Which liberty candidate to give to?

[LimitedGovernment]

I disagree with your interpretation of things. I stand by what I wrote earlier. I don't particularly care to argue it further.

You did say you would rather vote for a more mature candidate over an ideological match. Then you said the kill the gays guy was more mature...

Either way. This has grown pointless.

Nowhere did I say that the "kill the gays bill" guy was more mature. Be more careful, or intellectually honest - one of the two is a big problem with your posts.

She was repeatedly trying to get clarification on something, and he kept avoiding it. The same thing happened with Rand Paul. Rachel's not the one at fault. They're at fault for being evasive, defensive, and attacking her - rather than simply answering the question and providing clarity so that the interview can move on, as her interviews typically do.

Even the "Kill the gays bill" guy from Uganda did better than Robinson and Rand.

 

[enoch150]

Nowhere did I say that the "kill the gays bill" guy was more mature. Be more careful, or intellectually honest - one of the two is a big problem with your posts.

Of course you didn't explicitly say the kill the gays guy was more mature. You also never explicitly said that Robinson was immature. That's why you like Rachel Maddow. She never explicitly stated anonymous donations were criminal money laundering, she just likes to imply that they could be. You like to imply things and then cry that you never said what you clearly meant. Are you a politician?

You said Robinson was disturbing, evasive, uncivil and that money should go to more mature candidates. The obvious implication is that Robinson is not mature. Then you said that the kill the gays guy did better than Robinson. Did better how? Clearly you don't agree with his ideological position, so you must be referring to his behavior - the kill the gays guy acted more maturely. It was implied in the context.

Just a few posts ago you said "I'll take even a neocon who is civil and will vote for civil liberties and internet freedom over a libertarian who will never work with anyone but other libertarians, and who will be disrespectful as often as he/she likes."

Neocons are notable for deficit spending to finance social programs, a police state, and an aggressive foreign policy. Scratch the police state, if you want. Neocons destroy economies and kill people. You very clearly don't have a problem with this, as long as they're polite about it. (I know, you never explicitly said you were ok with destroying economies and killing people). And you think I was being intellectually dishonest about your insinuation that the kill the gays guy was more mature and therefore, a better candidate? Do you not think through the implications of things?

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Ok, you're clearly being an asshole, so I'll only respond this one last time.

Of course you didn't explicitly say the kill the gays guy was more mature. You also never explicitly said that Robinson was immature.

If Robinson somehow got elected, it'd continue to put a bad name on the "liberty movement". Money should go to mature candidates, even if they aren't an ideological match for what you believe in.

Supporting Robinson over others is like supporting the people who yell "Ron Paul!" during others' speaking time at caucuses, versus supporting those who are silent out of respect for the process and who later make passionate speeches when they get the floor.

It's pretty damn clear where I stand on Robinson and his behavior.

Then you said that the kill the gays guy did better than Robinson. Did better how? Clearly you don't agree with his ideological position, so you must be referring to his behavior - the kill the gays guy acted more maturely.

It's also pretty damn clear where I stand on the "kill the gays bill" guy.

She was repeatedly trying to get clarification on something, and he kept avoiding it. The same thing happened with Rand Paul. Rachel's not the one at fault. They're at fault for being evasive, defensive, and attacking her - rather than simply answering the question and providing clarity so that the interview can move on, as her interviews typically do.

Even the "Kill the gays bill" guy from Uganda did better than Robinson and Rand.

Using the word "even" there connotes that the "kill the gays bill" guy is a worse person (personal beliefs, policy, and behavior) than Robinson and Rand Paul. There's no concievable way that you could draw from my comments that the "kill the gays bill" guy is more mature.

But let me make it even clearer by quoting the rest of that post.

They may have better political positions, but they were terrible on the program. Their interview responses can't be defended. Robinson's responses were typical of him. I don't want such nonsense anywhere near office, much less with the impression that he represents "the liberty movement".

I haven't seen enough from Rand to comment on his typical response pattern.

See? I clearly pointed out that the "kill the gays bill" guy, despite his complete idiocy and terrible policy positions that are the worst of the three people mentioned, had better interview responses. You know, the primary subject of our entire discussion to this point?

Neocons are notable for deficit spending to finance social programs, a police state, and an aggressive foreign policy. Scratch the police state, if you want. Neocons destroy economies and kill people. You very clearly don't have a problem with this, as long as they're polite about it. (I know, you never explicitly said you were ok with destroying economies and killing people).

And we get to the point where you're clearly being an asshole.

So what you're saying is that you'd never support a progressive in their own campaign, but you'd support them as part of a combined ticket. That makes no sense to me. An ally is an ally is an ally.

You put the best at the front. I'll take even a neocon who is civil and will vote for civil liberties and internet freedom over a libertarian who will never work with anyone but other libertarians, and who will be disrespectful as often as he/she likes.

The neocon would ultimately do more for the causes I care about and the movement for those causes.

For those of you who haven't followed along, my points have been about how to get liberty-minded goals accomplished in the current US Congress. I've advocated for forming coalitions with people who share many liberty-minded goals (e.g. progressives like Kucinich and Nader), acting in a manner that it is extremely difficult to find fault with (e.g. being civil and answering questions directly and clearly - with whatever clarification is needed), and voting for people whom we may find distasteful, but who will work with people from ideological backgrounds different from their own in order to pass legislative changes that favor liberty-minded goals.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I don't see a way for Karen Kwiatkowski to win. [...] Mack and O'Connor at least have something to work with, even if they're long shots. The only thing I can see Kwiatkowski have going for her is to try and get large numbers of Democrats to vote for her in the open Republican primary. In a district that's heavily Republican. I don't see how that could work. I don't even consider her a long shot.

Maybe you should tell it to activist Republicans/Tea Partiers in a district with traditionally less than 3% turnout on primary day.

They don't seem to have gotten your memo.

FROM (dated May 1st): http://www.examiner.com/article/kwiatkowski-and-radtke-tea-party-favorites

[...]

Moving on to the House of Representatives race, Karen Kwiatkowski continued to widen her lead over ten-term incumbent Bob Goodlatte. Looking back to the first poll in December, she narrowly edged out Goodlatte 47% to 43%. Then in January, she improved, capturing 62% of tea party respondents. Last week, she gained even more ground as 75% or 48 of the 64 ballots expressed support for Kwiatkowski.

Even though some of Bob Goodlatte’s employees have attended and spoken at the tea party meetings, this poll may herald a troubling future for the representative. Has Kwiatkowski, who has become a familiar face at these monthly gatherings, successfully captured the hearts and minds of this group of activists?

[...]

When considering the proximity to the June Republican primaries, both the straw poll results for Senate and House of Representatives ought to be of particular interest. True, even though tea party groups, like the ones in Harrisonburg and Staunton, are only small portions of the electorate, even in the 6th district, one would expect that members of both will turnout heavily for the primaries. And given that overall turnout for a late spring/early summer single party primary is expected to be poor, tea party groups should enjoy an even greater influence in these kinds of elections.

So, will Jamie Radtke and Karen Kwiatkowski continue to gain support among the tea party groups in the Shenandoah Valley and elsewhere? And, if so, will they both be able to successfully leverage that support to upset their well-known rivals? After all, presumably the title of a “tea party favorite” ought to play well with the conservative electorate. However, June 12th is less than a month and a half away and, given that a few thousand votes could determine the election, none of the campaigns ought to take the support of their local tea parties for granted.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The Maddow interview was a whole different story. He wasn't just uncivil there, he was slandering Rachel on her own program.

Here's a clip from that interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?src_vi...id=annotation_556379&feature=iv&v=xCkNzD82XfI

Here's a better link, that shows the full interview and how Maddow started the interview by attacking him, and liberally applying spin and hype.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2InHyQQvxGk

He could have handled it better, but she did ambush him. She was attacking him based on a "rich" super-PAC that is spending a whopping $150k? Give me a break! Rich? She basically attacked the whole Super PAC concept, but blamed it all on him, as though he was the only politican who ever had a super PAC run an ad for them, using all of her trademark smarminess and faux outrage. And she continually mischaracterized the supposed quotes, which never said what she implied they said. It was all spin, and calling her a liar is much less exaggerated than her attempts at smearing him.

Lesson to all conservative candidates: never go on her show. Never.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Here's a better link, that shows the full interview and how Maddow started the interview by attacking him, and liberally applying spin and hype.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2InHyQQvxGk

He could have handled it better, but she did ambush him. She was attacking him based on a "rich" super-PAC that is spending a whopping $150k? Give me a break! Rich? She basically attacked the whole Super PAC concept, but blamed it all on him, as though he was the only politican who ever had a super PAC run an ad for them, using all of her trademark smarminess and faux outrage. And she continually mischaracterized the supposed quotes, which never said what she implied they said. It was all spin, and calling her a liar is much less exaggerated than her attempts at smearing him.

Lesson to all conservative candidates: never go on her show. Never.

It's astounding that you can do such mental gymnastics.

 

[Christopher David]

I like this guy.

http://christopherdavid2012.com/ron-paul-republican

But I'm biased.

 

[sailingaway]

LimitedGovernment, I disagree with you on Rand and Rachael. She essentially asked 'when did you stop beating your wife'.. It was a question that just by raising it, brought in race even though she knew quite clearly libertarian objection to the CRA has nothing to do with the Jim Crow laws which were of course horrible. But she knew it would be spun as racist because the CRA is billed as racial legislation (it is that too, of course, but not only that). In fact, all constitutional law before the SCOTUS decided that case would have held the federal government couldn't regulate local business that way, that it was a state perogative. She raised it knowing that even if she didn't spin it as racist it would be done so at large, and it was. And I do blame her.

 

[Heman5up]

This thread is very helpful. I just gave $250 to Karen K. after reading all the discussion. Please support anyway you can.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

LimitedGovernment, I disagree with you on Rand and Rachael. She essentially asked 'when did you stop beating your wife'.. It was a question that just by raising it, brought in race even though she knew quite clearly libertarian objection to the CRA has nothing to do with the Jim Crow laws which were of course horrible. But she knew it would be spun as racist because the CRA is billed as racial legislation (it is that too, of course, but not only that). In fact, all constitutional law before the SCOTUS decided that case would have held the federal government couldn't regulate local business that way, that it was a state perogative. She raised it knowing that even if she didn't spin it as racist it would be done so at large, and it was. And I do blame her.

I see her question on the issue as a way to start discussion on whether or not the federal government should interfere in public commerce and why. It never really got to that point, because Rand refused to make a clear yes/no statement about his specific views on regulating private businesses that offer services to the public at large, and he didn't make clear the reasons for what I infer was his position (that the federal government shouldn't interfere with private business no matter what). Rand alluded previously to the idea that he would want to debate the parts of the ADA and CRA that affect private operations - so it would be a bit of a leap for me to say that my inference about him having an absolutist position is correct. That's part of what Rachel was getting at, in my view.

So, it's not the same as the "Did you stop beating your wife yet?" question, because it doesn't box him in to an answer that would commit him to a specific view.

If your general assertion is that Rachel was only interested in portraying Rand as a racist, then I think you're not giving Rachel the credit that she's due - much less appropriately weighing the responses that she gave in the interview.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It's astounding that you can do such mental gymnastics.

I'm flexible.

So your position is that Rachel Maddow is unbiased?

 

[LimitedGovernment]

I'm flexible.

So your position is that Rachel Maddow is unbiased?

My position is that Rachel is fair and has strong journalistic intergrity, even though her interviews come from the perspective of her personal beliefs. (e.g. that anonymous donations to campaigns are a horrible thing)

 

[Brian4Liberty]

My position is that Rachel is fair and has strong journalistic intergrity, even though her interviews come from the perspective of her personal beliefs. (e.g. that anonymous donations to campaigns are a horrible thing)

Sure, about the same as Bill O'Reilly, John Stewart, and Sean Hannity. They are all partisan pundits, propagandists, and entertainers. Maddow is no exception.

So if Maddow had Obama on tomorrow she would start out by asking him about his secret billionaire donations and Super-PACs, and then she would move on to some old quotes about drugs and hammer him for his current drug policy? Maybe ask him about his credentials as a Constitutional scholar based on his unconstitutional actions as POTUS? Perhaps bring up his connections to communists and 60s terrorists? When Maddow does that, we can consider whether she is "fair" and balanced.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Sure, about the same as Bill O'Reilly, John Stewart, and Sean Hannity. They are all partisan pundits, propagandists, and entertainers. Maddow is no exception.

So if Maddow had Obama on tomorrow she would start out by asking him about his secret billionaire donations and Super-PACs, and then she would move on to some old quotes about drugs and hammer him for his current drug policy? Maybe ask him about his credentials as a Constitutional scholar based on his unconstitutional actions as POTUS? Perhaps bring up his connections to communists and 60s terrorists? When Maddow does that, we can consider whether she is "fair" and balanced.

Seems that you don't know Rachel. It also seems that you don't know Stewart; considering that you lumped him in with O'Reilly and Hannity.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Seems that you don't know Rachel. It also seems that you don't know Stewart; considering that you lumped him in with O'Reilly and Hannity.

Oh, I know Rachel "honey, honey, poison" Maddow, and I haven't watched her since she ambushed Rand (except for the occasional YouTube). I never miss an episode of her hero Stewart's show (and Stewart has even taken some shots at Maddow for her less than stellar "reporting"). I'll admit I rarely see O'Really, and I mostly hear Hannity on the radio.

As for the big picture, The Ministry of Truth has many "divisions", and they all can be lumped together, although their styles vary, and they generally adhere to a false left/right paradigm. They are all together on most issues, perhaps with different slants.

On the specific issue of NDAA, "dissent" is permissible, especially for politicians who are up for re-election. But the truth is in the vote. A bi-partisan majority defeated the bi-partison Smith-Amash Amendment that addresses Constitutional issues that Maddow brought up. There is no way that Amendment would have been allowed to pass (the phonies would switch their votes if they had to). When dissent is not allowed, we get votes with only 1-4 nays (with Ron Paul being one of them).

Cenk Uygur made it perfectly clear when he left MSNBC that there is only so much leeway granted with certain criticism (like of Obama), and if you don't do the bidding of the management, you will be gone. Maddow has obviously played ball such that she can keep her show. Targeted, live, in-person attacks on certain politicians may be part of the price she has agreed to pay.

 

[LimitedGovernment]

Oh, I know Rachel "honey, honey, poison" Maddow, and I haven't watched her since she ambushed Rand (except for the occasional YouTube). I never miss an episode of her hero Stewart's show (and Stewart has even taken some shots at Maddow for her less than stellar "reporting"). I'll admit I rarely see O'Really, and I mostly hear Hannity on the radio.

As for the big picture, The Ministry of Truth has many "divisions", and they all can be lumped together, although their styles vary, and they generally adhere to a false left/right paradigm. They are all together on most issues, perhaps with different slants.

On the specific issue of NDAA, "dissent" is permissible, especially for politicians who are up for re-election. But the truth is in the vote. A bi-partisan majority defeated the bi-partison Smith-Amash Amendment that addresses Constitutional issues that Maddow brought up. There is no way that Amendment would have been allowed to pass (the phonies would switch their votes if they had to). When dissent is not allowed, we get votes with only 1-4 nays (with Ron Paul being one of them).

Cenk Uygur made it perfectly clear when he left MSNBC that there is only so much leeway granted with certain criticism (like of Obama), and if you don't do the bidding of the management, you will be gone. Maddow has obviously played ball such that she can keep her show. Targeted, live, in-person attacks on certain politicians may be part of the price she has agreed to pay.

It seems like you're falling to the "count the hits, ignore the misses" psychological problem of confirmation bias.

Then again, ... "Ministry of Truth"? "Permissible"? "Phonies"? Maybe you just believe that there's a vast governmental secret club running almost everything.

Rachel has almost certainly agreed to follow some network editorial discretion in what topics to cover, and how to frame some issues. That's part of what being on someone else's network means. It'd be nice to have our own successful networks to do whatever we want with. However, just as many people choose to stay at their jobs in order to earn money and do good work, Rachel is sticking with MSNBC because she perceives the overall benefits as more worthwhile than the costs.

I mean, how else could she have been nice to Keith Olbermann on TV?

So, no, she doesn't provide a "pro & con" presentation on her show, and she doesn't let issues of controversy or network priority lie, and, yes, she does target candidates on positions that do not fall in line with polling beliefs of many of the network's viewers, and she does play nice with people who should be called out.


That's a totally different thing from your insinuation that she's unfair, out to get people, and extreme like O'Reilly is.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Then again, ... "Ministry of Truth"? "Permissible"? "Phonies"? Maybe you just believe that there's a vast governmental secret club running almost everything.

I'll assume you know where the Ministry of Truth reference comes from. And yes, there are phonies in Congress. Is that controversial? As far as a "secret" club, there's nothing secret about it. It's all in the public view. There is a large number of intertwined organizations and special interest groups that shape government actions. Nothing secret or mysterious about it. As a gross generalization, it's a form of Corporatocracy, Oligarchy or Plutocracy. How do you think it all works?

That's a totally different thing from your insinuation that she's unfair, out to get people, and extreme like O'Reilly is.

And there are plenty of people who say the opposite, that O'Reilly is fair and balanced, and Maddow is the extremist. Difference in style does not mean the net effect is any different. Who would a politician rather be ambushed by, a shouting jerk like O'Reilly, or a smiling, smarmy person like Maddow? Same results either way.

Do you support Ron?

 

[Kluge]

If someone can watch this clip and tell me that Warren is a genuine person with some sort of principles, I think they might have their head up their ass.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-26-2010/elizabeth-warren

 

[Kluge]

How the hell did this thread turn into this anyways? It was a good thread about vetting candidates.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

How the hell did this thread turn into this anyways? It was a good thread about vetting candidates.

Sorry, thread derail.