November 5, 2013

There isn’t very much for me to say today, so I’m only going to reiterate

Today is the day when you’ll hear GOP establishment boosters rah-rahing it up for Cuccinelli, confident (at the highest levels, at least; many of the “pragmatic” followers of these manipulators within the consultant and leadership class believe themselves too savvy to believe any of my PURIST horse shit) they’ve done what they could — be it by omission (not matching the funding of the left groups, which outspent Cuccinelli 10-to-1; showing no sense of urgency, etc) or commission (Republican elected officials within the state either trashing Cuccinelli publicly or, in at least one case, outright endorsing McCauliffe) to ensure his loss.

Then, we’ll begin to hear the postmortems from these same types, who will bemoan the fact that Cuccinelli’s ties to extremists in the TEA Party movement are what did him in — not the GOP establishment’s lack of enthusiasm, not the funding of a “Libertarian” candidate (who it turns out received a very large portion of his funding from a Democrat bundler), not the national GOP opinion drivers like, eg., George Will or Jennifer Rubin taking to the pages of the Washington Post to suddenly find merit in a third party answer, even if the third party candidate is entirely unconservative, supporting tax hikes and a per mile tax on driving while distancing himself from the Austrian school of free market economics.

The counterpoint — look at how Chris Christie dominated in a blue state!– will be meant to show us the way forward, that by compromise and rebranding (which is shorthand for pandering to ethnic groups and discounting the GOP party’s base) the GOP can once again thrive as a national party.

Sadly, that party will be the Democrat party, albeit reinscribed as “conservative” — while the actual Democrat party itself slides into a progressive or labor party posture permanently.

Chris Christie has already insisted he is a conservative, despite not signing on to fight the health care debacle, a fight led by Cuccinelli, who actually won at the Federal Court level; he has insisted he is a conservative despite his positions on global warming, on rapidly setting up a state health care exchange to get ObamaCare implemented, on gun control, on amnesty and in-state tuition to illegals, and a host of other things that Karl Rove (along with allies on the left) have worked to rebrand as “conservative.”  In other words, Chris Christie is a conservative, provided moderates and neostatists are allowed to define the term.

My site was down for a large part of the day yesterday.  And with it, my email. So it wasn’t until today that I heard that Mark Levin had written openly about the GOP establishment’s attempt, in his estimation, to ensure a Cuccinelli defeat – and its long term plan of fighting conservatism as a way to return to status quo DC bipartisanship, the very thing that leads us ever leftward, and makes us ever more dependent on a federal government that has long exceeded its constitutional authority.  We’re beginning to see strange happenings:  FOX News doing specials on Charles Krauthammer, whom Ron Radish absurdly called the most important voice of modern conservatism (a claim soundly rejected by Andrew McCarthy) and belied by Krauthammer’s own admissions and concessions.  That we’re now at the point where “conservatism” is being championed by a Mondale speech writer and the operatives for the Bush family, who worked so hard to defeat Reagan and then to roll back his policies, along with columnists like David Brooks (who spends much of his time making the case for embrace of big government) and Jennifer Rubin, who is a former Kerry supporter and who spends her days looking for ways to undercut actual conservatives, makes this dog and pony show all the more surreal.

I’m happy Levin posted his piece, and that it was picked up and widely disseminated — though I’m hearing from the pragmatists today that such claims are absurd.   But of course, Levin wasn’t the first to say any of this, and unlike Mark, whom most of you here know I admire greatly, I don’t count among my friends people like Bob Beckel, nor do I call FOX my favorite cable news channel.

So today I’m just going to repost what I wrote on Sunday just after noon, because it speaks to this in a way that is terse and compact.  The post was titled “a not-so-bold prediction”:

Ken Cuccinelli will lose in Virginia because he’s been seriously outspent by a Left that understands the power of perception, and seriously undersold by an establishment “right” that understands the same thing.  

Throw in a “libertarian” candidate who doesn’t have the support of either Ron or Rand Paul, a guy who supports increasing gas taxes, is for a per-mile tax on driving (which would necessarily involve governmental tracking), etc, to take votes from the conservative (the Pauls have noted that Cuccinelli would be the most libertarian — read, classical liberal — governor in the country were he elected), and who has earned the endorsement of uber libertarian Jennifer Rubin, and it’s a perfect storm of fraud, deception, and money purchasing power.

The rhetorical ground is already being set, with these two races its supposed proofs:  look at how well Chris Christie did in a blue state!  Look at how Cuccineli’s extremism lost us Virginia!

I sincerely hope Cuccinelli can pull it off. But I think the deck has been very intentionally stacked against him.

It’s time we understood a simple truth:  Every political battle now is an attack on the TEA Party by the status quo ruling class.   And that’s because the TEA Party is the last barrier to the surrender of individual sovereignty and the permanence of big government statism favored by crony capitalists, corporatists, and liberal fascists.

It isn’t paranoia when they really are out to get you.

I’ve gotten quite a bit of push back on this piece — I’m peddling misinformation and hurting the cause of the Party, I’m lectured to, as if somehow my first duty is to support a Party that regularly turns its back on me — but I stand by the piece, just as I would like to point out that I stood unabashedly with Senators Cruz and Lee and the handful of conservatives in the Senate who tried to stop what has led to the massive instances of people being dropped from their health care plans before ObamaCare could take affect and cause these cancellations. 

Meanwhile, the GOP worried about the politics and polling of a partial shutdown, adopted the left’s narrative about default, and calculated that, by allowing Americans to suffer, this would help the party — with power being the first and only goal.

With respect to the Virginia gambit, as I’ve seen it play out, ,I’ll concede that, save for a few well-placed attacks, the outward disdain for Cuccinelli hasn’t been as evident as it was for, say, Christine O’Donnell or Sharon Angle or Richard Mourdock.  But this just tells me that the GOP leadership and consultant class is learning how to play this sabotage and king-maker game on a more subtle level.

What I don’t think they’re recognizing in all their cleverness, however, is that the era of voting for the lesser of two evils isn’t going to spur the base into donating to their candidates or going to the polls.  Those days of hostage taking are over.   I also don’t think they recognize that many of the “independents” they chase every election cycle are increasingly made up of those who are disgusted with the GOP and have left it entirely — and that the poor GOP poll numbers people like John McCain worry about and liberals (and GOP establishment types) like to cite represent in part the rejection of the GOP by many erstwhile Republicans, who like Democrats hold the GOP compromise for compromise sake caucus in utter contempt.

But then, that doesn’t matter to them:   if the Democrats win, the two party system remains, and the status quo is maintained; then if, in the natural course of events, the GOP controls power from time to time, more’s the better, because they will have their opportunities to dole out the favors, to engage in their own brand of crony capitalism and corporatism, and life as a ruling class will return to normal.

The people being left out of the political gamesmanship in DC are…The People.

And this is not likely to end well for anyone.  Because either we embrace our chains or we reject them and fight to throw them off.  And either way, horror is sure to follow.

Enjoy your day as best you can.

And know that even as the big sites on the right continue very intenti0nally to try to freeze me out of their networked club, they can’t keep me silent, especially if those of you who remain as readers continue to make the case I make here on a daily basis to whomever you can.  Try as they might they can’t effectively freeze out all of us.  And so we fight on.

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 12:23pm
209 comments | Trackback

Comments (209)

  1. as the big sites on the right continue very intenti0nally to try to freeze me out of their networked club

    I’m reading This Town, and the more I read, the more convinced I am that we’re all better off not being networked in with party apparatchiks or anyone like unto them.

    I thought I understood how bad Washington was, but I wasn’t even close. Leibovich shows how there are zero boundaries between Dems and the GOP and the press. They’re all one big happy incestuous family, with the concerns of the nation being a cute little game they play in between the parties and the back-slapping and the fraternizing and the galas and the celebrations.

    “Hollywood for ugly people”?

    We should be so lucky.

  2. Soon the GOP will says “Vote for _____”

    I will say “no”.

    “We need to stick to together and not fight among ourselves.”

    ” We only ever seem to ‘need’ that when you have one of your candidates on the line.”

    ” Do you want the democrats to win? If you don’t help us then you are helping the democrats!”

    “You didn’t seem very upset to have Terry McAuliffe become governor of Virginia when you had a chance to oppose it.”

    ” We need your vote and support! ”

    ” You need to lose the last bit of public faith that you don’t deserve and never did. You need to face the music that you wrote which the democrats have been dancing to. You need to try and land on some soft Whigs when you begin your rapid =, ‘inevitable’ and abrupt journey down to the political shit-pile. No more time and treasure for little tories and their big stories.”

  3. Pardon my French, but, as for the GOP and Conservative Beautiful People and the members of the networked club: Fuck ‘em all.

    We don’t need them and, more importantly, we don’t want them because they corrupt everything they touch.

    They’re diseased rat bastards.

    They’re lost souls who are only going to come around when they’re put up against a wall by the Left – for their sake, one hopes it’s when they are figuratively put there.

    This is a life and death war we are engaged in with an Evil force that would have no compunction about putting us to the rack or to death.

    OUTLAW.

  4. if the Democrats win, the two party system remains

    For values of “two” that equal “one,” of course.

  5. “We need to stick to together and not fight among ourselves.”

    Funny how “ourselves” only includes us conservatives when the Establishment wants us to dance to their tune.

  6. “Do you want the democrats to win? If you don’t help us then you are helping the democrats!”

    Not wanting the Democrats to win is why I’m not helping you.

  7. Amen, Bob.

    I couldn’t give a damn about “helping” the GOP “help” me. STOP HELPING US!

  8. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/11/04/guns-ammo-editor-pens-editorial-supporting-gun-control/

    Looks like the fix in in and the butter is being applied to ease the future effort. Periodical journalism is clearly still part of the long march, even when it is a periodical for a left hostile-niche audience. Yesterday it was popular science. Last month it was scientific Amwerican. Now it’s begun at Guns and Ammo.

  9. You just want to slap them and say “this is not Red Sox vs. Cardinals” were talking here.

  10. The Guns and Ammo guy is wrong to say that “all rights are regulated”.

    No, things people do are regulated and when a right is somehow associated with what they are doing the right may have to be temporarily infringed on account of other policy concerns. example: political speech via bullhorn at 3 in the morning would be stopped not based on content but, on time, place, and manner.

    When a “regulation” is so imposing that it effectively infringes on a right, it is suppose to be stuck down.

    I am not saying that court decisions on constitutional questions are all free of BS. I am just pointing out that the regulations are suppose to stand not a regulators of the right but, address some other policy concern. As usual the G&A guy is accepting the other guys “rules”.

  11. I only hope, given the truth of what you write about the elites, is that the debacle of the ACA which is playing out in living rooms all over the country will help turn the tide. People know that Cruz and Lee and the Tea Party fought against this and that they were/are being subverted by the McCains of the world. They may think they can insulate themselves from the people and engage in cocktail party king-making, but they may find the people are less inclined to let them play their games.

  12. Pingback: 10 Lessons For Republicans From Virginia

  13. So when Levin gets Vince Foster’d, do you think they’ll try to pin it on the Tea Party?

  14. And know that even as the big sites on the right continue very intenti0nally to try to freeze me out of their networked club, they can’t keep me silent, especially if those of you who remain as readers continue to make the case I make here on a daily basis to whomever you can.

    I do. I’ve finally convinced my husband about the Rhinos and belt-way party-get-alongers.

    It took me a few years, so hopefully the rest of you are having better results.

  15. Same here and it also took some years to do so.

    The mens, they are stubborn things.

  16. What piece of information, what phenomenon seen , or what argument do you think put your insistence over the top?

  17. Repeated, unrelenting facts.

    Also, I got him the latest Mark Steyn book to listen to during his commute.

    So I guess I don’t deserve ALL the credit. Although I did GIVE it to him.

  18. Drudge teases with the early exit polls…

    CUCCINELLI 52.8%
    MCAULIFFE 37.3%

    I hope Karl Rove has an indigestive moment, however temporary it might be.

  19. We had an open ballot in Minneapolis for the mayoral election. There was one long column of candidates and you were supposed to pick your top three.

    I picked rabble-rousers.

  20. @1%

    cuc 51.7
    mca 40.5

  21. The mens, they are stubborn things.

    You can only imagine. As we can only imagine what’s really behind the womens’ Mona Lisa smiles.

  22. @7

    cuc 49.9
    mca 40.6

  23. @14%

    cuc 54.6
    mca 37.2

  24. @20%

    cuc 52%
    mca 40%

  25. So if Cuccinelli pulls this out, against all odds, that must be proof that the establishment needs to sit down, shut up and let the TEA Party run things, yes?

    Excellent.

  26. @ 27

    cuc 52
    mca 40.5

  27. @36

    cuc 51
    mca 42

  28. What piece of information, what phenomenon seen , or what argument do you think put your insistence over the top?

    Appealing to his vanity, of course. “Darling, you are so smart, surely you must see that losing more slowly is still losing?” That and unrelenting facts, facts, facts.

    I give a great deal of credit to my fellow Outlaws and our Fearless Leader, of course, for helping craft persuasive arguments. Thanks, guys!

  29. @45.5

    cuc 50
    mca 42

  30. @ 56

    cuc 49
    mca 44

  31. Certainly, Pablo, if Cuccinelli wins tonight, there’ll be much said publicly by both Democrats and Establicons about the meaninglessness of it, but privately their sphincters will tighten in unison.

  32. @61

    cuc 48
    mca 44.6

  33. @68

    cuc 47.5
    mca 45.2

  34. cuc 47.5
    mca 45.2

    Could there be a God after all?

  35. It depends on if they’ve counted the Beltway votes yet.

  36. I’m sure they’re printing them as we speak.

  37. @ 74

    cuc 47.4
    mca 45.4

  38. Yes, John. I figured someone would “find” a box of ballots in the closet or a car trunk if it got too close for comfort.

    Kind of like Minnesota and Senator Franken.

  39. @79.7

    cuc 46.9
    mca 46.0

  40. C’mon Virginia.

  41. @84.6

    cuc 46.7
    mca 46.2

  42. Just called it for McAuliffe.

  43. Fox just projected it for T-Mac.

  44. no fairs I called it for coochie first

  45. @87.6

    cuc 46.51
    mca 46.48

  46. >Just called it for McAuliffe.<

    too close too call

  47. too close too call

    But close enough to cheat and win.

  48. >But close enough to cheat and win.<

    true that

    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2013/results

  49. Democrats In All But Label Only

  50. @ 90

    cuc 46.3
    mca 46.7

  51. i like how charlottesville is 20% @ 9:39

  52. … the lure of easy money, it’s got a very strong appeal.. ‘Free Shit Blues’

  53. @93

    cuc 46.1

    mca 47.02

  54. Poor Virginia. Sigh.

  55. Well hopefully the idiot will stir up a gun grabber hornet’s nest and when Hillary tries to come to Virginia for a swing state ally she’ll have to hide out from Governor Gun Grabber

  56. social cons just can’t seem to catch a break it’s so weird

  57. Oh are we doing the socon pretense again?

  58. War on women is real yo.

  59. So, what should have been a winnable race instead is used by the Establicans to teach the TEA party a lesson.

    Never mind that TEA party members tend to caucus with the Establicans.

    As for the social cons, happy, go f yourself.

    Seems to me it’s the so-called social liberals who have done more mischief in this country.

  60. @96

    cuc 45.9
    mca 47.3

  61. Well the lesson this teaches me, or rather reinforces for me, is no money for the GOP EVER, only for candidates, IF they don’t suck.

    Elephants off my tit, stat.

  62. It has to be a big tent to hold all that bullshit.

  63. What happens when McAuliffe gets indicted in his solar company scam?

  64. the ruining class played their cards right by putting a proggtard err “libertarian” on the ballot. eff the libertarians they’re effin’ proggtards in stupid clothing

  65. Meanwhile, in the Big Apple, DeBlasio promises to return the city to the days of Jimmy Walker and Boss Tweed style governance.

  66. where was the “libertarian” outlet “reason” in exposing sarvis? yea effin no where. game players the lot of them.

  67. “What happens when McAuliffe gets indicted in his solar company scam?”

    Presidential Pardon?

  68. Christie is coming off as a bit of an ass in his “Look I’m runnin’ for president” speech.

  69. @98

    cuc 45.8
    mca 47.4
    sar 6.6

  70. Christie is a blowhard and a bully. Fuck him and the very large horse he rode in on.

  71. Jabba no badda.

  72. - The Left did it again, using the moderate vote to siphon off Conservative votes and swing it to their side.

    - Until we learn how to play this game we’ll go right on losing.

  73. where was the “libertarian” outlet “reason” in exposing sarvis? yea effin no where. game players the lot of them.

    Weren’t Father and Son Paul all over it, though?

  74. “Weren’t Father and Son Paul all over it, though?”

    again where was reason the web site of the libertarians showing what sarvis was? libertarians are proggtards with a sex and drug thing. eff those clowns

  75. I blame the people.

    Used to be land of the free and home of the brave, it’s mostly land of the freeloader and home of the victim these days.

    Social cons can’t catch a break because most of their fellow citizens priorities are, in order of importance, free shit, abortion, and homo love enshrined.

    We aren’t where we are because of the DC establishment, the DC establishment is because we are become a silly and stupid people.

  76. An operative of OFA (I can’t recall the name) was providing Sarvis with backing, as well as professionally printed campaign materials.

    The guy is a nobody. The Pauls are republicans who lean libertarian: small government, lower taxes, less warring, et alia.

  77. “it’s mostly land of the freeloader and home of the THUGGISH MOB POSING UNDER A FACADE OF victimHOOD these days. ”

    FTFY

  78. well you’d think that the “libertarian” press such as “reason” might want to expose libertarian fraud? oh noes homo “marriage” is too important. and drugs.

  79. McAuliffe is gonna feed Virginia some thick union shaft tonight!(You like it when I tax you like that don’t you!) Gonna bring the jobs of tomorrow! (Goodbye coal and gas)

    Lost Wisconsin and picked up Virginia.

  80. I wish I had a pair of those rose colored glasses handy to look back at the Good Old Days™ when everything was Mom and apple pie because that sure as hell hasn’t been my experience.

    Life has been a circus full of crooked politicians, war, mob violence and serial killing with good times thrown in occasionally to remind us that life is fun, even when it’s hard.

  81. “I blame the people. ”

    i blame power structures that the gop are comfortable living in.

    First, the Charter shook the nation’s conscience. It provided a
    shock to a torpid and dispirited public opinion. However invisible
    the multitude of shock-waves have been, however much its effect
    has been denied or news of it forcibly blacked out, nobody, not even
    those who refute it, harbours any private doubts about the
    effectiveness and wider significance of that shock. The mass of public
    opinion became aware of the Charter, albeit often only in a fragmented
    form,and the overwhelming majority agreed with it, either
    tacitly or explicitly. Is it a mean achievement to have provoked
    throughout the nation a wave of criticism and scarcely concealed
    distrust of the slogans and of the official news and commentaries of
    the ‘information’ media? You would have had to have slept through
    the whole of last year not to know about it, and anyone in that
    1Ii~;{\’?17ia:itl ;,,, 1flWd.’ritj m’t ‘n:’h: 10 t’ne’Ir comforting, albeit
    unhealthy, slumber. The Charter put to the authorities a series of
    demands of a legal and moral character. Since the authorities
    responded with repression, accusations and victimization, the
    Charter has chosen to defend itself by fully documenting and investigating
    the cases of repression and openly publishing and filing
    this information. This I consider to be its second fundamental
    achievement, i.e., that no manifestation of repression or violence is
    anonymous any more. Its authors and mechanism are named and
    identified.
    potpl page 132

  82. nr, Reason is a rag. The aren’t the voice of libertarians since libertarians are about as universal in their beliefs as the TEA Party. More factions than a kaleidoscope.

  83. - “You wanna win emulate the opponent” is the latest RINO knee jerk losing impulse.

  84. “Reason is a rag”

    no they are : “Libertarianism” to the msm. their silence in vetting this candidate Sarvis is telling. power players >reason< eff the "reason" crowd from now on.

  85. Good plan. I quit reading them ages ago.

  86. The fake libertarian was the key. Without him Cuccinelli probably wins. But enough of the fed govt employees live in VA now to give the governorship not to the guy who fought to kill ObamaCare, but to the guy constantly under the threat of federal indictment.

    This country will split. Because those of us who want liberty will simply not agree to lose it because of rigged elections and the like.

  87. Pingback: The Camp Of The Saints

  88. “This country will split.”

    maybe. but i think doing an alinsky on the “Libertarian” media is quite fitting right now. yea go 3rd party for a big proggtard “Libertarian” the guy with the elivis side burns should burn in sanfrannan’s snatch

  89. I hope all the “Libertarian” fucks are happy with themselves.

  90. Nice of the GOP to convincingly demonstrate that they’d rather lose a high-profile, eminently winnable election than have an actual conservative win. One could cut them some slack over O’Donnell and Angle etc. that the “elections were unwinnable, and we had to optimize our scarce resources elsewhere.” Not that one should, mind you, but at least the cheap excuse had the veneer of plausibility.

    But this time, there was (as far as I know) not a damned thing wrong with Cuccinelli. At no time did he need to reassure the voters that he wasn’t a witch, nor did he invoke debatable rape-science. And still the GOP wasn’t interested in winning the state, as amply demonstrated by the 10-1 spending differential.

    A “teachable moment” as we used to say in 2004.

  91. defund the gop

  92. Say what you will about Establicans, but they *aren’t* the crowd at “Reason” (sic) Magazine.

    Sme “libertarians” just think that “Freedom” means the ability to put anything in their mouths, veins, or anuses without consequence.

  93. “Say what you will about Establicans, but they *aren’t* the crowd at “Reason” (sic) Magazine.”

    the “reason” folks don’t do a very good job of vetting “Libertarian Party” candidates. they act almost like demonrat hacks.

  94. Then, we’ll begin to hear the postmortems from these same types, who will bemoan the fact that Cuccinelli’s ties to extremists in the TEA Party movement are what did him in — not the GOP establishment’s lack of enthusiasm, not the funding of a “Libertarian” candidate (who it turns out received a very large portion of his funding from a Democrat bundler),

    But the people who always vote urge us to vote Team R no matter what, are the same people who loathe “Losertarian” candidates, to quote Michael Medved, no?

  95. the “reason” folks don’t do a very good job of vetting “Libertarian Party” candidates. they act almost like demonrat hacks.

    The “reason” (sic) people want to be with the cool juicebox kids so badly. But again, they AREN’T the Establicans.

  96. ” But again, they AREN’T the Establicans.”

    oh noes they ain’t be the baracky. snort lol. dude players in de game

  97. oh noes they ain’t be the baracky. snort lol. dude players in de game

    But you can’t blame them for what the “Libertarian” (sic) voters do nonetheless. You can blame them for all sorts of other matters, but not that. Nope, the wanna-be hipsters at “Reason” (sic) and other so called libertarians have only themselves to blame here.

    They so wanted to put anything in their mouths, veins, or anuses without *any* pesky Godbotherer reminding them of the consequences of same, that they in effect voted for Commiecrats who promise them no consequences.

  98. WE COULD HAVE WON THIS RACE. FOR THE REASONS I HAVE EXPLAINED HERE AND ON THE AIR, GOP ESTABLISHMENT AND DONORS LEFT THE FIELD. NOW, NOT ONLY THE LIBERALS BUT THE RINO MOUTHPIECES CONTINUE WITH THEIR MANTRA ABOUT THE DEAD TEA PARTY AND THE RINO FUTURE. ABSOLUTELY APPALLING! (And they did not spend even $3 million, that was a phony number.)

    RT@seanmdav: In 2009, the RNC spent $9M to win VA by 17 points. Looks like it’ll have spent $3M in 2013 to lose by a hair. Dummies.

    link

  99. libertarians = queer a hole

  100. lib/proggtards how about that sarvis dude?

  101. Also key? Refusal of Bolling to support. Much like in Indiana race with Mourdock after he beat the incumbent.

  102. - We will vote. Eventually, when enough people have enough to lose that they fianally get off their dead asses, we will vote, and we will win.

    - But we will keep making the same mistake so the Progs will always be a threat.

  103. “Also key? Refusal of Bolling to support”

    no the effin libtards to police their ranks. hi nick/dick

  104. FWIW, I’ve a friend in VA who offers the following analysis:

    As Bill Whittle has said time and again, the Democrats do everything right and we do everything wrong and it’s *still* a 50/50 country. Or state.

    The GOP donors abandoned Cooch, and then we have been hammered by so many outrageously false negative ads about him that he couldn’t answer. Unfortunately, he did not have a firey exciting message until the last two weeks of the campaign. The first two weeks he suffered from the govt shutdown (itself a debacle) since it was deeply unpopular in most of VA, so he couldn’t get Cruz and Lee to campaign for him, so he drifted to 15 points down. He made up 14 points in the last two or three weeks on the strength of his opposition to Obamacare, but it was the negative ads “War on Women” that really kept him from winning. Fleeced by consultants who were paid huge sums and told him to look moderate, then painted as a crazy right-winger in ads. He might as well have taken on the mantle of crazy right-winger from the start, might have energized the base much more.

  105. ““War on Women” that really kept him from winning”

    O! bs

  106. “The first two weeks he suffered from the govt shutdown (itself a debacle) ”

    and O!care is what @ 11/5/13?

  107. -McAuliffe was worried O’Care was going to lose it for him. He need’nt have been concerned. The media always manages to run out the clock just enough to win, and after doesn’t matter because “no shame, and all laws mean nothing in Progtardia.”

  108. Fleeced by consultants who were paid huge sums and told him to look moderate, then painted as a crazy right-winger in ads. He might as well have taken on the mantle of crazy right-winger from the start, might have energized the base much more.

    yup

  109. Also key? Refusal of Bolling to support. Much like in Indiana race with Mourdock after he beat the incumbent.

    Past time to teach the establishment that they get the cooperation they give.

  110. PW commenter Paul Zummo has a couple of worthwhile posts here and here.

  111. There is another possibility. It’s possible that most people want nothing to do with the tea party.

    It could be the country kind of hates you. Which would be fair, I suppose, since you hate the country.

  112. Aw, the drone’s had its talking points downloaded and is spewing on command. How nice.

  113. The more likely possibility is you need the people you hate to believe what you just spewed. So they’ll give up.

    Hm. No.

  114. (Oh sorry, I meant your masters need it to be believed. A drone like you really doesn’t have needs, just instructions it performs by rote. Because of teh Narrative!)

  115. It could be the country kind of hates you. Which would be fair, I suppose, since you hate the country.

    And this is coming from a Commiecrat who wants to fundamentally change the country…..

  116. Well, it doesn’t have much choice. Can’t allow those who oppose the Glorious Wave of the Future to be seen as normal people. So it follows its orders and depicts them as hatey hate-filled haters (who hate) for not jumping on the bandwagon.

  117. - I can’t wait until its open season on the Commie bastards. Of course, then it won’t be possible to find one.

  118. *cue stevie’s case of the vapors*

  119. Hmph. Guess the drone left the package as ordered and scuttled off.

  120. Poor Virginia. Sigh.

    Live by the federal teat, die by the federal teat.

    that they in effect voted for Commiecrats

    Sorry, I’m done with voting for the “less-bad” candidate. I either vote for one who conforms to my views, or vote for no one. My vote may be wasted, but it isn’t going to be wasted on a Communist Lite candidate.

    You know what really gets Commiecrats elected? Nominating “conservative”, “electable” candidates like McCain and Romney.

    No more.

    It could be the country kind of hates you.

    How’s Blowbama’s popularity rating looking, Slaphead? And did you buy your CatholicCare policy yet?

  121. “They so wanted to put anything in their mouths, veins, or anuses without *any* pesky Godbotherer reminding them of the consequences of same, that they in effect voted for Commiecrats who promise them no consequences.”

    Please explain how our republic survived for over 200 years without the federal government being involved in marriage or who was sticking penises into whom.

    After that, explain how it survived for over 100 years without the federal government telling you what drugs you can take.

    You want big government fascism just as much as the other guys. You just want it to be your kind of fascism.

  122. The proper response to any gotcha question about abortion or gay marriage is “The Constitution gives the federal government no power to regulate it. FYNQ.”

  123. For helloihatelibertyandprinciple.

  124. hellomynameissteve says November 6, 2013 at 1:04 am
    There is another possibility. It’s possible that most people want nothing to do with the tea party.

    Yeah, Steve, that’s why the democrat won by such a wide margin even with a third party thrown in.

    It could be the country kind of hates you. Which would be fair, I suppose, since you hate the country.

    What is it with you progressives an the word “hate”? We don’t hate anybody. Mostly we just feel sorry for progressives like you who aren’t intelligent enough to do anything on their own. You have to have a government agency to tell you what to do.
    What is it like on the left side of the bell curve , Steve?
    - See more at: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=51839#comments

  125. hellomynameisOFA couldn’t have gotten it more wrong. The #TEAParty is alive and well. Otherwise, McAwful would’ve won by 20 points, as Democrats and the other assholes who are controlling the GOP wanted.

    No slam-dunk by any means.

    Christie seems greased to fit in the GOP 2016 nomination by his win in New Jersey. He’s even claiming he’s a ‘Conservative’. Lying bastard; I’ll vote for Hillary before I vote for him.

  126. Why do helloeverywordwesayisalieincludingandandthe think anyone here is even going to twitch at their guff?

  127. Virginia loves Democrats so much that they left a GOP super-majority in the House.

  128. It’s not impacted by reality, McGehee.

  129. Sorry, I’m done with voting for the “less-bad” candidate. I either vote for one who conforms to my views, or vote for no one. My vote may be wasted, but it isn’t going to be wasted on a Communist Lite candidate.

    You know what really gets Commiecrats elected? Nominating “conservative”, “electable” candidates like McCain and Romney.

    No more.

    WTF are you talking about? Was Mr. Cuccinelli anything like that? No, he wasn’t.

    Maybe you can join Nick Gillespie ast “Reason” (sic) in hanging out with the “cool” and “gay friendly” kids.

  130. Curmudgeon, I’m having a difficulty correlating your reply to SBP’s comment. Perhaps you miscalled his intent?

  131. Please explain how our republic survived for over 200 years without the federal government being involved in marriage or who was sticking penises into whom.

    After that, explain how it survived for over 100 years without the federal government telling you what drugs you can take.

    You want big government fascism just as much as the other guys. You just want it to be your kind of fascism.

    Oh fuck off and drop the phony non-sequiturs. For two hundred years the community society enforced itself.

    If anyone wants new fascism, it is the Left demanding affirmation and legal sanction for their favored groups, not mere tolerance.

    But hey, you can keep on alienating any patriot supporters, until you are left with the Party Of You and You Alone.

    And you can join Nick Gillespie in selling out to the Commiecrats.

    Meanwhile, a perfectly good candidate like Mr. Cuccinelli lost, because of 3rd party stooges. Are you really defending those 3rd party stooges? Apparently you are.

  132. Curmudgeon, I’m having a difficulty correlating your reply to SBP’s comment. Perhaps you miscalled his intent?

    He was responding to *my* comment, in a truly obnoxious asshole way, and I am giving it back to him.

  133. Gotta love those leftists celebrating the election of a man who associates with a convicted perjurer and is under investigation for multiple crimes that may very well result in an indictment.

  134. Jeff, I agree. As a Virginian I can tell you that through a barrage of advertising Bloomberg and the Democrat spin machine convinced many women in the state that Pro Life = Anti-woman.

  135. Blake, unfortunately those investigations of big Mac are likely now onboard the slow train to nowhere.

  136. Curmudgeon says November 6, 2013 at 6:13 am – Meanwhile, a perfectly good candidate like Mr. Cuccinelli lost, because of 3rd party stooges.

    I’d say Cuccinelli lost because “his own party” wouldn’t fund or support him, while the other side had so much cash, they set up a straw candidate to undercut him.

    The VA governor’s race is an open declaration of war by the GOP against conservatives/limited government supporters.

    I completely agree that the founders’ society policed itself on moral matters. The problem with the entire way our Constitution has been interpreted is that it limits what the states can do (rather than the Federal government, which was how it was obviously written), and forces those decisions to be made at the Federal level.

  137. The problem with the entire way our Constitution has been interpreted is that it limits what the states can do (rather than the Federal government, which was how it was obviously written), and forces those decisions to be made at the Federal level.

    Not interpreted, rewritten.

  138. Oh fuck off and drop the phony non-sequiturs. For two hundred years the community society enforced itself

    Translation: you have no response.

  139. And fuck you, too, buddy, along with your “War on Drugs”, your “Defense of Marriage Act”, and every other federal power grab that you’re perfectly fine with as long as it conforms to your specific brand of bigotry.

  140. Pretty much, Spies.

  141. With the Beltway crowd, interpretation is the means, rewriting is the purpose.

    As Jeff has been saying…

  142. You can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!

  143. Does he really think that people weren’t having gay sex or using drugs in the first two hundred years of the republic?

    Probably.

  144. And fuck your Republican Party while we’re at it. They sure haven’t done much for me lately.

  145. You want to know why your guy lost in Virginia?

    It’s because Virginia is chock-full of people suckling off the federal government teat. That is all.

  146. I’d say Cuccinelli lost because “his own party” wouldn’t fund or support him, while the other side had so much cash, they set up a straw candidate to undercut him..

    And people didn't have to be stupid enough to fall for that straw candidate, did they? SBP apparently did have to be that stupid.

  147. Translation: you have no response.

    So you can’t read either.

  148. And fuck you, too, buddy, along with your “War on Drugs”, your “Defense of Marriage Act”, and every other federal power grab that you’re perfectly fine with as long as it conforms to your specific brand of bigotry.

    Gee, did Cucinelli even talk about either? So you have to dig back to an example from the Reagan area to justify voting for a pathetic 3rd party Demunist plant? Yes, apparently you do.

    As for DOMA, so how exactly are we supposed to fight back against a judiciary rigged against us, that reads in rights that do not exist, and worse still, reads *out* rights (like guns) that blatantly do?

    Or do you just want to be one of the “cool” kids over at “Reason”, sucking down your juicebox?

  149. Does he really think that people weren’t having gay sex or using drugs in the first two hundred years of the republic?

    Probably.

    Way to be obtuse, as usual.

  150. Stop it, already.

  151. Stop it, already.

    Sorry, I’m not the one starting up the circular firing squad here.

    Any jackass who voted for Sarvis deserves contempt, regardless of how crummy the Establicans are.

  152. let’s all be cool kids!

  153. “Pablo says November 6, 2013 at 6:04 am
    Virginia loves Democrats so much that they left a GOP super-majority in the House. ”

    Yeah at lest they locked a few doors before letting T-Mac move in. That just means most of the “work” will be happening through the courts though.

  154. Stop it, already.

    I have to disagree with Leigh here. The only way to get this stuff all out into the open is to talk about it, even angrily. I like the fact that this place isn’t an echo chamber.

  155. I’m sorry, I Callahan. You’re right.

  156. ” hellomynameissteve says November 6, 2013 at 1:04 am
    There is another possibility. It’s possible that most people want nothing to do with the tea party.
    It could be the country kind of hates you. Which would be fair, I suppose, since you hate the country.”

    Yeah, that must be why Terry had to outspend the Cucc by 10 to 1,still had a nail biter, and lost the house to an R super-majority. Or maybe it is why /Obama is polling at high 30′s approval now.

    Given what 0-care is doing to people, how crappily it was written and implemented, how new full time jobs are now rare, and energy production is being suppressed, taxes raised, and so much borrowed and spent on crap programs, I think it is pretty clear who ACTUALLY hates the country. It’s the dems, and people like steve.

  157. Pat Roberts is beating Sebelius like a rented mule.

  158. I have to disagree with Leigh here. The only way to get this stuff all out into the open is to talk about it, even angrily. I like the fact that this place isn’t an echo chamber.

    Thanks, Callahan, for the support. My Name is NOT Steve. :-)

    Anyway, to sum it up, I am well aware that the Establicans wrote off Cucinelli. Nevertheless, Cucinelli STILL would have won handily if it hadn’t been for Sarvis.

    And Sarvis got the support he did because of “Godbothererphobia”, never mind how much more important the budget and taxes and Obamunistcare issues were.

    That is all.

  159. As for DOMA, so how exactly are we supposed to fight back against a judiciary rigged against us, that reads in rights that do not exist, and worse still, reads *out* rights (like guns) that blatantly do?

    Well, you could support legal defense teams and legal education programs that fight back against federal judicial overreach and promote the limited government ideals upon which the Republic was founded. You could support publications and think tanks that do the same for the non-lawyer population. You could support people like Jeff who pull the mask off the establishment and show exactly what’s been happening to our language and our country at the hands of the Left.

    Or you could abuse the federal system in exactly the same way as your enemies, passing federal laws promoting your values, pretending that you’re fighting a valiant defense when you’re really just granting legitimacy to the tactics of your opponents. For the icing on top, you could paint a significant number of would-be allies as a bunch of self-absorbed substance-abusing sexual deviants, because that’s always the best way to win people over to your side.

    People still like to pretend that this is a free country, so I’ll let you consider which route you’d like to take in your defense of the realm.

  160. Well, you could support legal defense teams and legal education programs that fight back against federal judicial overreach and promote the limited government ideals upon which the Republic was founded. You could support publications and think tanks that do the same for the non-lawyer population. You could support people like Jeff who pull the mask off the establishment and show exactly what’s been happening to our language and our country at the hands of the Left.

    Done. The Pacific and Southeast Legal Foundations rock, and it’s time to send Jeff some funds.

    But you are missing the point.

    Cucinelli *didn’t* commit any Akin-like gafes.

    He *didn’t* lead with his chin on social issues.

    As AG, he was merely defending the will of the people on the sodomy law, which is what an AG is supposed to do, unlike out here in Cali, where the AG follows his/her whims alone.

    He was a Tea Party Candidate!

    And yet, SBP still wants to go off into 3rd party loser land?

  161. Looks to me more like SBP wants a second party (though he says nothing of promoting a third party, but only maintains he will not vote for candidates who do not support his view) — one which supports limited government.

  162. Well, you could support legal defense teams [etc., etc.]

    Or you could abuse the federal system in exactly the same way as your enemies, passing federal laws promoting your values, pretending that you’re fighting a valiant defense when you’re really just granting legitimacy to the tactics of your opponents.

    Because a movement (such as it is) that for the most part has an agenda of you need not Is exactly the same thing as an organized multi-generational campaign to push an agend of you must?

    And yes, I recognize that’s heavily qualified, because constraints and trade-offs.

  163. Because a movement (such as it is) that for the most part has an agenda of “you need not” Is exactly the same thing as an organized multi-generational campaign to push an agenda of “you must”?

    Bingo. Somehow, those on the *defensive*, and who always have been, are being painted as aggressors here.

  164. sdferr: “Looks to me more like SBP wants a second party”

    Yes.

    Curmudgeon: “Nevertheless, Cucinelli STILL would have won handily if it hadn’t been for Sarvis”

    I find myself failing to give a shit. Maybe if your party walked the walk instead of just talking the talk Sarvis wouldn’t have received those votes, or maybe it wouldn’t have been close enough for those votes to matter.

    I’m not voting for your party any more. I may occasionally vote for individuals, but your party is dead to me. If that means “third-party loser land”, so be it. At least I can look at myself in the mirror in the morning.

    Squid: “For the icing on top, you could paint a significant number of would-be allies as a bunch of self-absorbed substance-abusing sexual deviants, because that’s always the best way to win people over to your side.”

    Indeed.

    Curmudgeoon: “Any jackass who voted for Sarvis deserves contempt, regardless of how crummy the Establicans are.”

    I repeat: go fuck yourself. Sideways.

  165. SBP says November 6, 2013 at 10:36 am

    If I’m reading you correctly here, you’re effectively playing right into the Establican’s hands. They don’t care about Cuccinelli; you don’t care about Cuccinelli.

    Strange bedfellows, indeed.

  166. If I’m reading you correctly here, you’re effectively playing right into the Establican’s hands. They don’t care about Cuccinelli; you don’t care about Cuccinelli.

    He is. And he will hold his breath until he turns blue.

    Squid: “For the icing on top, you could paint a significant number of would-be allies as a bunch of self-absorbed substance-abusing sexual deviants, because that’s always the best way to win people over to your side.”

    Indeed.

    Because you ARE, you insolent little turd. Cuccinelli was *the* Tea Party Candidate, not some Establican usual suspect. But you don’t care, because you just want to be a petty little martyr.

    And again, Sarvis got the support he did because of “Godbothererphobia”, never mind how much more important the budget and taxes and Obamunistcare issues were, which were just about all Cucinelli talked about.

  167. . . . you don’t care about Cuccinelli.

    Where exactly do you derive this idea?

  168. Where exactly do you derive this idea?

    Gee, by voting for an obvious shill?

    Cuccinelli wasn’t Chris Christie South. It’s one thing to (rightly) be furious at Establicans shafting Tea Party Candidates. It is quite another to shaft them yourself.

  169. “If I’m reading you correctly here,”

    You aren’t.

    But by all means do keep blaming it on Sarvis and his lousy 6%.

    Of course it never occurs to you to blame it on the Establicans who sat on their asses while the Dems were shoveling millions into T-Macs coffers. Nope. It’s all the fault of the Libertarians. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    Kee-rist.

  170. But by all means do keep blaming it on Sarvis and his lousy 6%.

    Of course it never occurs to you to blame it on the Establicans who sat on their asses while the Dems were shoveling millions into T-Macs coffers. Nope. It’s all the fault of the Libertarians. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    Kee-rist.

    That six percent made *all* the difference, you insolent turd.

    Establicans suck. We know that. We know what they do.

    But those of you who play into their hands? That’s even more maddening.

  171. Answer the question, please.

    That means, cite SBP’s writing to the effect that he doesn’t “care” about Cuccinelli. I just don’t see it there. I do see that you’ve made a great deal of it, but without having either laid the argument that SBP makes such a claim or that his disgust with “McCain and Romney” necessarily leads to the assumption you make.

    And just as an aside, SBP nowhere says he would vote for an obvious shill. Nor, I think, does he live in Virginia.

  172. Let me get this straight: you think that the libertarian voters are a) a bunch of drug-addict faggots who nonetheless would b) have somehow voted for Cuccinelli if Sarvis hadn’t been in the race.

    Whatever, dude.

  173. “That six percent made *all* the difference, you insolent turd.”

    Ah, “insolence”. You have a mighty high opinion of yourself, don’t you?

    You have to earn votes. You’re not entitled to them. Sorry.

  174. “SBP nowhere says he would vote for an obvious shill. Nor, I think, does he live in Virginia”

    Correct on both counts.

  175. Let me get this straight: you think that the libertarian voters are a) a bunch of drug-addict faggots who nonetheless would b) have somehow voted for Cuccinelli if Sarvis hadn’t been in the race.

    Whatever, dude.

    Gee, assuming they *mean* it about “limited government”, wouldn’t they? Again, Cuccinelli *didn’t* lead with his chin on social issues, and he was the Tea Party guy!

    Or are the Sarvis voters really just libertines who just want free Obamacare shit but want to pretend they don’t?

    It is one or the other.

  176. Ah, “insolence”. You have a mighty high opinion of yourself, don’t you?

    As if you *don’t*, you insulting jerk? I’ll try to tone down the profanity.

  177. “Or are the Sarvis voters really just libertines who just want free Obamacare shit but want to pretend they don’t?”

    Please provide a cite for Sarvis supporting “free Obamacare shit”.

  178. sdferr says November 6, 2013 at 11:11 am – Answer the question, please.

    That means, cite SBP’s writing to the effect that he doesn’t “care” about Cuccinelli.

    SBP says November 6, 2013 at 10:36 am I find myself failing to give a shit. Maybe if your party walked the walk instead of just talking the talk Sarvis wouldn’t have received those votes, or maybe it wouldn’t have been close enough for those votes to matter.

    I’m not voting for your party any more.

    Hence my “if I’m reading you right” comment.

  179. Please provide a cite for Sarvis supporting “free Obamacare shit”.

    Gee, how about one of the trackbacks in this blogpost?

    Fish, barrel and all that.

  180. If you were reading [him] at all, then you had to be reading something, as opposed to nothing. It was the “something” I had in mind. But if SBP’s correction is sufficient for you, then I too am content to leave it there. I was merely concerned that I thought I saw a false portrait being made, is all.

  181. That six percent made *all* the difference, you insolent turd. –

    FWIW, exit polling shows Sarvis voters preferring McAuliffe by a 2-1 margin. As Libertarians go, Sarvis is an excellent progressive Democrat.

  182. sdferr says November 6, 2013 at 11:35 am – I was merely concerned that I thought I saw a false portrait being made, is all.

    I didn’t want to make any wild assumptions, but the section I quoted seemed to be a pretty good indicator of “not caring”.

  183. . . . a pretty good indicator of “not caring”.

    I agree, the only question being not caring about what, or who. And immediately SBP speaks of “your party”. Looks like the GOP, doesn’t it? I mean, SBP knows how to write Cuccinelli, but instead he writes “your party”.

  184. Curmudgeon: “Fish, barrel and all that.”

    http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/columnists-blogs/bart-hinkle/robert-sarvis-on-the-issues/article_015dfb21-547f-5c7c-912d-0b75a0d31c9d.html

    Federal policy is the major reason the health care system is so screwed up. And federal policy, which we can’t much control at the state level, is moving in the wrong direction. We should reject any further federal influence over our state policies in health care and elsewhere. Moreover, the Medicaid expansion comes with diminishing federal subsidies over time, meaning expansion now will lead inexorably to future state-level spending increases and tax increases and the crowding out of other spending priorities.

    I think you’re going to need a bigger barrel.

    Pablo: “FWIW, exit polling shows Sarvis voters preferring McAuliffe by a 2-1 margin.”

    Oh, but Curmudgeon has already assured us that those Sarvis voters would certainly have voted for Cuccinelli based on…something or other.

  185. FWIW, exit polling shows Sarvis voters preferring McAuliffe by a 2-1 margin. As Libertarians go, Sarvis is an excellent progressive Democrat.

    Okay, then the Sarvis voters really ARE just libertines who just want a new hipper moniker than Democrat. Sarvis was a Ralph Nader, not a Ross Perot.

    I guess I stand corrected. Apologies to SBP?

    But somehow, I had always thought that the “Libertarians” were like Ron Paul and Son. Who, to their credit, went out of their way to disown Sarvis.

  186. Oh, but Curmudgeon has already assured us that those Sarvis voters would certainly have voted for Cuccinelli based on…something or other.

    You can’t have it both ways. Either the Sarvis voters really meant it about “Liberty”, or they truly were just a bunch of druggie flakes, motivated by nothing other than free pot.

  187. sdferr says November 6, 2013 at 11:45 am

    . . . a pretty good indicator of “not caring”.

    I agree, the only question being not caring about what, or who. And immediately SBP speaks of “your party”. Looks like the GOP, doesn’t it? I mean, SBP knows how to write Cuccinelli, but instead he writes “your party”.

    Would it help to know it was in direct response to this?

    Curmudgeon: “Nevertheless, Cucinelli STILL would have won handily if it hadn’t been for Sarvis”

  188. Curmudgeon can hardly be an indicator of SBP’s thought, is the way I’d go on that question.

  189. Okay. If I ask you a question about apples in the future, I won’t foolishly assume the reply will have anything to do with apples if you don’t specifically use the word apple or apples in the response.

  190. I take that back. It wasn’t a fair assessment. Instead I should point out that the “direct response was pulled from SBP’s own comment as what he was responding to.

  191. If I ask you a question about apples in the future, I won’t foolishly assume the reply will have anything to do with apples if you don’t specifically use the word apple or apples in the response.

    The response may speak of fruit generally, might it not? That is, if in response I aim to speak of a wider category, as here. Cuccinelli (an apple) happens to be in the Republican party (fruit generally taken). Further upthread SBP directly states he would consider voting for individuals who happen to be in the Republican party when such an individual represents SBP’s political views (as, I think, would we all in cases such as with Sens. Lee and Cruz, to pick particulars).

    The difficulty remains the wider stance of the GOP, and secondarily perhaps, the troubles that adherent individuals like Mr. Cuccinelli encounter as they remain members of a party which does not want them.

  192. Further upthread SBP directly states he would consider voting for individuals who happen to be in the Republican party when such an individual represents SBP’s political views (as, I think, would we all in cases such as with Sens. Lee and Cruz, to pick particulars).

    The difficulty remains the wider stance of the GOP, and secondarily perhaps, the troubles that adherent individuals like Mr. Cuccinelli encounter as they remain members of a party which does not want them.

    And from where did the notion that Mr. Cuccinelly was *not* like Messrs. Lee and Cruz come? By all accounts, he most certainly is.

  193. From you, Curmudgeon! You made it up!

  194. But somehow, I had always thought that the “Libertarians” were like Ron Paul and Son.

    Sarvis voters skewed pretty young. Lots of hipsters, no doubt and probably some members of Anarachists For Free Stuff From The Government.

  195. The anarachnist party is just around the corner: government born to save man from the spiders.

  196. From you, Curmudgeon! You made it up!

    Now you are going in circles.

  197. Hardly.

  198. Oh please learn to read….

  199. I can read. You attacked the libertarian types at Reason magazine. SBP makes to defend them, saying little to nothing about Cuccinelli but railing against the Establishment GOP types, McCain and Romney. You impute to SBP an equivocation between Cuccinelli and the McCain-Romney complex, then continue the rest of the way to burn the strawman you’ve made, as though SBP has anything against him, when he’s said nothing of the sort (and, for the record, as far as I can tell SBP could be sanguine about Cuccinelli or not — it just doesn’t matter for your purposes).

  200. I can read. You attacked the libertarian types at Reason magazine. SBP makes to defend them, saying little to nothing about Cuccinelli but railing against the Establishment GOP types, McCain and Romney. You impute to SBP an equivocation between Cuccinelli and the McCain-Romney complex, then continue the rest of the way to burn the strawman you’ve made, as though SBP has anything against him, when he’s said nothing of the sort (and, for the record, as far as I can tell SBP could be sanguine about Cuccinelli or not — it just doesn’t matter for your purposes).

    As so many others have pointed out, the folks at “Reason” are phonies.

    Cuccinelli *wasn’t* and *isn’t* a McLame Romney type.

    If anyone was playing with strawmen, it was SBP, playing with Godbotherer strawmen..

  201. I don’t happen to think much about the people at Reason magazine, but to this extent don’t think them phonies, no more than I’d think Robert Nozick a phony.

    Godbotherer seems to be your term of . . . of . . . would you call this an art, this thing you do?

    However that may be, it does seem to me that the framing of our political organization took a clear-eyed view to putting an end to the endless religious wars of the old countries of Europe; that it seemed to be the hope of the framers to achieve a kind of neutral politics where those conflicts were concerned. But perhaps they misunderstood the inescapable nature of the thing. At any rate, it’s looking to be a stronger problem than their hopes would have made it.

  202. As I said last night, Reason Magazine isn’t a barometer of libertarian thought, big L or small. They are selling magazines and trying to collect ad revenues.

    The cake was baked with McAuliffe as the dem candidate in a purple state. He outspent Cuccinelli by huge margins. He had a sitting and a past president (his personal friend) as well as the sitting VP campaigning for him. Taking all that into account and the refusal of the RNC and GOP governors (I’m lookin at you Christie) or other GOP headliners (let me think on that one) to campaign for Cuccinelli , the very fact that the race was a squeeker should bring a smile to one’s face.

    Remember this was supposed to be a landslide for McAuliffe. He was going to crush Cuccinelli, et cetera, and that didn’t happen. Not by a long shot.

  203. Only one troll dropping today? Maybe OFA spent all its money in virginia and can’t pay its oafs.

  204. He’s a busy bee though, Red.

  205. Just noticed that he’s now on us about hatin’ the wyminz on the other thread. Maybe his check just cleared.

Leave a Reply