 2013 2:08 PM
Comment #373813

Tea Party is a small faction of the voting public. Tea Party is energized, but, their unwillingness to govern or compromise along side their religious, secessionist, anti-choice, racist, and anarchist sub-groups, has alienated even moderate and centrist Republicans. Tea Party candidate in Alabama lost to moderate Republican, Cuccinelli lost to McAuliffe on least worst candidate vote. Americans as a majority won’t vote for extremists. If the Tea Party wants to make a comeback, it has to rid itself of all those alienating sub-groups and their agendas, and return to its founding platform of fiscal responsibility, present and future. The money is going to back the moderates and centrists otherwise.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 6, 2013 2:12 PM
Comment #373814

I think Christie has a better chance of beating a national Democrat than Romney had. If the TEA Party wants a guy that comes off as a bit of a goon then so be it. That fits well with their style which seems to be all about white rage and political tantrums.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 6, 2013 2:17 PM
Comment #373815

phx8

“demographics is destiny” - right, but what that destiny means is open to question.

My father was a union man and a Democrat. My family was solid blue Democrat in the 1960s. My generation is mostly Republican.

When I look at my immigrant roots, my background is exactly the same as many of today’s Hispanics. My grandfather immigrated and never really learned English. My father’s first language was not English. He grew up in an ethnic community. Both my parents dropped out of HS. My generation is completely blended into America. Our demography is different now and so is our destiny. I am sure that Democratic leaders counted people like me in their next generation.

I do not believe that Hispanics and other immigrants will remain firmly Democratic. The immigration issue will not be important for them in a few years, since the Hispanic wave is finished and assimilation is in full swing.

Re demographics - I will point out that Christie indeed won 70% of the white vote (still the country’s largest group), but he also got half the Hispanic vote (fastest growing minority) and even 21% of the black vote.

These demographics will still fit.

Posted by: CJ at November 6, 2013 2:38 PM
Comment #373816

Where to begin; first let’s look at phx8’s plethora of accusations in Comment #373808 and #373810. These are presented as facts with no proof. Would it be asking to much to ask phx8 to provide the links to his accusations?

Secondly, we have these comments by David Remer:

Tea Party is a small faction of the voting public. Tea Party is energized, but, their unwillingness to govern or compromise along side their religious, secessionist, anti-choice, racist, and anarchist sub-groups, has alienated even moderate and centrist Republicans. Tea Party candidate in Alabama lost to moderate Republican, Cuccinelli lost to McAuliffe on least worst candidate vote. Americans as a majority won’t vote for extremists. If the Tea Party wants to make a comeback, it has to rid itself of all those alienating sub-groups and their agendas, and return to its founding platform of fiscal responsibility, present and future. The money is going to back the moderates and centrists otherwise.

Is it possible that Remer missed some of the Saul Alinsky adjectives describing a group of people who have had more than a “small faction” effect on the past few elections.

Here is a map of the Tea Party congressional districts in the US. There are 79 congressmen who are members of the Tea Party Caucus.

And here is a list of politicians associated with the Tea Party.

Your premise is false, the Tea Party does not have to make a comeback. It never lost it’s attraction to conservatives.

Tell me Remer; if you are libertarian (of which I don’t really know what you are), tell us how popular libertarianism is next to the Tea Party? Perhaps you are a full blown liberal progressive, of which I assume you are; how does the percentage of liberal progressives (20% in the US) compare to the percentage of Tea Party supporters?

The percentage of Americans who expressly state that they are supporters of the Tea Party movement is currently about as large at 22 percent of the population as the 21 percent who say they are liberals, according to recent but separate Gallup polls.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/tea-party-movement-large-nation-s-entire-liberal-population-say-gallup-polls

So your claim that the Tea Party is faction is false, it is a larger faction than liberal progressives or libertarians.

The fact is, the Democrats and the Republican establishment are terrified of the Tea Party movement.

I think Christie has a better chance of beating a national Democrat than Romney had. If the TEA Party wants a guy that comes off as a bit of a goon then so be it. That fits well with their style which seems to be all about white rage and political tantrums. Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 6, 2013 2:17 PM

Tell me AD, do you guys on the left ever research anything or do you just have diarrhea of the mouth. The exit polls in NJ showed the same Democrats who voted for Christie, would vote for Hillary and not Christie.

Secondly, “white rage” and “political tantrums”…more of the Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” personal attacks on anyone who does not hold to the liberal point of view. Ho-hum…

Posted by: Political Hostage at November 6, 2013 3:23 PM
Comment #373819

Christie in 2016 is a slam dunk!

Btw, the neat thing about living in the Tri-State area (I live in Delaware) is that I’m 20 minutes from N.J.; 6 minutes from MD; and, 12 minutes from PA.

In other words, I follow all things political around the mid-atlantic and Del-Mar-Va peninsula.

I’ve personally met Chris Christie four times over the last 4 years. We are both alumna of the University of Delaware (so is Biden…LoL)! I spoke with him at Homecoming. He’s a natural and would’ve defeated Obama in 2012 if he decided to run. He stated over and over that he wasn’t ready yet, back then. It was an altruistic answer.

He is a true problem solver. Also, Anyone who has to lead and work within the confines of Blue NJ has to steer to the ‘middle’ or else he’d get nothing done.

That said, he got A Lot done in a state where the Dems have corrupted for decades(See: Jon Corzine, Jim McGreevey and others).

As I’ve stated before, the Dems will attack Christie as abrasive against females. Not true. He deals with hecklers and other teacher’s union folk (mostly women who’ve attacked him at speeches and town hall meetings) with a strong conviction when they challenge him personally (re: his weight, where he sends his children to school and his stance on entrenched unions).

I get that the Tea Party sect of the GOP doesn’t like or care for him. Who cares? He certainly doesn’t. It’s the conservative base that will back him. And so will an overwhelming majority of Independents and Blue Dog Dems (yes, they are still around, but they had to go underground given the last 5 years of extreme positions from both sides of the aisle).

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at November 6, 2013 4:52 PM
Comment #373821

Here’s a few sobering thoughts from “Godfather Politics” on the McAuliffe win in Virginia.


“President Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Vice President Biden, and a nearly $15 million edge in campaign cash couldn’t get the big victory Democrats were hoping for in Virginia. Terry McAuliffe “hauled in $34.4 million in campaign contributions, roughly $14 million more than Cuccinelli, including $8.1 million in the final month.”

For the past few months McAuliffe was said to be 10 or more points ahead of Cuccinelli. Even though McAuliffe won, he did not get 50 percent of the vote. There’s still a great deal of voter dissatisfaction.

I suspect that establishment Republicans had mixed feelings about the McAuliffe win. On one hand, they would have liked to have seen a GOP victory. On the other hand, they did not want to see a Tea Party-backed candidate win. It won’t be long before we hear the GOP brainiacs pontificating on TV interview shows that the Tea Party is a dangerous movement within the party that can’t win the big elections.”

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/13163/democrats-gop-worried-virginia-election/#PxLW8cjXw4e0WktL.99

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 6, 2013 6:00 PM
Comment #373822

PH,
What “accusations” do you want me to link?

Kevin,
More coming out on the Romney vetting of Christie for VP in 2012.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/gov_chris_christie_says_mitt_romney_called_him_about_leak_of_vp_vetting_report.html

Christie says Romney has already apologized for the leaking of that information. The authors of the tell-all book point out they quoted directly from the vetting report.

Christie will not run.


Posted by: phx8 at November 6, 2013 6:06 PM
Comment #373823

phx8

Then you have nothing to worry about.

If he does run, he will kick Democratic ass.

Posted by: CJ at November 6, 2013 6:29 PM
Comment #373825

If he runs, he will have to face one or more Tea Party candidates- Cruz and/or Rubio, for example (although Rand Paul seems to have eliminated himself by repeatedly plagiarizing)- and those Tea Party candidates will have the money and the support of the radicalized base. The Heritage organization, the Senate Conservatives Fund, Freedomworks, and others have already demonstrated they will not hesitate to attack a fellow Republican, and they will go full bore after Christie if he ever rears his head. Gingrich and Perry torpedoed Romney’s chances, and Perry destroyed Cain too. That was nothing compared to what a fully funded Tea Party candidate will do to Christie, and Christie knows it. Furthermore, GOP primaries are mostly limited to Republican voters only, which means the radicalized base will have the final say on who represents the base. Most people might like to see pictures of Obama and Christie cooperating to bring relief to Americans after Sandy. For the radicalized base, it will drive them into a frenzy, and they will transfer their hatred of Obama to Christie by association, simply because the Obama & Christie believe in cooperating to help Americans. Cooperation is anathema to the extremist GOP base.

Posted by: phx8 at November 6, 2013 8:14 PM
Comment #373826

“The claim that 30 million Americans did not have HC coverage was the original lie, and we have been lied to ever since.”

DSP2195,

ER hospital stabilization care hardly qualifies as health coverage. No follow up care. If you need an operation on that broken leg. Too bad. If you need chronic care, too bad.

By the way, you are charged full price for that “coverage.” Got a house? Too bad. Got a job. Too bad. Hospital liens are virtually automatic in the US.

You might also be surprised to learn that that the federal government for decades has been funding hospitals for unreinbursed care. To the tune of over 22 billion per year in taxpayer dollars in addition to County proptery taxes.

Apparently, you like that system. Obamacare mandates a cut of 17 billion in federal funding for unreinbursed hospital care to indigents and uninsured.

Sometimes, I wonder about some critics. Taxpayer funding for ER expenses by uninsured is a better system than a fully insured system where everybody contributes to their insurance. Go figure!


Posted by: Rich at November 6, 2013 8:29 PM
Comment #373827

Phx8

The Obama folks did an excellent job of trashing Romney. That is how Obama won, that and Obama lying about health care. The fight in the primaries was similar to fights in primaries.

I don’t recall if it was you or someone like you, but a few years ago you guys were all telling me that Romney would never get elected. I offered a deal. I told you that if someone like Perry or Gingrich was nominated, I would vote Obama if you would vote for Romney if he were the nominee. I expect you reneged.

How about this? If Republicans nominate Cruz, I will vote for for your person, probably Hilary. On the other hand, if Republicans nominate Christie, you vote for him.

Of course, I cannot count on you to do that. But I at least expect that should he be nominated you will not call him an extreme right winger.

Posted by: CJ at November 6, 2013 8:39 PM
Comment #373829

So I said:

“The claim that 30 million Americans did not have HC coverage was the original lie, and we have been lied to ever since.”

And then Rich said:

“DSP2195,

ER hospital stabilization care hardly qualifies as health coverage. No follow up care. If you need an operation on that broken leg. Too bad. If you need chronic care, too bad.”

So Rich said the 30 million that Obama said had no HC insurance, had HC but not for follow up care.

Then Rich said:

“By the way, you are charged full price for that “coverage.” Got a house? Too bad. Got a job. Too bad. Hospital liens are virtually automatic in the US.

You might also be surprised to learn that that the federal government for decades has been funding hospitals for unreinbursed care. To the tune of over 22 billion per year in taxpayer dollars in addition to County proptery taxes.

Apparently, you like that system. Obamacare mandates a cut of 17 billion in federal funding for unreinbursed hospital care to indigents and uninsured.

Sometimes, I wonder about some critics. Taxpayer funding for ER expenses by uninsured is a better system than a fully insured system where everybody contributes to their insurance. Go figure!”

So what Rich is saying is that the 30 million had HC coverage, after they didn’t have coverage. Regarding “contributes to their own insurance”; Uhh, since when are the 30 million uninsured going to pay anything?

Posted by: DSP2195 at November 6, 2013 9:01 PM
Comment #373830

Christie won because he didn’t take the attitude of the Republican core. He in fact probably got a lot of flack for all the things that made him this electable, including being willing to have a civil relationship with President Barack Obama, and make Superstorm Sandy about the victims, rather than trying to extort some budget cuts out of it.

Additionally, I think Democrats and blue states have been far more flexible about Republicans than the other way around, especially since, for the longest time, there wasn’t a requirement that you act like a Republican from Alabama from the Tea Party, in order to run for office as part of the GOP.

The Trouble for the Republicans is that they may not have the compromising mentality necessary to make Christie work, even if he is nominated. As with Romney, the base might ask too much of him, or he of they, for Republicans to keep their enthusiasm up, and their voters at the polls.

I won’t utterly dismiss Chris Christie’s chances. But Christie is a similar Republican to Romney, and that’s pretty much the main reason he’s got any traction as a Presidential candidate.

Put simply, the Republicans are strangling the back bench of moderates they need in order to win national, or even in some cases state-wide elections. They’re expecting people to play along with their lurch to the right, and folks aren’t doing it.

Worse yet, they sabotage their candidates by forcing them to demonstrate their bonafides to the most zealous of the party members. Because of that, people question whether the moderates are really moderates. Question is, can Christie overpower that faction?

Further question: do many of you on the red column want him to?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2013 9:07 PM
Comment #373831

Ben LaBolt, a senior aide on Obama’s 2012 campaign, said Democrats should make an “early investment” now to attack Christie. LaBolt noted that the last presidential candidate to tell his own story coming out of a reelection was then-governor George W. Bush of Texas — who went on to win the White House. -

From Washington Post

Pretty soon the Watchblog liberals will get their talking points and go on the attack.

Posted by: CJ at November 6, 2013 9:08 PM
Comment #373832

Stephen

Please see above. Soon you will get the word to attack Christie as an extreme right winger. Maybe in a day of two you will start.

Posted by: CJ at November 6, 2013 9:14 PM
Comment #373837

CJ,
Obama did not win by trashing Romney. Republicans did the dirty work in the primaries, especially Gingrich. And Romney did himself no favors with a series of gaffes- the 47% comment, taking a right wing blog talking point about Benghazi and getting killed for it in a debate, Clint Eastwood talking to a chair. Plus, he had no charm. Face it. The guy was just an awkward candidate with a huge amount of money.

In addition, Obama did a good job during his first term. He earned re-election by a decisive margin with 51% of the vote. He had coattails, too, gaining seats for the Democrats in both the House and the Senate.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think I ever made such a bet with you. I always thought Romney would be the nominee. Right now, I will not take a wager on the GOP nominee. I cannot even guess who it will be. One would think a state governor would become the candidate, but for the time being, Cruz seems to have captured the crazy base.

Posted by: phx8 at November 7, 2013 12:02 AM
Comment #373839

Phx8

Obama folks spend early to “define” Romney. It worked, which is why they want to do it to Christie.

Re Obama doing a good job - 51% win is not very much. Beyond that, Obama is the only president to be reelected with a smaller margin than the first time. He lost mandate.

Re Romney - he was a bad candidate. I think he would have made a better president than Obama. I think I could be a better president than Obama and maybe you could. We had more experience working with leadership than he did. He is a great campaigner but a poor leader.

Re the bet - I don’t know. I do recall the general idea spread among Democrats that Romney was too moderate to be nominated by the crazy Republicans.

I just wish the Obama time would be finished and we can get back to running the country for the benefit of all Americans, rather than this divisive hateful crap that Obama does and provokes. I don’t like the hate directed at him, but I also don’t like the constant attack coming from him and his folks.

Posted by: CJ at November 7, 2013 5:42 AM
Comment #373842
Taxpayer funding for ER expenses by uninsured is a better system than a fully insured system where everybody contributes to their insurance.

Um, what system are you talking about?

According to a recent analysis by the consulting firm McKinsey and Company, about 7 million Americans will qualify for free health insurance policies under the Affordable Care Act once federal subsidies are taken into account. That includes about 6 million people who are currently uninsured and about 1 million who have policies purchased on the individual market. All of them have incomes that are too high for Medicaid but low enough to receive subsidies that will fully cover the cost of a “bronze” or “silver” plan on a government-run exchange.
Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2013 11:03 AM
Comment #373844

C&J-
I keep on flashing back to Claude Rains’ character going “I’m shocked, shocked to see gambling going on!”, and then accepting his winnings when you start warning that Democrats are going to attack him.

Your people use talking points, you’re likely repeating some every time you attack Obama, especially when you use those insultingly basic ones.

If you think that your approach isn’t completely transparent, you’re joking. I’m not stupid. I know what you do for a living. I know what you’re trained to do.

We have our ideas. Christie did himself favors with Superstorm Sandy, and that’s probably what got him re-elected. People are willing to try out Republican Governors and officials in Blue States, but we want pragmatists and problem-solvers. At the same time, Christie can be a bit arrogant, can abuse his position (my personal favorite is taking a helicopter at great expense to go to a son’s sports game), and can run roughshod over people.

This is modern politics. I doubt Christie holds back, so Democrats won’t either.

As for getting word to attack him as an extreme right winger? Hmm. That all depends on him. If he tries Romney’s approach of trying to appear like a severe conservative, or letting the Republicans in Congress dictate terms, then at least we’ll be knocking him as somebody who’s taking his cue from the extremists. If he tries to come off as a centrist? Well, past dealings will probably get examined as part of the oppo research, and his temper will most certainly get played up.

You complain that Obama defined Romney, but really, do you expect me to believe Republicans weren’t trying to define him from day one? What about these lies about him being a foreigner, or an empty suit buoyed up by affirmative action? I think it’s ridiculous to pretend that a party that called Obama socialist all the time, that even invented cute words like “Obamunist”, who were using the Reverend Wright association with all the repetition of a broken record wasn’t trying to define Obama, or aren’t trying to define him now!

You’re not calling him a liar day in and day out for nothing.

So don’t give me this crap complaining that Obama is trying to define Christie, as if it’s some sort of shocking crime. Or, put in simpler terms, stop playing the victim. You cannot possibly be naive enough to look at politics as if these things aren’t standard practice on your side, and I have not been so insulting to your intelligence as to suggest that Democrats don’t do them.

The real question, both in practical and rhetorical terms, is whether the allegations stick.

I’ve lost count of the times that you and yours have counted Obama out. Quit making that same mistake again and again.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 7, 2013 12:08 PM
Comment #373845

Political Hostage, the Byrne Race in Alabama exemplifies my point. The business money backed the moderate Republican beating out the Tea Party candidate. Cuccinelli would never have lost to McAuliffe if he hadn’t represented extremist Tea Party factions. I think the election results support my statement. You have a right to your opinion, but, election results imply your opinion is not based in reality.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 7, 2013 12:53 PM
Comment #373853

PHX8 writes; “…(although Rand Paul seems to have eliminated himself by repeatedly plagiarizing)…”

No problem, obama lies repeatedly and no one cares.


Remer writes; “Cuccinelli would never have lost to McAuliffe if he hadn’t represented extremist Tea Party factions.”

You political analysis is about an inch deep.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 7, 2013 3:55 PM
Comment #373856

Rand Paul was fired as a columnist for the Washington Times due to plagiarism. Man, how low is that! Getting fired from the Washington Times! But he managed to find a way to intellectually sink even lower- he has been hired by Breitbart.

Four more instances found in Rand’s book today.

I do not know if Rand actually did the plagiarizing, or one of his staff. Probably the latter. Maybe a ghostwriter? In any case, Rand needs to explain, and put together a new staff. This is just sophomoric. No wait. That is unfair to sophomores, who know better than to copy without attribution.

Posted by: phx8 at November 7, 2013 4:58 PM
Comment #373858

phx8, you’re right. At this rate, the only thing he will be qualified for is being VP…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2013 5:07 PM
Comment #373859

“In any case, Rand needs to explain…”

Why not just send out a staff member to blame Bill Clinton? A vast left-wing conspiracy? A video?

Posted by: kctim at November 7, 2013 5:12 PM
Comment #373860

No Remer, your point was that the Tea Part voters represent a very small “faction of the voting public”, and this is not true.

Political Hostage, the Byrne Race in Alabama exemplifies my point. The business money backed the moderate Republican beating out the Tea Party candidate. Cuccinelli would never have lost to McAuliffe if he hadn’t represented extremist Tea Party factions. I think the election results support my statement. You have a right to your opinion, but, election results imply your opinion is not based in reality.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 7, 2013 12:53 PM

This article is from the Washington Post and although it does say that big business supported the establishment Republican Byrne, the article also points out that is was Byrne who received the establishment Republican Party support. So the Tea Party candidate Young had absolutely no support from the establishment or big business. In other words, a complete uphill battle and yet only lost by a small percentage.

Bonner was part of a flurry of establishment GOP support that rallied to Byrne’s side during the runoff. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent at least $199,000 on his behalf, while big companies such as AT&T and Home Depot donated thousands to Byrne’s campaign down the stretch.

Byrne often cast himself as a “work horse” in an effort to contrast himself with Young, who he characterized as a “show horse.” He urged voters to send someone to Washington not just to fight, but to fight and be an effective voice for the district.

Despite being outspent and having almost no support from national conservative groups, Young made a race of it by rallying his base of evangelical Christians and tea party voters angry with the federal government and eager for the next fight. He sought to criticize Byrne as a pol beholden to establishment interests who would mean business as usual if elected to Congress.

Now, my question to you is; would you rather have a Congressman who was bought and paid for by big corporations and the establishment party; or would you rather have one who is not beholding to big corporations. Before you answer the question; perhaps you can remember your hatred of the establishment and corporations, unless your independent claims have been nothing more than rhetoric.

As for this comment:

Cuccinelli would never have lost to McAuliffe if he hadn’t represented extremist Tea Party factions. I think the election results support my statement.

Evidently you are in complete disagreement with everyone who has commented on the results of this election. Cuccinelli would have never lost to McAuliffe is:

1. The Democrats HAD NOT spent time and money to back the Libertarian candidate, for the purpose of stealing votes.

2. The Republican Party HAD spent time and money to support Cuccinelli.

The Republican Party chose to not support Cuccinnelli because their dislike of the Democrats in office is only exceeded by the hatred for the Tea Party conservative movement.

Last question, why do you claim to be an independent, when you are in complete support of the socialist Democratic Party…just wondering?

Posted by: Political Hostage at November 7, 2013 5:13 PM
Comment #373861

PH, You might make a better attempt at making your point if you weren’t factually wrong…

Had the libertarian not run, McAuliffe would have won by a larger margin. Exit polls show that twice as many people voted for the libertarian who would have voted for the democrat had he not been in the race as did those who would have voted republican. I’ve tried to explain this to you before.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/06/stop-scapegoating-third-party-candidates-for-election-results/?iid=op-main-lead

Put the loss on the candidate’s shoulders, had he convinced more voters to vote for him than anyone else, he would have won. He didn’t so he lost. Trying to blame anything just ensures that the TP will continue to learn nothing…

BTW, the polling in VA shows that over seventy percent of the people in the state dislike the TP. That the candidate got as many votes as he did was positive for him, he had a lot to overcome. But unfortunately, all those that voted for him wasted their votes… had they voted with the better candidate, the libertarian, the libertarian would have won and as a result the TP is responsible for a socialist getting elected in VA.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2013 5:38 PM
Comment #373863

BTW, the assertion that democratic funding is what got Sarvis the vote he did is absurd… The PAC that funded Sarvis was a Libertarian PAC. Yes, the PAC has many donors, one of them is a Democrat, I’m sure many more are Republicans. But the PAC is decidedly libertarian. You can read more about the actual facts here:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/07/libertarian-booster-pac-denies-supportin

I’m sure that 11,000 dollars the PAC donated is what cost the republican the race…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2013 5:56 PM
Comment #373867

Rhinehold,

There may be a small number of individuals/families that essentially receive “free insurance” on the subsidized exchanges. But, the vast majority qualifying for subsidy will pay something toward their insurance. Even those with “free insurance” are liable for co-payments and deductibles.

It is a better system than the hidden backdoor taxpayer funding of hospitals for unreimbursed care for indigents and uninsured.

Posted by: Rich at November 7, 2013 6:10 PM
Comment #373869
PH, You might make a better attempt at making your point if you weren’t factually wrong…

Had the libertarian not run, McAuliffe would have won by a larger margin. Exit polls show that twice as many people voted for the libertarian who would have voted for the democrat had he not been in the race as did those who would have voted republican. I’ve tried to explain this to you before.

Rhinehold, thank you for correcting my facts, but I got those number from you yesterday:

And, go look at the exit polls. Sarvis got just as many votes from registered Democrats as he got from registered Republicans.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 6, 2013 10:55 AM, Comment #373796

So I guess my question is, were you factually wrong yesterday or were you factually wrong today?

But unfortunately, all those that voted for him wasted their votes… had they voted with the better candidate, the libertarian, the libertarian would have won and as a result the TP is responsible for a socialist getting elected in VA.

Another good point, but perhaps we could add another of your comments to the complete loss of the libertarian:

Put the loss on the candidate’s shoulders, had he convinced more voters to vote for him than anyone else, he would have won. He didn’t so he lost. Trying to blame anything just ensures that the TP will continue to learn nothing…

“The PAC that funded Sarvis was a Libertarian PAC. Yes, the PAC has many donors, one of them is a Democrat”

A Democrat bundler…

Rhinehold, don’t become so defensive that someone thinks a TP candidate is better than a Libertarian.

Posted by: Political Hostage at November 7, 2013 6:53 PM
Comment #373878

Amen to CJ’s statement:

“I just wish the Obama time would be finished and we can get back to running the country for the benefit of all Americans, rather than this divisive hateful crap that Obama does and provokes. I don’t like the hate directed at him, but I also don’t like the constant attack coming from him and his folks.”

Posted by: CJ at November 7, 2013 5:42 AM

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at November 7, 2013 8:37 PM
Comment #373879
So I guess my question is, were you factually wrong yesterday or were you factually wrong today?

I was factually wrong neither time. One fact was about registered democrats and registered republicans voting for Sarvis. The other one was about the responses to the question of who Sarvis’ voters would have voted for if they hadn’t had Sarvis to vote for, regardless of their political party affiliation.

And it really doesn’t matter which statistic you use, they both point to the fact that had Sarvis not been in the race, McAuliffe would have won by at least as much as he had, probably more.

A Democrat bundler…

LOL, you aren’t going to let this go, are you? Liemandt is a wealthy .com owner who got to talking with the head of the libertarian PAC and asked ‘what would the Libertarian party be if you had a million dollars’. He then, over the years, donated 300,000 to the PAC with no instructions on how to use it or where. The PAC took $11,000 dollars of that and gave it to Sarvis. He also donated to Obama in 2012. Oh the horror!

And your suggestion is that this is a ‘Democrat Bundler’ funding a candidate (who he had no hand in deciding to fund) in order to beat a TP candidate (in a state that overwhelmingly dislikes the TP) and he succeeded by only spending 11,000 to do it?

The limits on the credulity you are trying to present with your suggestion are strained to the point of creating a small wormhole… I know Rush has sold you this fairytale, but come on…

Rhinehold, don’t become so defensive that someone thinks a TP candidate is better than a Libertarian.

LOL, I could give a rat’s ass about whether someone thinks a TP candidate is better than a libertarian, that’s a subjective view that everyone is entitled to have. Even libertarians.

What I *AM* defensive about, or rather incensed by, is the notion that somehow people voting for this libertarian was what ‘cost someone an election’ as if those votes were there’s to have taken from them. Those votes belong to the voters and the voters wanted to vote for the person who represented their views the best. And yes, it was probable that they wouldn’t win, but it was also probable that the TP candidate wasn’t going to win either. But by voting for their ideals and beliefs, they are telling the next group of candidates that they are there, they are voters and if you want their vote you are going to have to speak to their issues, not scare them into voting for you and definitely not insult them while expecting their votes.

That’s the part about modern politics that has me disgusted more than anything, the elicitation of votes through fear. ” Yeah, our guy is bad, but that OTHER guy is worse, you wouldn’t want that now, would you? ” Sounds like a protection racket to me.

Not only do you insult every person who voted for Sarvis with your ignorant claims, not only do you scare away not only people in the Republican party from voting for who they may really want to vote for but also anyone from the Democratic party from doing the same, not only do you make a mockery out of the institution of Democracy (or Constitutional Republicanism), but you feed the fuel that prevents third party candidates from being heard in the first place. It is already nearly impossible to get their message across themselves, instead their ‘views’ are presented by those in the republican and democratic parties that I’m sure ‘accurately reflect’ those views. But on top of that, they keep those candidates off the ballots with unconstitutional voter laws, off of the debate floor with irrational and insane debate entry requirements and poison the well against any kind of alternative thinking other than the tired tripe that is presented in Washington by the two major parties. Two parties formed before the CIVIL WAR, btw… It’s not like we might benefit from some new thinking in the 21st freaking century, is it?

You don’t like the way that the media and entrenched political establishments are treating the TP? Well, stew on that for 50 years and you might be about where the libertarians are. And instead of understanding, you do the exact same thing to the libertarians that you are complaining about being done to you!

BTW, the funny part of the whole thing is that the Tea Party protests were going on for years before 2009, they were just thrown by libertarians. When Freedomworks (and Hannity, et al) started getting people to come to those events, most libertarians were thrilled about it. Here we have conservatives that are fed up with the Republican party after the neo-con experiment of Bush and are joining us in the ideals and beliefs that we share to help make some changes in our political system.

Boy were they wrong… Within a few months the republicans had thrown out all of the original libertarians in the movement who were in any kind of ‘leadership’ position, saying that the only way they could be taken seriously was to ‘get rid of the loonies in our movement’, which WASN’T THEIR MOVEMENT AT ALL.

And you wonder why the Tea Party has so much trouble getting libertarian support? After the way that we were treated, I wouldn’t expect a libertarian to support a TP candidate ever again. Unfortunately, some of my libertarian friends are more forgiving I suppose and tepidly support the TP candidates when it makes sense for them to do so, but people can only be insulted by a group of people for so long before it becomes very hard to get their support when it is wanted.

So support your TP candidates that want to deny individual freedoms to millions of Americans, keep the war machine turning, keep the spying on heightened alert, etc… I’ll support the only group of people I know who actually care about the rights of every citizen of the United States, not just the ones that they like or agree with.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2013 8:55 PM
Comment #373882

I posted this is an earlier post, but since we seem to have the same conversation going in two places, I will include it here.

Rhinehold, I know you have no use for religious beliefs; but many TP conservatives cannot ever accept libertarian views on homosexuality, abortion, or drugs. Many of the other issues such as lower taxes, smaller government, gun right, etc… we are in complete agreement. Since progressives will never agree with libertarians, and since TP conservatives can never agree on some of the libertarian beliefs, I would suggest that libertarianism is a dying breed before it even gets started. It would seem to me, the best move would be for libertarians to unite with conservatives in order to take back the Republican Party. It is a fact that the Republican Party has more in common with the Democrats, than it does with conservatives.

I was factually wrong neither time. One fact was about registered democrats and registered republicans voting for Sarvis. The other one was about the responses to the question of who Sarvis’ voters would have voted for if they hadn’t had Sarvis to vote for, regardless of their political party affiliation.

So what you are saying is that an equal number of Democrats and Republicans voted for Sarvis; but when asked if the choic was between a Republican or a Democrat… at least half the Republicans said they would vote for the Democrat. Sorry, I’m having trouble with that one.

As I told you before, I’m not a registered Republican…I’m an independent. I would NOT support the RNC for anything. But I do support the candidate of my choosing. I have even supported conservative candidates of other states.

Posted by: Political Hostage at November 7, 2013 9:35 PM
Comment #373886
the best move would be for libertarians to unite with conservatives.

Why would they unite with conservatives when they share so much with liberals? Modern liberalism and libertarianism both descend from a common classical liberal tradition and share many of the same values (especially the idea of “pro-choice”; the idea that one ought to be able to do whatever he or she chooses so long as those choices don’t violate another’s rights). On the other hand, conservatism descends from the British Toryism as well as reactionary royalist movements from Europe.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 7, 2013 10:15 PM
Comment #373887

Warren, PH doesn’t understand anything about libertarianism, he apparently just thinks we’re conservatives who like to smoke pot and don’t hate gays. In other words, amoral conservative atheists.

The reality is that if the TP were SERIOUS about limited government, they would know better than to mess around with the republican party, instead they would join with the Libertarians. But as he said, they can’t get over hating gays and people living their lives differently than they want to (or as a book written thousands of years tells them to … selectively).

Political Hostage:

I’ll respond to your post with what I posted in the other thread in a minute, but first:

So what you are saying is that an equal number of Democrats and Republicans voted for Sarvis; but when asked if the choic was between a Republican or a Democrat… at least half the Republicans said they would vote for the Democrat. Sorry, I’m having trouble with that one.

I can see that…

Let me try to explain in better. First, the people leaving the polls were asked ‘who did you vote for’. If they said Sarvis, they were asked a couple more questions.

The first followup was “Are you a registered Republican or Democrat?” Of those who responded either one or the other (many said either independent, or libertarian, or other) about half of them one and half of them said the other.

THEN they were asked a second followup. “If Sarvis was not on the ballot, who would you vote for?” Of all respodents (including independants, libertarians, republicans, democrats, greens, etc) who said that they would vote for one or the other (some said that they would stay home) about 2/3 of them said McAuliffe, the other 1/3 said Cuccinelli.

So I hope that clears THAT up, though I imagine you will still reject it. Despite that is what the polling data said.

Do you want another piece of data?

When asked what the most important issue was for voters, 45% said economy. Of those, 49% voted for Cuccinelli, 43% McAulliffe.

27% said Healthcare. Of those, 49% voted for Cuccinelli, 45% McAuliffe.

20% said Abortion. Of those only 34% voted for Cuccinelli, 59% McAuliffe.

So, you see, holding on to that anti-abortion stance is what cost you the election. The near majority of voters who were most concerned about the economy and healthcare voted for Cuccinelli! But those that care about abortion rights, those that care about INDIVIDUAL rights, they turned to McAuliffe and Sarvis…

Now, more data. Those that listed their Ideology as liberal, 7% of them voted for Sarvis. Those that listed their Ideology as conservative, 3% of them voted for Sarvis. Do you think the liberals would have voted for Cuccinelli if they didn’t have Sarvis to vote for?

3% of Democrats voted for Sarvis, 4% of Republicans voted for Sarvis. This is statistically about a tie given the margin of error.

From ABC NEWS:

Finally, while it didn’t change the outcome, the third-party candidate in the race, Libertarian Robert Sarvis, may have made it closer for McAuliffe than it would have been otherwise. Had he not been on the ballot, a third of his voters said they’d have supported McAuliffe – slightly more than twice as many as said they’d have gone for Cuccinelli.

This can be viewed at: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/11/05/va.gov.exit.polls.1120p.110513.v2.final%5B1%5D.copy.pdf

Now, on to your other suggestion about ‘joining up with Conservatives’.

many TP conservatives cannot ever accept libertarian views on homosexuality, abortion, or drugs.

No libertarian is telling them that they have to engage in homosexual behavior, have an abortion or do any drugs. But where do you get off thinking you have a right to put a gun to people’s heads and prevent them from engaging in those activities that DON’T AFFECT YOU?

That’s the problem, you aren’t for small government at all, just small government where you want it to be small and bloated overreaching Orwellian government where you want it to be.

Since progressives will never agree with libertarians

Actually, progressives and libertarians agree on a lot of things, you just listed off several of them.

I would suggest that libertarianism is a dying breed before it even gets started.

Libertarian views are the increasing view of the younger people in this country and the number of people who subscribes to those views have been growing for decades. I wouldn’t call that ‘dying’.

In fact, most people claim to be ‘socially liberal and fiscally conservative’, which lines up with libertarian views much more than the TP.

Take a look at this article by Nate Silver:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/poll-finds-a-shift-toward-more-libertarian-views/?_r=0

It would seem to me, the best move would be for libertarians to unite with conservatives in order to take back the Republican Party.

LOL, you want people who think it is an abhomination to put a gun to someone’s head and tell them who they can love, how they can live their life, what they can smoke, what they can drink, how they raise their children, spy on them, steal from them and tell them how they can vote to join up with a group of people who say all of that is NECESSARY?

And what do you mean ‘take back’, the Libertarians were never Republicans… There’s nothing in that party that most of have any interest in, other than them occasionally being on the right side of issues accidentally.

I don’t know what kind of drugs you are taking, but you are going to have to stop it if you want to keep from going to jail…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 7, 2013 11:21 PM
Comment #373888

Rhinehold,
Some of your best comments on Libertarian philosophy. Really well done.

Posted by: phx8 at November 7, 2013 11:41 PM
Comment #373889

Maybe I will have a libertarian judge who has no problems with drugs, therefore I would never have to go to jail.

Posted by: Political Hostage at November 8, 2013 12:12 AM
Comment #373890

Sorry, doesn’t matter, your fellow citizens have determined that you should rot (or die) in prison for doing a joint…

22-Year-Old Jailed for Pot Possession Dies While Guards Ignore His Pleas for Help

A mother has finally obtained video footage proving that her 22-year-old son died when guards in a Snohomish County, Washington jail ignored his desperate pleas for help. The victim, Michael Saffioti, was serving time after missing a court date for a misdemeanor marijuana possession charge. To make the awful story even worse, Saffioti’s mother alleges that her son was killed by a severe allergic reaction to oatmeal that prison officials erroneously told him was safe to eat and then later covered up. She has spent the past year fighting with the jail to obtain footage that might help explain his death.

The incident began in July of last year. Saffioti turned himself in to the authorities in order to be “held accountable for his legal issues” and was promptly thrown behind bars. He died less than 24 hours later.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 8, 2013 12:23 AM
Comment #373891

Sorry, buggered up that link:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/07/22-year-old-jailed-for-pot-possession-di

Fun postnote. Just four months after Michael’s death, Washington state legalized recreational marijuana.

This is your society on drug wars…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 8, 2013 12:24 AM
Comment #373892

Stephen

“I know what you do for a living.” – What I do for a living is mostly promote higher education and various exchange and many of my best allies are liberals. I used to fight the Cold War, but that was years ago. I don’t equate you all with the old evil empire.

Re what I am doing being transparent – I am always transparent. I am a simple guy. I said outright that you all will soon start to try to define Christie. It is clear you will. What is deceptive? You may disagree with what I wrote, but I fail to see how you find it tricky.

Re defining Christie – I didn’t say it was some kind of crime; I simply said that you would soon be trying to do it. It worked very well for the Obama team against Romney.

Warren

Liberals used to be more like what we today call libertarians. They changed beginning in the 1930s and really went over the edge in the 1960s. The difference is the role of government. I wouldn’t have any trouble with liberals if they would not use laws, taxes and regulations so “liberally.”

Posted by: CJ at November 8, 2013 1:44 AM
Comment #373903

Okay Rhinehold I have had it. I am calling foul, blowing my whistle and throwing my flag. With arguments you are making you are going to convince people that the Libertarian political agenda is something worth looking at. I doubt if you could get anyone from the tea party to consider that however as I really think they are too far down the rabbit hole of listening to the right wing hate machine. I see real possibilities for a Libertarian ascendancy while the Republican/tea party descends to a minor party status. This will especially be true by 2020 or 2024. After 12 to 16 years of Democratic dominance there will be an appetite for change and it won’t go the way of the Republican/tea party retro politics of hate, shame and force. Damn now I am wishing I didn’t wish you good luck changing peoples minds (but maybe I did).

Posted by: Speak4all at November 8, 2013 12:57 PM
Comment #373904

Political Hostage, again your views don’t match reality. Less than a third of Americans are registered Republicans. The Tea Party faction of the Republican constituency is approximately 41% according to PEW Research (22% in another estimate). The math then indicates that less than half of the less than third of Republicans are Tea Party supporters, or, roughly less than 1/6 of American voters are Tea Party supporters. That is a small faction, compared to other identifiable party groups. You are entitled to your opinion, just not your own facts in a public forum.

http://thehill.com/opinion/mark-mellman/189359-digging-into-the-tea-party

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2013 1:02 PM
Comment #373906

David

Not all Tea Party folks are Republican. A Gallop poll showed them to be 43% Independent and even 8% Democratic. They are a little older and higher income, but otherwise look like American in most ways http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx.

Tea Party seems to be declining a bit. I am grateful to the movement for stopping the Obama momentum in 2010. I am not sure about the future.

Posted by: CJ at November 8, 2013 1:17 PM
Comment #373908

C or J?
Christie will be eviscerated during the Republican primaries. It’s already started if you look at the congratulatory messages that Rubio, Paul and Cruz gave him. Kind of a backhanded, well yeah it worked for him but that doesn’t mean it works for anyone else and besides hes not really that “principled”. I see someone during the primaries pulling the card of you are not a pure enough conservative, just like we saw the last time with Romney. By the time he accepted the nomination he was spinning to defend any number of issues that you could tell he did not really believe in. While it might be entertaining to someone like myself to hear Christie’s answer to “let them die”, “he’s a faggot” and the infamous 1 to 10 tax to budget cuts debacle. I have a feeling that the New Jersey in him would pretty much tell someone like that to sit down and shut up until they had something worthwhile to say. Yes that would be fun to watch.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 8, 2013 2:56 PM
Comment #373909

Speaks

Mostly J. C was very active for a short time but then got sick of it. Sometimes people can guess who is who, but we try to make that difficult.

I don’t know if Christie will be the nominee. Democrats will be attacking him anyway, just in case.

Posted by: CJ at November 8, 2013 3:45 PM
Comment #373910

No attacks from here other than I would advise taking a look at his lobbyist career, could have some impact on his ability to be taken seriously by people who are looking for financial reforms or at least fair play. I think he will have more of a problem from his fellow candidates and the right wing machine than he would from the likes of me. I guess I just don’t see the Democratic attack machine in such high gear, could be rose colored glasses. Now attacking candidates, that is the forte of the right wing machine only they don’t just use it against the other party but as of late have begun to eat their own. Good to know who I am commenting to/with, thanks. I usually could tell the difference if I took the time to dissect the post. I do think you have a much more nuanced style that comes across as civility even though you do deal out the nasty on occasion. No offense meant to C.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 8, 2013 4:01 PM
Comment #373913

The so called shutdown was the result of TP Republicans demanding that Obamacare be repealed, defunded, or delayed; and they were called WHAT?????? The Democrats looking at re-election in 2014 are now calling for a delay in obamacare; and they are called SILENCE!!!!!

The TP Republicans brought the problems with obamacare to light. In other words…vindicated…

Regarding the left on WB getting their jollies at listening to a libertarian lecture a conservative, and regarding the idea that TP conservatives are in a demise. There are 79 Tea Party conservatives in the House, how many libertarians in the House? There are several Tea Party conservatives in the Senate, how many libertarian are in the Senate. There have been conservatives elected to the presidency, how many libertarians have been elected to the presidency?

The truth is, it is progressive liberalism that is in the demise.

Posted by: Political Hostage at November 8, 2013 6:24 PM
Comment #373914

By the way…Libertarianism has never been a legitimate alternative party. It will never do better than 7% in any election.

But since so many liberal progressives are so excited about Libertarianism leaving the Tea Party in the dust; perhaps you liberals could tell me which of you would be in favor of less taxes, pro-life, smaller government, or all legal citizens having the right to arm themselves…including those in major Democrat cities. Which of you would crossover and vote libertarian?

Posted by: Political Hostage at November 8, 2013 6:35 PM
Comment #373920

Ben Sasse is doing what few Republicans have been able to accomplish: He’s uniting the GOP establishment with anti-establishment conservatives in his bid to become the next U.S. senator from Nebraska.

The broad coalition Sasse is building is something the Nebraskan is proud of — and it’s an element of his campaign he’s been actively pursuing. “We’re building a broad conservative coalition of Nebraskans who want to fix Washington,” says Sasse in an email.

“We’re grateful that all types of folks across Nebraska are responding to our conservative, solutions-oriented message. This week, for instance, we’ve sought the support of gun owners, of Christian service organizations, and of the Chamber of Commerce. We want everybody; we want to grow the conservative movement.”

The key appears to be Sasse’s anti-Obamacare message, which the former Bush official is able to speak about fluidly and persuasively. It’s resonating especially well now that the open-enrollment period for the massive health care overhaul has been so disastrous.


Posted by: Political Hostage at November 8, 2013 8:03 PM
Comment #373934
Which of you would crossover and vote libertarian?

While in school, I was an active member of my university’s chapter of Young Americans for Liberty. If a libertarian can convince me that his policies derive from Constitutional principles rather than corporatist convenience, then they will surely have earned my vote.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 9, 2013 3:08 PM
Comment #381290

louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
coach factory
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online
michael kors
coach outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday sale 2014
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton stores
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online store
louis vuitton outlet online
kate spade
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
authentic louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet
coach factory store
coach handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
cheap red bottom shoes
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet store online
lululemon warehouse
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton handbags
true religion outlet
coach factory outlet
coach factory
coach factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton handbags outlet
montblanc pens
louis vuitton handbags 2014
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton sale
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
red bottom heels
michael kors
michael kors sale
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
louisvuitton.com
michael kors handbags
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton black Friday
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin shoes
louis vuitton outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
cheap red bottoms
www.louisvuitton.com
coach factory
montblanc pen
coach black Friday deals
michael kors
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton usa
coach outlet stores
red bottom shoes
coach outlet
christian louboutin shoes
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton outlet store online
coach black Friday
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
louis vuitton cheap
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors sale
coach handbags
coach handbags
cheap ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
red bottom shoes
louis vuitton
cheap lululemon
michael kors black Friday
coach outlet
oakley outlet
michael kors factory online
coach factory outlet online
coach handbags
louis vuitton
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton online shop
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton 2014
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory
lululemon pants
coach outlet
michael kors outlet online
coachfactory.com
michael kors handbags 2014
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin discount
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach outlet
coach factory
michael kors outlet online
cheap michael kors handbags
michael kors factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglasses
coach outlet
oakley sunglaase cheap
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
louisvuitton.com
coachfactory.com
michael kors factory outlet
louis vuitton
louis vuitton
michael kors
louis vuitton handbags
true religion
louis vuitton outlet
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet
coach factory outlet
tory burch outlet online
kate spade handbags
michael kors handbags outlet
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton
oakley sunglasses outlet
louis vuitton handbags sale
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
coach factory
coach handbags new 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors handbags outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
cheap christian louboutin
coach outlet store online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors factory outlet
michael kors handbags 2014
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet stores
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet store
louis vuitton
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
coach factory
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
chrsitian louboutin outlet online
coach factory outlet
www.coachfactory.com
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton
cheap coach purses
louis vuitton outlet stores
coach factory
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
louis vuitton handbags
christian louboutin shoes sale
coach outlet store
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
cheap oakleys
cheap coach purses
michaelkors.com
coach factory online
michael kors outlet online
tory burch handbags
coach factory outlet
christian louboutin discount
louis vuitton outlet
www.michaelkors.com
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach black Friday sale 2014
coach factory
tory burch shoes
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach factory store
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton handbags
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin heels
lululemon clothing
louis vuitton sale
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet store
coachfactory.com
mont blanc pens
christian louboutin
louis vuitton handbags
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
louis vuitton purses
louis vuitton
louis vuitton outlet
christian louboutin sale
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
michael kors purses
michael kors handbags
coach outlet store online
coach factory
michael kors black Friday sale 2014
coach factory outlet
michael kors outlet
www.coachfactory.com
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
tory burch outlet
red bottom shoes
mont blanc pens
coach factory outlet
coach outlet
christian louboutin
lululemon outlet
coach handbags
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet
michael kors
coach factory outlet online
louis vuitton outlet online
christian louboutin sale
michael kors factory online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors handbags online
coach factory online
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet
louis vuitton
coach factory outlet online
christian louboutin
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
michael kors
coach.com
christian louboutin sale
cheap christian louboutin
coach factory online
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton
coach handbags new 2014
coach factory online
christian louboutin shoes
coach handbags
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton online sale
michael kors outlet
red bottom shoes outlet
michael kors handbags
louis vuitton handbags
true religion jeans
louis vuitton outlet online
coach factory outlet
oakley sunglasses
michael kors factory
louis vuitton handbags
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton shop online
michael kors bags
louis vuitton
michael kors handbags
coach factory outlet online
michael kors handbags
oakley sunglasses
coach handbags new 2014
louis vuitton handbags outlet
michael kors
cheap raybans
kate spade outlet
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online

Posted by: haokeai at July 21, 2014 5:38 AM
Post a comment