Do liberals deserve what they get?

[John Dibble]

Forgive me if this post seems trollish, I'm posting it as an argument for smaller government more than anything else. This article could apply to Republican conservatives in some respects, though probably less so than Democratic liberals. I would've been a little less hostile writing this, but I feel it has a point. I've bold faced the part I feel is important.

"Liberals deserve what they get
 
By Bill Steigerwald
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, November 7, 2004

Someone check if E.J. Dionne is still alive.
The Washington Post columnist was on NPR's "Some Things Considered" Wednesday night already sounding suicidal about the reign of conservative terror he fears is coming in President Bush's second term.

Voicing the concerns of millions of distraught liberals, Dionne worried that President Bush - a partisan ideologue he says deliberately ran a mean and divisive campaign that has cynically polarized the country - is going to claim a policy mandate despite his slim 51 percent victory over John Kerry.

Dionne didn't break down in tears or anything. But he was whining that the president had cynically exploited moral and cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage to win the votes of millions of nutballs on the Christian and NASCAR right.

Now, Dionne worried, with the help of an even more dangerously Republican Congress, we're all going to get things like Social Security privatization shoved down our throats!

And somebody call Kofi Annan! President Bush thinks he has the divine right to nominate any new Supreme Court justice he likes - even strict constitutionalists!

Too bad, E.J. You and your liberal pals deserve every right-wing Republican nightmare you get.

Welcome to the downside of the Big Government world you've created and been propagandizing for since 1932. This is what happens when your side keeps losing elections: the other tribe gets to pass laws they like and you are forced to follow them.

Tuesday's results caused me no particular heartache or joy, though I admit I always like to see the elite media suffer when the good citizens of Flyover Country reject the liberal political and cultural ideas they hold so dear.

I was torn about whom to root for. I believed Bush deserved to be punished for Iraq, but I didn't think 290 million innocent Americans should have been sentenced to four years of President and Mrs. Kerry.

Unlike Dionne, however, "Bush II the Sequel" doesn't worry me much. I figure our quasi-conservative president has already done his worst damage at home and overseas. Without having to get elected again, he might actually be able to honor his rhetoric about wanting to cut the size and scope of government.

Meanwhile, instead of trying to guilt-trip Bush into becoming more moderate or compromising with congressional Democrats, pundits like Dionne should be hiding in shame for having supported a New Deal Neanderthal like Kerry.

Kerry, by the way, is the immoderate one, not Bush. Kerry is a welfare-state-adoring zombie whose political brain was frozen in 1969. Watching his boring campaign was like watching a nine-month-long director's cut of "Night of the Living Liberal."

And let's get real. President Bush is hardly Barry Goldwater reborn. He needs to become less compromising with Democrats, not more. He's already too comfortable with the Big Nanny state, which is why Republicans who really still believe in individual freedom, limited government and laissez faire economics - all 145 of them - are unhappy with his first term.

In any case, don't blame me for the next four years. Along with 0.3 percent of my freedom-loving countrymen, I voted for Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party candidate. He finished fourth with a rousing 395,711 votes, which should tell Dionne and grieving liberals everywhere how silly they are to worry about the longevity of their precious welfare state."

[A18]

Badnarik was very close to beating Nader.

[opebo]

I have to admit smaller government probably benefits me, but it is assinine for the average person to be in favor of it - the great majority of people will be much poorer under the new laissez-faire regime.  Anyone remember the nineteenth century? 

[Angel of Death]

Badnarik was very close to beating Nader.

Considering Bush was the man to beat, that's a very poor showing.

[John Dibble]

I have to admit smaller government probably benefits me, but it is assinine for the average person to be in favor of it - the great majority of people will be much poorer under the new laissez-faire regime.  Anyone remember the nineteenth century? 

I don't advocate complete laissez-faire, though moving towards that direction would be good. No government interference can result in monopolies, cartels, and trusts - the bad aspects of capitalism, which works best when things are competitive. Less unnecessary regulations would make goods cheaper to produce, and therefore in a competitive environment that would make goods cheaper - everyone benefits from that, both sellers and buyers on all levels. Less taxes would give people more money to spend, once again benefiting buyers and sellers. Devolution(giving duties currently run by the federal government to state and local governments) can result in more efficient and customizable services.

Also, it's kind of hard to compare a laizze-faire 19th century to a laizze-faire 21st century - technology has come a great distance, and the Industrial Revolution is over. It would be much different.

[John Dibble]

Badnarik was very close to beating Nader.

Considering Bush was the man to beat, that's a very poor showing.

Considering he had almost zero media attention and less money than the previous LP candidate, I wouldn't say his showing was poor.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The was a very poor showing for Badnarik.  He ran against two mediocre candidates and got one of the worst results in the Libertarian party's history.  Moreover, every Libertarian on this board was touting this year as the year that the Libertarians would burst into the national spotlight, and they remain as irrelevant as they ever were.

If order to call any election a success, any party that perennially gets less than 1% needs to show dramatic gains, not just make excuses for the modest losses.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Badnarik was very close to beating Nader.

I was hoping that he did, so I don't see how it would hurt liberals.

[John Dibble]

The was a very poor showing for Badnarik.  He ran against two mediocre candidates and got one of the worst results in the Libertarian party's history.  Moreover, every Libertarian on this board was touting this year as the year that the Libertarians would burst into the national spotlight, and they remain as irrelevant as they ever were.

If order to call any election a success, any party that perennially gets less than 1% needs to show dramatic gains, not just make excuses for the modest losses.

Not our best performance, but not even close to our worst. Read up on your history before you act like you know it. http://www.lp.org/organization/history/presvote.html
Looking at the trends, I'd say we made some losses in some areas and some gains in others, but our base is consistant.

And I don't think we were touting any gaurantees, only hopes. We're overly optimistic, perhaps, but better that than pessimistic. It's easy to be a naysayer when you aren't one of us - you already have a powerful party that represents your views, we don't.

[stry_cat]

Looking at the trends, I'd say we made some losses in some areas and some gains in others, but our base is consistant.

And that IMHO is a problem.  Our base needs to be growing, not barely hanging on to even.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe I misunderstood the $1,000,000 - 1,000,000 votes campaign.  Failure to reach the 1,000,000 vote mark is a complete disgrace.  Everyone in the Badnarik campaign and everyone at the national LP needs to resign and be forbidden from ever holding any kind of party office again.  They should be held up to ridicule.  We cannot continue to have an electoral catastrophe after electoral catastrophe.  Incompetence like this can no longer be tolerated.

I think with this election it highlights the need for us to run first in local races.  Putting a lot of time and money into a guaranteed looser is not the way to go.  Looking at Virginia, Badnarik got 11056 votes in the entire state.  The LP's nominee for Arlington County School Board (Shaun Whelden) got 11169 votes  in a county wide race.  Someone running a local county race manages to get more than 100 votes than Badnarik running state wide.  Clearly we need to rethink our strategy.

[A18]

There very simple solution to this is to find a Libertarian version of George Soros.

And move toward the center politically.

[John Dibble]

Looking at the trends, I'd say we made some losses in some areas and some gains in others, but our base is consistant.

And that IMHO is a problem.  Our base needs to be growing, not barely hanging on to even.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe I misunderstood the $1,000,000 - 1,000,000 votes campaign.  Failure to reach the 1,000,000 vote mark is a complete disgrace.  Everyone in the Badnarik campaign and everyone at the national LP needs to resign and be forbidden from ever holding any kind of party office again.  They should be held up to ridicule.  We cannot continue to have an electoral catastrophe after electoral catastrophe.  Incompetence like this can no longer be tolerated.

I think with this election it highlights the need for us to run first in local races.  Putting a lot of time and money into a guaranteed looser is not the way to go.  Looking at Virginia, Badnarik got 11056 votes in the entire state.  The LP's nominee for Arlington County School Board (Shaun Whelden) got 11169 votes  in a county wide race.  Someone running a local county race manages to get more than 100 votes than Badnarik running state wide.  Clearly we need to rethink our strategy.

I agree with some of what you said. I don't think we need to ridicule anyone, but they do need to cool their jets and get their heads out of the clouds. We would do better to find areas where we can build up our base through local and state elections.

[??????????]

Badnarik MAY still get 1 electoral vote by chance.

[John Dibble]

Badnarik MAY still get 1 electoral vote by chance.

Yeah, I did hear there was one Republican elector who might not vote Bush. He might just abstain though, but it would be nice if a Libertarian got an electoral vote for the second time.

[Shira]

Dionne didn't break down in tears or anything. But he was whining that the president had cynically exploited moral and cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage to win the votes of millions of nutballs on the Christian and NASCAR right.

Unfortunately that's exactly what happened.

[A18]

It's pretty pathetic to hear Democrats talking about exploiting anyone.

Which candidate was telling old people his opponent wanted to privitize social security? Which candidate was saying his opponent wanted to bring back the draft?

Marriage and abortion are important issues.

[??????????]

It's pretty pathetic to hear Democrats talking about exploiting anyone.

Which candidate was telling old people his opponent wanted to privitize social security? Which candidate was saying his opponent wanted to bring back the draft?

Marriage and abortion are important issues.

And what party ran an ad of the president pushing old people in wheelchairs over a cliff. What party claims that Bush is going to repeal the Civil Rights Act?

[J. J.]

Dionne didn't break down in tears or anything. But he was whining that the president had cynically exploited moral and cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage to win the votes of millions of nutballs on the Christian and NASCAR right.

Unfortunately this is exactly what happened.

Exactly what happened was that the Democrats nominated a candidate who hasn't had a new thought since the 1970's, didn't explain his positions, didn't have firm core beliefs, and then  some Democrats wondered why a majority of the electorate didn't vote for him.

[A18]

What party claims that Bush is going to repeal the Civil Rights Act?

That act is unconstitutional, BTW.

[Shira]

Now, Dionne worried, with the help of an even more dangerously Republican Congress, we're all going to get things like Social Security privatization shoved down our throats!

The Conservatives hated Social Security and Medicare since they were founded by FDR and LBJ. They know very well that they can not kill these programs. What they can do, is to gradually starve them.
That’s exactly what Margaret Tacher tried to do in GB with the national health care system that she hated so much.

[bushforever]

We will kill Social Security this administration though, and privitize it into accounts like it or not.  The current seniors will still see their benefits, but I will get my own account to invest in when I'm older...and the government can't touch it.  All thanks to my hero, G.W.  America is a free, ownership society, not a communist or dicatorial society.  I think our policies should reflect that.

[J. J.]

Now, Dionne worried, with the help of an even more dangerously Republican Congress, we're all going to get things like Social Security privatization shoved down our throats!

The Conservatives hated Social Security and Medicare since they were founded by FDR and LBJ. They know very well that they can not kill these programs. What they can do, is to gradually starve them.
That’s exactly what Margaret Tacher tried to do in GB with the national health care system that she hated so much.

One of the people in favor of this served in LBJ's administration, former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat. 

Shira, this is typical of the outright lies that the loony left puts up.

[Shira]

We will kill Social Security this administration though, and privitize it into accounts like it or not. 

Why is the president afraid to explicitly say it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to your assertion, most of European countries are Communist dictatorships.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, they are People's Democratic Dictatorships of the Proletariat. Ha ha. Yuk yuk yuk.

[Shira]

Now, Dionne worried, with the help of an even more dangerously Republican Congress, we're all going to get things like Social Security privatization shoved down our throats!

The Conservatives hated Social Security and Medicare since they were founded by FDR and LBJ. They know very well that they can not kill these programs. What they can do, is to gradually starve them.
That’s exactly what Margaret Tacher tried to do in GB with the national health care system that she hated so much.

One of the people in favor of this served in LBJ's administration, former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat. 

Shira, this is typical of the outright lies that the loony left puts up.

Listen carefully to Conservative commentators, talk show hosts and some house representatives and senators who are not careful enough in shutting their mouth.