How Drudge, Assange, Greenwald and the Pauls Are Unifying Under a Libertarian Banner

drudge_assange_greenwald_paulTuesday afternoon, Matt Drudge, the notorious paleoconservative fire-eater and former mentor to Andrew Breitbart, tweeted, “It’s now Authoritarian vs. Libertarian. Since Democrats vs. Republicans has been obliterated, no real difference between parties…” He rapidly followed it up by tweeting, “Why would anyone vote Republican? Please give reason. Raised taxes; marching us off to war again; approved more NSA snooping. WHO ARE THEY?!”

Since the late 1990s, The Drudge Report has been the go-to news destination for the Republican Party and the conservative movement, not to mention some of the more hackish members of the news media. While Fox News Channel was still in its infancy, Drudge was already the standard-bearer for a blossoming right-wing answer to the so-called “liberal news media.” He was one of the primary cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, as well as an apologist for every bungled scheme and trespass of the Bush administration, including such issue areas as waterboarding, warrantless eavesdropping, climate crisis debunking and so forth. For Drudge to so publicly and resoundingly reject the Republican Party, and to do so in a way that sounded eerily similar to something Glenn Greenwald or David Sirota would blurt (minus the “raised taxes” gripe of course) was shocking to observe.

It should be clear by now exactly what’s going on.

As the far-right and the far-left grow increasingly pissy about their respective stations, and, more importantly, the fact that the two major parties are rightfully taking them less seriously by the day, these two seemingly disparate factions are converging under the banner of libertarianism. Strange given how libertarianism has been historically associated with the far-right, but these groups, having moved so far to the extremities of the political spectrum, have clearly found enough common ground to join forces.

Not too long ago, Wikileaks founder, Snowden-booster and radical transparency hero Julian Assange, whose self-beclowning continues unabated by the way, effusively complimented Drudge, Rand Paul and Ron Paul.

Regarding Drudge, Assange said:

“Matt Drudge is a news media innovator. And he took off about eight years ago in response to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.”

Assange claimed that Drudge made his name by “publishing information that the establishment media would not. It is as a result of the self-censorship of the establishment press in the United States that gave Matt Drudge such a platform and so of course he should be applauded for breaking a lot of that censorship.”

A few things on this before we get to the Paul quote. First, the Lewinsky scandal was in 1998 — not “eight years ago.” But I nitpick. Assange also seems to be mistaking the posting of misleading headlines and all-caps blurbs for “breaking a lot of that censorship” using information “the establishment media” won’t print. Well, given how The Drudge Report is mostly composed of a jumble of links to websites owned by “the establishment media,” I don’t know what the hell Assange is talking about.

When asked about libertarian evangelists Ron and Rand Paul, Assange said: “The only hope as far as electoral politics presently, is the Libertarian section of the Republican party. [I] am a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the U.S. Congress on a number of issues.”

Assange isn’t alone in his admiration for the Pauls. As we’ve documented before, far-left activists have been repeatedly suckered into Rand Paul’s camp whether in the context of “standing with Rand” on his self-proclaimed opposition to the use of predator drones in the war on terror (he’s actually not as against them as his infamous filibuster led many to believe) and his angst about NSA surveillance. (Incidentally, the other day Greenwald praised a “Left-Libertarian” alliance, involving the support of Rand Paul, to defeat the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Syria.)

It’s primarily these national security issues, along with a seething hatred of President Obama, that are congealing these various groups into a fledgling coalition.

This leads us right back to Drudge’s eye-popping tweets about upending the two party system in the name of libertarianism and so on. Remarkably, with fewer than 280 characters, he managed to pull everything into critical focus. Similarly, as Greenwald and others have stated, the libertarian left’s primary goal is the disintegration of the two party system by pursuing a long-term effort to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means the election of more Republicans and the enacting of conservative policies like voter ID, corporate deregulation and the further erosion of reproductive rights. On the Greenwald front, the mission is to destroy the Democratic Party. On the Drudge side, it’s the Republican Party. And the common denominator? Libertarianism.

Rather than influencing the debate, this emerging coalition is in the process of exiling itself from the two party paradigm and thus from being taken seriously as it summarily rejects anyone who acknowledges the necessity for compromise, for a rational fact-based debate and intellectual honesty. Good riddance. The sooner the fringe crackpots fully marginalize themselves from participating in the national discussion, the sooner the grown-ups will be able to effectively govern again — something that hasn’t really occurred in years due in part to cacophonous screeching about war crimes, drones and death panels.

While Greenwald, Assange, Drudge and the Pauls are busily shouting at invisible enemies about everything from the vast and pernicious NSA security state to conspiracy theories about the possible assassination of Snowden by the U.S. government, the rest of us will finally be able carry on with a serious, rational discussion about running the country.

Bob Cesca is the managing editor for The Daily Banter, the editor of BobCesca.com, the host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Huffington Post contributor.

  • munbeam666

    Did anyone know that Henry and Claire Luce, the original owners of Life Magazine back in the early 1960s, and fans of Ayn Rand, regularly took LSD and believed that only the 1% class should have it?
    True story

  • jezebel

    I’ve never wanted Bob Cesca’s Babies more than I do now…

    #Woot! GREAT REPORTING BOB! :)

  • GlennBo

    Sorry Bob, but you couldn’t be more wrong. Rand Paul is right on exactly 1 issue: civil liberties. I, nor any other liberal I know, is deluded enough to think he’s the answer on any other issue. I don’t support a Rand Paul presidency nor do I support his foolish grandstanding. Whatever you think Assange, Greenwald or Snowden are up to, it’s not going to be a winning strategy to get progressives like myself to vote libertarian.

    I am not consumed with Obama hatred. I am upset that Obama has governed as a center-right 90s Republican. Despite the progressive language he uses on his biggest stage, the state of the union address, he often retreats to right-wing talking points. For instance, Obama spent a fair amount of time in 2010 concern-trolling about the deficit, pushing the absurd Simpson-Bowles. Is part of his governing style due to the makeup of the congress? Sure. But I would like to see him champion progressive initiatives and he has been VERY reluctant to do so. He’s no FDR that’s for sure.

    If you are going to smear us civil libertarians with guilt by association, you ought to look at the company you keep. John Boehner? Eric Cantor? Peter King? You can’t really call yourself liberal if you’re keeping company with the autocratic wing of the Republican Party. Liberals and progressives naturally want change and it seems that you and yours want to keep the status quo. I accept my marriage of convenience for now and so do you.

    Contrary to your assertion, we’re not out to undermine the Democratic Party. In fact, the Democratic Party is doing an excellent job of undermining itself. Whether it’s their embrace the military industrial complex, private prisons, school vouchers, free trade, or that they look the other way for bankers, the Democratic Party has demonstrated their inability to seize the high ground with a few honorable exceptions. The public has noticed which is why Democrats don’t poll much higher than Republicans. I am not idly watching this from my couch. I am working to get Democrats elected that will do something about it. I suggest you and yours to do the same.

    “Rather than influencing the debate, this emerging coalition is in the process of exiling itself from the two party paradigm… ” This is the most absurd thing you have said yet. In actuality, poll after poll show that the public agrees with the progressive opinion hands down. No doubt, the beltway consensus that seeks to run the country will try to marginalize us but they are losing control of the narrative, mostly to progressives, and it’s scaring the crap out of them.

    You are right about one thing, if this national experiment goes south liberals may be the first to be lined up against the wall. Of course it could also be the beltway types. Time will tell. Let me clear that I would rather die than allow the country to waste away as part of some holy compromise. Most compromises have moved the country backward over the last 30 years, not forward. I won’t allow the political and corporate elites to further grab the spoils of our society at our expense.

    • jezebel

      TL;DR :)

      You’ve been snow-jobbed!

      • GlennBo

        A bit of unfounded hyperbole right? Always productive.

    • kfreed

      You’re not a liberal. Explain to me why progressives or sane people in general should support the following. Let’s begin by discusing those Ron/Rand Paul “civil liberties” issues, shall we?

      1) Daily Beast: “The Ron Paul Institute: Be Afraid, Very Afraid”

      “The former presidential contender is back, this time as head of a new ‘institute’ for ‘peace’ comprised of anti-Semites, 9/11 truthers, and dictator lovers. James Kirchick reports.”
      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/25/the-ron-paul-institute-be-afraid-very-afraid.html

      2) OccuNews (Occupy): “The conference in Ontario is billed as “Fatima: The Path to Peace” but it features New World Order conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers, racists, and an openly fascist speaker. (Video below.) Former U.S Congressman Ron Paul will keynote the week-long international summit to be held in September at Niagara Falls, Ontario. Paul is accustomed to sharing the stage with conspiracy theorists – John Birchers, Christian Reconstructionists, and Neoconfederates – but this time it’s the international summit of a radical Catholic traditionalist organization. The Fatima Crusaders not only reject the reforms of Vatican II, but also teach that the Vatican is in collusion with the United Nations to form a one-world government. This article includes short bios of some of the scheduled speakers and video of one of them rallying a crowd in Europe against homosexuals and Jews.”
      http://thedailybanter.com/2013/09/how-drudge-assange-greenwald-and-the-pauls-are-unifying-under-the-neo-libertarian-banner/

      3) Talk To Action: “In September 2013, former U.S. Congressman Ron Paul will deliver a keynote address at a week-long conference in Ontario, Canada, titled “Fatima: The Path to Peace”. As researcher Rachel Tabachnick describes, the conference “features New World Order conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers, racists, and an openly fascist speaker”. The conference will also feature two “geocentrists”, who claim the Sun and all the heavens revolve once per day around the Earth – in a frank rejection of the Copernican Model of the Solar System accepted by the Catholic Church several centuries ago.”
      http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/9/4/114151/7809/Front_Page/Fatima_Center_Holocaust_Deniers_and_Geocentrists

      Now tell me what’s different about the articles above and the following article regarding the fascist regime just imposed in Hungary? Answer: nothing.

      New Statesman: “Hungary is no longer a democracy”

      “The attack was clear and continuous: crippling restriction of the freedom of the press, political direction of the Central Bank, inclusion
      in the Constitution of Christian religious references and of the
      “social utility” of individuals as a necessary condition for the
      enforcement of social rights, deletion of the word “Republic” in the
      same Constitution to define the country’s political system, condemnation
      of homosexuality, criminalisation of the homeless, attacks against
      women’s rights, impunity afforded to perpetrators of racist murders, the
      strengthening of a virulent anti-Semitism . . .

      Only a few days ago, prime minister Viktor Orban officially decorated three extreme right-wing leading figures: journalist Ferenc Szaniszlo, known for his diatribes against the Jews and the Roma people, who he compares to “monkeys”; anti-Semitic archaeologist Kornel Bakav, who blames the Jews for having organized the slave trade in the Middle-Age; finally, “artist” Petras Janos, who proudly claims his proximity to the Jobbik and its paramilitary militia, responsible for several racist murders of Romani people and heiress of the pro-Nazi Arrow Cross Party, that organised the extermination of Jews and Gypsies during the Second World War”

      READ IN FULL: http://www.newstatesman.com/austerity-and-its-discontents/2013/04/hungary-no-longer-democracy

      Ron Paul admirer, Julian Assange and his Wikileaks Party preferenced actual fascist candidates int he Australian election:

      “Wikileaks claimed it was all a big typo and Assange put it down to teething pains and ‘we’re all volunteers’. It means they are preferencing last some of Assange’s biggest supporters in Australian politics and putting ahead of the Greens far-right Australian parties including one which is allied to Greece’s fascist Golden Dawn.”

      http://paulocanning.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/assange-getting-kicked-in-nuts-in.html
      Fascists are on the march all over the globe and we have Americans claiming to give a crap about freedom and democracy assisting them in spearheading the downfall of entire democratic nations. So far, Greece, Hungary are the casualties. Are we noting the similiarities between our own Koch-sponsored fascist Libertarian party and those around the world which far too closely mirror the “Tea Party”? Practically identical. History repeats itself because people are stupid, particularly in times of economic strife.

      • GlennBo

        This is the problem with your coalition. You don’t understand that we can agree with the Pauls on 1 issue and oppose all others. Liberals don’t support any of the things you listed, me included. Point to any of those topics that involve civil liberties.

        You can prattle on about fascists but I’ve got one question for you. Do you support the TPP? Obama sure does. Free trade is about one thing only: corporate governance. You can snow me all you want about how you are with the sane coalition, but the fact is that those in the beltway consensus are the same people who are selling America out to the same fascists you seem to fear. Guys like Bob Cesca owe us an explanation as to why they are attempting to force orthodoxy and ignore issues like this. Any time he’s up for selling the TPP I’ll read it. I’m sure it’ll be quite interesting.

        Do you think the Democratic leadership are doing a damn thing about issues like the TPP? Hell no. Clinton’s New Democrat coalition, which includes Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, and many others, are the same people who are pushing this BS on us. So you can fear monger about Ron/Rand Paul all you want, but don’t turn your back on the Democratic leadership because they are preparing a rather large knife that’ll sink deep into your back.

        • kfreed

          This is the problem with people claiming to be liberals, yet are more than happy to make common cause with fascists, white supremacists, anti-semites… I understand why you’d want us to believe you’re “one of us”… what I don’t get is why you’d hitch your wagon to Ron Paul’s authoritarian-minded wagon, no matter who you are.

          • GlennBo

            Uh, no. That’s rich. You are claiming you are on the high ground while you bed with the corporatists, of which Obama is one, and the authoritarians who have overthrown democratically elected governments all over the world and installed fascist regimes. You can point fingers all you want but your bed is just as dirty if you want to go there.

            Don’t become the enemy of progress and then claim I am undermining progress. If you can’t see the dangers in the NSA and the obvious blowback which will haunt us because of the drone strikes, then that’s on you.

            It’s bad enough we have Republicans joining our party and running as Democrats. Now we have anti-labor/anti-progress Democrats siding with authoritarians and corporatists.

          • kfreed

            The authoritarians/corporatists in this scenario are the Fraud Pauls and the Koch-funded Libertarian right-wing of the Republican Party, the TEA Party, in other words, to Which the Fraud Pauls belong:

            “MEMO: Health Insurance, Banking, Oil Industries Met With Koch, Chamber, Glenn Beck To Plot 2010 Election” Links to actual Koch memo:

            http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/20/124642/beck-koch-chamber-meeting/

            Also view the corporatist Koch Libertarian agenda via http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

            If Obama were one of them, they’d be kissing his arse. As to the rest of your Paulbot/Greenwald-inspired drivel ) Libertarian Glenn Grenwald of Koch-funded Cato Institute, that is). MEH. We’ve been over it. You’re late to the party.

          • GlennBo

            Obama has other corporations that he bows to, although he’ll approve KXL at some point.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/obama-climate-protest_n_2719338.html

            Maybe you can explain why not one top-level bankster has been put in jail even though there was obvious fraud. Or why Obama is on board with the TPP, which elevates corporations to the level of sovereign nations.

            http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/07/18/2323591/biden-asia/

            When you can explain those things I’ll buy your “Obama isn’t a corporatist” BS. Until then, meh.

          • kfreed

            “Meh” is right. I think it’s fairly clear at this point that you’re not a liberal:) Nor is Greenwald and his Koch-sponsored Fraud Paul klan:

            “Unbelievable – Greenwald is promoting an ad by the Oathkeepers, an extreme right wing anti-govt militia. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/377787818619064320
            ” via Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs

            Sure enough… Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Koch-funded Cato Institute tweeting links to Koch’s Reason.com cheerleading tea partying Oath Keepers (police and military Tea Party extremists).

            Who are the Oath Keepers? SPLC Hatewatch: http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/07/25/oath-keepers-rally-reveals-radical-politics-of-group/

          • kfreed

            P.S. If President Obama had plans to approve Koch’s pipeline, he’d have done so already:) It’s not looking good for Koch…
            From the desk of Bill Mckibbon (to my inbox), director of 350.org and #NoKXL leading activist organization (of which I am a participant):

            “We’re at a critical turning point: with President Obama raising his doubts about the pipeline, we have an opportunity to stop Keystone XL and begin going on offense against the tar sands — and the whole fossil fuel industry.”

            Can I help, bill asks. Of course I can:) But not by electing Tea Party fascists invested in denying cimate change:)

            Same goes for TPP activism:) As I said: Stupid is as stupid does. Your turn to explain why you’d assist the Tea party in electing fascists who oppose everthing progressives stand for:)

          • GlennBo

            Your logic is faulty as always. I am liberal because I take the liberal position. You are not because you don’t. Regardless of your links to unrelated topics, it doesn’t change those facts. You may not like those facts or those who expose those facts or even those who dare oppose Obama regarding those facts, but it doesn’t change the fact that Obama is wrong on the issue.

            PS – Reason is owned by Bezos, not Koch. not that he’s any better.

            Eric Cantor, another of your friends, heading a Koch-run private retreat:

            http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/eric-cantor-paul-ryan-koch-brothers-95294.html

          • kfreed

            I get that you’re trying your darndest to monopolize the comment thread with your fake progressive persona…

            I think I’ve made my case. Take it or leave it. There are other comments on here worth reading, not to mention related news…

            Meanwhile, back at the ranch: “How The Guardian is Quietly and Repeatedly Spying on You”
            http://thedailybanter.com/tag/glenn-greenwald/

          • GlennBo

            I am merely trying to insert some sanity into the pro-Obama, anti-progressive, echo chamber.

            How did Obama pushing Larry Summers work out? Not too well huh. Did you know he also asked Tim Geithner? Wow. Who does he think he is, Bill Clinton? Maybe he should have asked Robert Rubin for the Clinton trifecta. Obama thinks his base and the public are going to accept more Clintonian sellouts. He would be VERY wrong.

            How well did Obama pushing Syria strikes work out. OK I guess. But I don’t think he expected that 80% of the country was against the strikes. The situation isn’t over. We’ll see if his administration tries to blow up the agreement.

            Can Obama be slower at evolving? First on the gay issue, now maybe on pot and the prison industrial complex. The public has moved on and Obama and the Democratic elites better wake up. Change is in the air and it’s not what the neoliberals like Obama were looking for.

          • kfreed

            error posting/trying again

          • kfreed

            The rest of my comment mangled above (what’s up with that, Disqus?) is as follows:

            Can I help, Bill McKibben asks. Of course I can, but not by electing Koch-backed fascists like the Fraud Pauls or otherwise who are invested in denying climate change science… as well as every other reason/science based rationale for everything from economics to education to social policy.

            Same goes for TPP activism:) As I said, stupid is as stupid does.

            Your turn to explain, as a tea bagger, why you’d assist the Tea party in electing straight up fascists who are on legislative record in opposition to everything not only progressives stand for, but in opposition to what the majority of Americans stand for?

          • kfreed

            P.S. If President Obama had plans to approve Koch’s pipeline, he’d have done so already:) It’s not looking good for Koch…

            From the desk of Bill Mckibben (to my inbox), director of 350.org and #NoKXL leading activist organization (of which I am a participant):

            “We’re at a critical turning point: >>>>with President Obama raising his doubts about the pipeline<<<<we have an opportunity to stop Keystone XL and begin going on offense against the tar sands — and the whole fossil fuel industry."
            ****This is what you call responsible activism.

            Can I help, Bill asks. Of course I can:) But not by electing Koch-backed Tea Party fascists invested in denying climate change science as well as every other reason/science-based rationale for just
            abut anything from economics to education to social policy:)

            Same goes for TPP activism:) As I said: Stupid is as stupid does.

            Your turn to explain, as a bagger, why you'd assist the Tea Party in electing fascists who are on record in opposition not only to everything progressives stand for, bu also to what the majority of Americans stand for:)

          • GlennBo

            Obama is doing major hand waving because he needs us in 2014. The problem is that most of the pipeline is built. The land has already been seized by eminent domain. Obama’s Department of Homeland Security are breaking up protests in Oklahoma. Get with it. Obama’s KXL pipeline is a done deal.

            http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/undercover_agents_spied_on_keystone_protestors_partner/

            Susan Rice, Eric Cantor, and many others have large blocks of stock in companies that will directly benefit from KXL. You really thought this was an honest debate? That our voice was being heard? Guess again.

            http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/11/obamas-secretary-state-financial-stake-keystone

    • CL Nicholson

      “Hookers, Pot, Drones!” – that pretty much narrows down what the libertarian convergence for liberalism. Except, that’s more in line with anarchism than classical American liberalism, but whatever.

      As others have stated, the Ron Paul/Assange/Greewnald political bromance and Professional Lefties telling progressives to sign on to the dude-bro libertarianism of the Paul family is classic ‘Tortoise and Scorpion’ – Libertarians will stab liberals in the back without thinking about, that’s their nature.

      Also, there’s a big difference between “I agree with Rand Paul on these issues” and Assange saying the Ron and Rand Paul are the only men leading the way to true freedom.

      Also, where liberals and libertarians ‘agree’ is only a matter of stating a question in a certain way. The Syrian military opposition among the different political factions boil down to the fact that progressive support pacifism and humanitarianism while libertarians primarily support isolationism – two very different things. One wants to resolve conflicts without increasing bloodshed. The other simply doesn’t see why its our problem to get involved, even if we’re helping to save lives.

      To Libertarians, giving gas masks to Syrians is just as bad as dropping bombs.

      Just because a broken clock is right twice a day, doesn’t make it a good clock – it means you need to invest in a better timepiece.

    • jezebel

      Stop pretending to be “Liberal”…

      You’re only embarrassing yourself #GOPTroll.

  • condew

    This has the feel of an organized campaign, perhaps an astroturf effort to pick off enough of the disaffected left to let the Republicans win one more time.

    You know the idiot left, the ones who gave the presidency to Bush because Dems and Republicans are “exactly the same”, so they voted for Nader. The Tea Party is making a fuss in the primaries, but does anybody believe they are not going to vote for Republicans in the general?

    They might sucker in enough of the left to make the election closer, but form a third party and win? Not a chance. Wasn’t the last attempt how we got 8 years of Bush?

    • kfreed

      “You know the idiot left, the ones who gave the presidency to Bush because Dems and Republicans are “exactly the same”, so they voted for Nader”

      Yes, I do, intimately. I was one of them. Which is exactly why I well not entertain voting third party while Tea Party lunatics wait on the door step to take over completely. Frankly, I’d rather shoot myself in the head.

      Learned my lesson the hard way and it stuck.

  • Schneibster

    The main problem is because people don’t know, or believe, that the Libertarian Party are not libertarians.

  • Richard_thunderbay

    A rather interesting article about Greenwald from 2011…

    Re-rise of the Naderites: Glenn Greenwald’s third party dreamin’ **UPDATE: on Libertarianism
    http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

    Also intriguing is this, posted back in July…

    What were Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher doing with their curious PAC?
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023362818

    By the way, Glenn “I don’t endorse Ron Paul, but Obama is a baby killer” Greenwald and Jane Hamsher attended a Ron Paul rally in 2008…
    http://www.dailypaul.com/59001/updatedbreak-the-matrix-is-ready-to-rally-for-the-republic-live-video-broadcast-of-the-rally

    • Schneibster

      “Greenwald… is concern troll #1.” +1.

    • kfreed

      Ding-ding-ding-ding! We have a winner.

  • Gorilla Cookies

    There is one place where Greenwald and Drudge definitely intersect: They both hate Obama, with an outsized passion. Drudge tends to link to anything that is anti-Obama, no matter where it comes from

    That said, I don’t think Drudge really has a much of a discernible ideology. Like many of his comrades, he becomes a deficit hawk and a war dove whenever the Dems come to power. But lately, the site has gotten wackier and wackier, repeatedly linking to Alex Jones, World Net Daily, and sites of that ilk, and engaging in some pretty horrific race-baiting.

    • ThePanicMan

      No, he’s a dyed-in-the-wool righty, and that’s his ideology. There’s no question about. As you noted he simply shifts what it means to be a righty, much like the rest of them, to match whoever’s loudest and can net the most followers.

      • Gorilla Cookies

        I don’t disagree. I should have said he has no real coherent ideology. And what ideology there is appears to be getting wackier and wackier.

        • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

          The idea of “radical transparency” makes me wonder if these people have ever had or been true friends. Or do they just see government as some kind of hive mind of automatons who do not think, feel, or act as human beings? I find the degree with which they indulge in dehumanization to be warning enough that people who care about fairness and the quality of life of ordinary people should want to have nothing to do with these glib nihilists.

          • condew

            I saw the difference in the Snowden “revelations” about NSA. People I would call liberal wanted to make sure there was oversight. People I would call libertarian wanted to dismantle as much of the government as possible. And never mind that one level of protection we have is that the people who work in government live here too, and raise their families here too, and would not want to undermine their future and their family’s future.

        • ThePanicMan

          Okay, no coherent ideology is more like it. But to be fair he has no coherent anything.

    • ChrisAndersen

      Drudge has an ideology: whatever is good for Drudge is good.

      • Victor_the_Crab

        And his grasshopper Breitbart learned well.

  • ChrisAndersen

    While I agree that they are engaging in a “pox on both their houses” approach, I can’t quite join in the “good riddance” condemnation since, while they are not a majority, the neo-libertarians may have enough of a sizable influence that they could significantly alter future political events.

    Just go to a lot of online social media sites and you will see a similar anti-government cynicism that is taken as a given.

    So let’s not poo-poo these people as naive losers because they just might start “winning” if they can convince enough people that the entire system needs to be burned down to its roots before it can be gloriously reborn.

    • Steven Skelton

      The idea isn’t to burn the entire system down.

      • ThePanicMan

        Bullshit. Despite what you tell yourself, people who don’t agree with you aren’t blind, stupid animals. We’ve seen this before. We know what the codewords mean. We know how the grift works. You are not the smartest man in the room, boy, and you damn well better learn it.

        • condew

          It worked against Acorn, they tried it against the IRS, and now they tried it against NSA. Fake a scandal and then push for a radical solution before the lies are found out.

          • kfreed

            Bingo.

      • Jan Civil

        What idea? You’re just dancing around trying to fake something.

      • ChrisAndersen

        It is if your one of those types who thinks that any form of cooperation with the existing system is a form of selling out.

      • kfreed

        Nah, it’s to install more tea bags in high places.

      • nathkatun7

        So what’s your brilliant idea? Are the critics of the two party system on the ground in precincts, neighborhoods, wards, union halls, etc., etc., trying to educate voters on how you plan to bring about changes in the political system? Or do you think you can get rid of the Democratic and Republican party simply by writing on the blogs about how corrupt and identical they are? I got news for the “purity progressives”: the vast majority of many of us Democrats don’t care about some of the bs you are spewing; especially not the bs about standing with Rand Paul and not with the Democratic President elected by the majority of Americans.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      I agree their numbers are growing and its fear and distrust that they use to spread. They’re essentially virus-like…we need to restore confidence in our system but it’s very hard to do that when the people elected to do the work of the system want to destroy it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        And when corporate news thrives on faux controversy and avoids complexity and nuance like the plague.

      • nathkatun7

        “I agree their numbers are growing…”

        Are they really, IrishGrrrl, in the context of practical reality of winning elections? You and ChrisAndersen may be right, but I’ve just not seen any evidence, other than the fact that they are loud talkers who exert more influence in the social media. But do they have boots on the ground to challenge the power of both the Republican and Democratic machines? If any one has the evidence to show that they do, I would like to see it.

        • ChrisAndersen

          We need hard evidence on this. I’m not just talking about things I’ve seen on political sites but also other sites that I visit on a regular basis for non-political interests. What I see any time a political discussion pops up is an almost overwhelming anti-government cynicism.

          I’m not sure how that translates into electoral effects, but given that Obama’s coalition contains a significant portion of young people and young people get a significant portion of their views from online interaction, I can’t help but worry that that cynicism will infect that coalition.

          • kfreed

            I hapen to agree with you. This isn’t just a byproduct of our poiitical dysfunction, it’s is a strategy of the right.

            Not to mention, the kids could use some serious history lessons. They’re playing with fire and a good many don’t appear to have a clue that the Libertairans are Birchers of old and what that entails.

        • kfreed

          Their numbers ARE growing… and will benefit the Right. Assume the worst and bring your A-game to the fight. It only takes a sliver of a vote to tip an election. If they can peel off more votes from Dems, Repubes win. Tea Party Repube Libertarians/Christian Right, that is… they don’t need to win in their own right on a third party ticket, they now own the Repulican Party. All they need to do is pick off from the left. That’s the plan. Greenwald isn’t shy about admitting it (nor is the Right for that matter):

          “At a talk given the day after the 2010 election — one that was a disaster for Democrats — “progressive” writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012.

          Greenwald’s speech mainly focused on civil liberties and terrorism policy “in the age of Obama.” But it was his approach to politics that got members of the Young Americans for Liberty — a Paulite Libertarian group that co-sponsored the event — excited…”
          http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

    • condew

      Social media sites are no measure of anything. Even here we had libertarians posting under several names in support of Snowden. It’s a dead giveaway when the same two names post as a pair again and again all the way down the comments.

    • nathkatun7

      “Just go to a lot of online social media sites and you will see a similar anti-government cynicism that is taken as a given.”

      I suppose that is one way of measuring their influence. For me I am a very practical person. I look at how their candidates did in the recent national election. Unless they run as Republicans, Libertarians did miserably. And so did the Greens/ Naderites. Actually people identifying themselves as Independents tended to do better because of their broad based views on issues and non-ideological rigidity. Yes Rand Paul won, but that’s because he run as as a Republican. I doubt that he would have won running as a pure libertarian. Until these anti-government people, both on the left and the right can demonstrate the capacity to win without being attached to the two major political parties I am still inclined not to take them seriously. By they way, if the purity tea party candidates who de-emphasized their Republicanism did not do very well at the ballot boxes in both 2010 and 2012. Again, despite all the internet anti-government chatter, I still have to see evidence of real on the ground
      political activities by people who are both anti-Democrat and anti-Republican. As the popular 80′s Wendy commercial said, “where is the beef” libertarians and purity progressives?

  • BlueTrooth

    Its not a coincidence or a simple convergence. There truly is an underlying campaign to unite the left and right under Libertarianism. When Ron Paul was struggling to get on the debate stage way back when, there was a movement to moderate the Libertarian ideology and approach the disenfranchised left with a “progressive” platform. The platform would reflect the historical traditions of Progressivism as best represented by Teddy Roosevelt. The details of the politics are lengthy, but it was an attractive platform and the youth were migrating quickly from “the establishment” and the funding mechanism was a Libertarian novelty called the “Money Bomb”…and that is when the progressive ideas were put on the back shelf. The focus shifted to “common ground issues” where a natural bridge to Liberals existed. By the way, the whole idea of the Progressive label is a unique story in itself. Many Progressives are actually traditional Liberals that felt badgered into seeking a new identity after years of hippie-punching. You’ll hear the Libertarian Left use the “hippie-punching” reference quite often. Its a “hook” to get Liberals to empathize and listen and be open to a “new kind of Liberalism” followed by freedom and liberty and “PRIVACY DAMMIT! THE MANNNN!!!”. Ha! I couldn’t resist. But its the truth, its all a facade. The Progressive label is a ruse, no matter how sincere you may think you are, you are surrounded by Libertarians that are gauging your progress toward assimilation. I gave up on fighting for the label and take pride in my Liberal principles which are admittedly and purposely flexible. Ultimately, that is the biggest Achilles Heal in the Libertarian “movement”, the rigid ideology that requires conformity in the quest of “freedom”. In the end, Libertarianism is the greatest enemy of Libertarians. I’m cutting this short because I’m not the best at relating experiences in comments, but hopefully your interest is piqued in some way. I highly recommend the label “Liberal” (no need for the pragmatic part, it’s a given) if you’re growing weary of Libertarians and Paulbots jumping in your Twitter streams to persuade or chastise you. Peace to all.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      I don’t know how many times I’ve had a “libertarian” try to recruit me to our supposed common cause….they just will not acknowledge that the common ground is superficial at best. It boils down to just one thing. Libertarians believe their intentions matter more than the consequences of those intentions. Like States’ Rights….they want to disembowel the federal government and they don’t give a damn that the states will further reduce the rights of women and minorities because “liberty, dude”. They accept no responsibility beyond wiping their own arses. A TRUE liberal not only cares about why they do what they do, they care about what might happen as a result. Libertarianism appeals to people who can’t understand and accept this crucial difference.

      • condew

        Just like the Tea Party; tear it all down and then “freedum”; as if the power vacuum left would not be immediately filled by corporations and religious freeks.

        • kfreed

          Bingo again. Damn, you’re on a roll. You’d think the so-called brains of the left would be able to figure this out.

    • kfreed

      You’re right, it’s not a coincidence… Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute being the glue.

      It’s been the far right game plan for quite some time: “The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement”
      Excerpt: http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/WeyrichManual.html

      In full (section on Libertarians is most interesting): http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/FreeCongressEssay.html

      Any of this sound familiar? Personally, I don’t believe most of the people calling themsleves “progressive” these days are anything but drooling RW Paulbots, the same as they ever were.

    • condew

      I think it’s easy to tell Liberal/Progressive from Libertarian. If the person wants government to work, they are Liberal. If they want to dismantle government or starve it with tax cuts to the point where it can’t do anything for anybody, especially stand up to big business, then they are Libertarian.

      Note that all the hoopla about “privacy” for the last few months absolutely ignored the fact that the phone data NSA was getting was collected by private industry,</b and private industry collects a hell of a lot more information on every citizen than NSA ever did. Have you noticed the detail in which every purchase in now tracked? Associated with a "membership card" or your credit card and kept in corporate databases for ever.

      • JozefAL

        Absolutely. All these people who are so freakin’ concerned about privacy don’t seem to be quite as concerned about giving all their personal details when they create online accounts to take care of their banking and credit cards and phone service and online purchases. If they need to tell their mother’s maiden name and from what school they graduated and what movie or sports team is their favorite as part of their “privacy questions,” they’ll do it in a heartbeat (sure, you can lie, but by lying, you run the risk of forgetting the lie when your identity is challenged).
        Let the government ask a simple question on the Census like “How many people live in your home?” and a person “concerned about privacy” raises howls of outrage. But when that same person wants to pay his cable bill online and he has to set up an account to do so, he’ll turn over his bank account information without a second’s hesitation.

        • condew

          Not to mention the people who publish their life on facebook.

  • D_C_Wilson

    As the far-right and the far-left grow increasingly pissy about their respective stations, and, more importantly, the fact that the two major parties are rightfully taking them less seriously by the day,

    I don’t see any signs that the GOP is taking the far right less seriously. They can’t afford to. Boehner is constantly teetering on the edge of losing his gavel if he even looks like he wants to compromise with the Evil Kenyan Atheist Muslim Socialist Marxist Nazi Usurper. Granted, the far right can never be satisfied that the GOP is crazy enough for their likely, but they are still having a major impact on the direction of the party.That’s the main difference between the two factions. One is actually a threat that may cause a major party to cannibalize itself. The other is only capable of making loud noises and maybe inflict some short-term electoral damage onto their party.

    • condew

      They are forcing a choice, either the fringe or the center. Republicans chose the fringe, Democrats chose the center.

  • WiscoJoe

    Cesca calls for “…a rational fact-based debate and intellectual honesty,” which is what I believe Assange means when he refers to “self-censorship of the establishment press.” Apparently, the only way to break up this “censorship” is through Drudge-style truthiness.

    • ChrisAndersen

      Assange is an advocate for the idea that if you just flood the zone with everything bad you can get on government then the governments will collapse and something (not sure what, but it will be glorious) will arise in its place.

      • WiscoJoe

        Of course Assange is very selective about which governments he wants to ‘collapse.’ For example, did you know that the Assange is fine with the authoritarian Ecuadorian government’s violent crackdown on journalists because the Ecuadorian journalists criticizing Ecuadorian authorities are actually the real authoritarians? I suppose asking Assange to be intellectually honest when it comes to Ecuador (or Russia) would require him to engage in the sort of ‘self-censorship’ that most people just regard as being honest.

        Truthiness!

        • Gunnut2600

          to be far to Assange, his seemingly conflicting values of convinence is pretty normal for everybody. We all do that to a certain extent.

          Still a rapey asshole.

          • WiscoJoe

            We all do that to a certain extent, which is why most of us engage in the sort of honest “self-censorship” that Assange decries.

          • kfreed

            Self-censorship is the opposite of honesty and I would suggest not everybody does it.

          • JozefAL

            Not sure if you’re male or female or whether you’re married or single, but I believe the best example of “self-censorship” lies in a husband’s answer to either of the following questions: “Honey. Does this dress make me look fat?” or “Honey, do you think that woman looks better than me?”
            You show me a husband who HONESTLY answers “Yes” to either question and I’ll show you a man who’s probably going to face a lot of lonely, LONELY nights. (And a husband who honestly answers “No” is also going to face a lot of lonely nights since his wife won’t believe him.)

          • Schneibster

            LOL

            “rapey asshole”

        • ChrisAndersen

          This is not at all surprising since ideological purists seem to be the ones most susceptible to authoritarianism.

          • Richard_thunderbay

            Exactly. Any deviation from their received wisdom can not be tolerated.

          • kfreed

            Any deviation from their received fanaticism cannot be tolerated. Fixed it:)

          • Schneibster

            “ideological purists seem to be the ones most susceptible to authoritarianism”

            Fascinating observation. +1

        • Richard_thunderbay

          There is also an unholy alliance between Assange and the brutal regime in charge of Belarus…

          http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/03/belarus-assange-lukashenko

      • kfreed

        Facism? Is what happened last time around.

  • trgahan

    I’d buy that this “swing” as principled opposition of our two party system since the current faux-libertarian movement conforms to 99% of what conservatives want both socially and economically.

    This whole thing is a smoke and mirror show by people still embarrassed that their guy turned in one of the worst presidencies of the 20th century. The faux-libertarian label just provides a veneer of intellectualism and “independent thought” to what really amounts to same old far right GOP platform.

    • Badgerite

      Oh snap! Good comment.

    • D_C_Wilson

      There is that aspect to it. The John Birch Society, which used to be the fringe of the right, is now in the driver’s seat of the GOP. What’s scary is that the current party position of “obstruction uber alles” isn’t considered extreme enough for for many on the far right.

    • missliberties

      What disgusts me the most, is how so called liberals get suckered into this nonsense.

    • kfreed

      Kinda transparent, isn’t it? Every Bush 2.0 devotee I’ve ever known is suddenly reborn a Libertarian Ayn Rand or an Independent.

  • D_C_Wilson

    the Lewinsky scandal was in 1998

    Which, ironically, is also the last time Drudge updated the design of his website.

  • WiscoJoe

    What can be said about men that swing rapidly between reactionary authoritarianism and reactionary anti-authoritarianism?

    • Churchlady320

      Hey – don’t be sexist. Scary lot of women in this status, too!

      • WiscoJoe

        Edited for accuracy. Thanks :)

    • kfreed

      Knee-jerk politcal bipolarism subject to intermittent psychotic episodes?

  • CL Nicholson

    The coalition of the Emo-Progressives and the John Birch Right is nothing new – as both see the government as the Great Satan. There’s very little difference between a Libertarian Dude-Bro who thinks they’re informed when they quote Alex Jones (despite the fact that a 20 minute Google search would debunk almost everything posted on on his Info Wars site) and Occupy Wall Street Anarchist Hipster runs around in their V for Vendetta mask (most of those assholes probably have no clue who Guy Fawkes was) who quote Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader as if those old men came off the top of a mountain with stone tablets etched in by God.

    Both live in cocooned bubbles of nonsense that means they don’t have to engage in the real world, neither believes that the government is a legitimate source of authority. Both tend to be smug, sanctimonious assholes and are rather johnny come lately to the game of politics. And both are obsessed with comic book version of right and wrong as well as 2-dimensional delusions of grandeur. That’s the main reason why they can’t wrap their heads around a guy like Obama – he’s not a mustache twirling supervillian cackling at his desk and petting his cat .

    There’s a reason why Libertarian dude-bros love John Galt or Rorscharch from the Watchmen and Anarchist OWS type obsess with V for Vendetta or Neo from the Matrix. All these characters are simplified one dimensional demi-gods who triumph over their intellectual inferiors in one way or another. Unfortunately, the real world isn’t a science fiction novel, its way more complex and shaded in gray.
    And they’re mad about it.

    • Churchlady320

      Excellent, CL! And I have to agree with you about the Guy Fawkes masks – who in their right mind promoting “libertarianism” or Leftish views would don the image of an ultra-conservative Catholic restorationist? Makes me wonder just who they REALLY are. It is the quest for the demi-god that leads unthinking extremists into trouble – they don’t even consider whether they are being coopted into supporting oppression. Willing tools of probable Fifth Columnists, they just get off on the adrenalin rush of “opposition” rather than creating something meaningful. Comic book characters indeed. Thank you for saying this so well.

      • ChrisAndersen

        I wonder how many of them have even read the original “V for Vendetta” comic series?

        I love Alan Moore as a writer, but I hardly consider him the height of political insightfulness. Yeah, Margaret Thatcher sucked, but does that mean that all government sucks?

        • CL Nicholson

          According to Alan Moore – the only way to free your mind is to indoctrinate you through psychological torture visa being lock on you in a fake interment camp.

          Also, Alan Moore is a great, but dude also claims to be a tantric magician and worships a sock puppet.

          • leemoder

            Little side note: Rorschach’s the bowlderdized version of artist Steve Ditko’s character The Question; who, like the artist, is steeped in the dogma of Objectivism. If you’ve ever seen the old Cartoon Network Justice League Unlimited the Question is portrayed as the kooky conspiracy theory-spouting hero. Mostly played for eye-rolling laughs…his boy-band world domination theory is a true hoot. If you get a chance, Netflix those episodes. He’s a fun character on that show…kinda an animated Ron Swanson…without the mustache. Or face, for that matter.

    • That River Gal

      This post is absolutely brilliant.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      Brilliant summary, effin spot on

    • kfreed

      “both are obsessed with comic book version of right and wrong”… and actual comic books, I’ve noticed. What is up with that?

      • CL Nicholson

        Well as a bonafide nerd – I’m all about comic books. But I think for alot of dude bros and anarchist types, its easier to live through fictional characters or embellished version of real people than the actual real persons. Hence, why they can’t stand Obama and weren’t too fond of Clinton.

        • kfreed

          Sounds about right.

  • Marianna76

    Why don’t we call these people what they really are: RACISTS.

    • Badgerite

      Why don’t we!

    • ChrisAndersen

      Many of them are. But I almost feel that that is too simplistic a representation of their attitudes (much like the comic-book style characterization of Obama as a moustache-curling authoritarian).

      What they are is privileged dicks who just want what they want and when they can’t get it they have to find *someone* to blame for it.

      • nathkatun7

        Is it simplistic to ask how come, all of a sudden, the so called leftists have found common cause with the extreme right wingers during the presidency of the first African American? I know some extreme leftists opposed Bill Clinton, but I don’t remember them being this vicious in their opposition or hooking up with right wing extremists to undermine his presidency. And, by all objective standards, Bill Clinton was more conservative than Barack Obama. May be I am being simplistic, but I see the visceral hatred of President Obama, by both the left and the right, as the driving force that unites them. The right hates him because he is black and hence unqualified to be President. And the left hates him because he is black and refuses to do as he is told by white leftists who are more intelligent than him.

        • kfreed

          It isn’t simplistic at all to ask that when this crews’ heroes are the dual Fraud Pauls who happen to be dyed in the wool white supremacists.

  • RenoRick

    I used to call myself progressive, but now I consider myself a liberal who lives in the real world. I can agree with Libertarians on the drug war and foreign intervention, but that’s it. Government can be a good thing, as long as you elect people that believe in it. Libertarians are some of the biggest hogs at the government money trough, but demonize it at every chance. Hippocrates!

    • ChrisAndersen

      I find I can’t even agree with libertarians on foreign policy any more now that it has basically become a mask for isolationism.

  • Draxiar

    I can only see these people as an equivalent of a city street corner, end-of-the-world sign wearing babbler that everyone ignores.

    • Badgerite

      Let’s hope so. What passes for ‘ideas’ with them are dangerous to living beings.

    • Churchlady320

      Except too many people are NOT ignoring them but joining them.

    • ChrisAndersen

      Sadly they aren’t being ignored. Their “government is the enemy” attitude is very prevalent on social media sites.

      They haven’t reached a majority (yet). But you don’t need a majority in order to fuck the whole thing up.

      • nathkatun7

        “Sadly they aren’t being ignored.”

        That’s the truth! On top of that they’ve gained voices and respectability in the mainstream media.

      • kfreed

        How prevalent are social media sites? The vast majority have no clue they even exist. To this day, ask anyone one the street who Glenn Greenwald is, or Rand Paul, or hell, even Joe Biden.

        Which is not to say they won’t pull out the stops come next election… Way past time we got highly vocal. Been sayin’ this for years now.

  • kfreed

    Libertarians aren’t separate fom the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party… fringe FAR RIGHT that is. The Libertarian Koch-sponsored “Tea Party” was formerly known as the John Birch Society:

    History Commons: Profile: John Birch Society: Koch: http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=john_birch_society_1

    The Libertarian Policy Platform: http://www.billionairesteaparty.com/koch/#!lightbox11/2/

    “The Billionaires’ Tea Party” (Full Length Documentary): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSAzYWmsiwI

    ***Support of which from the far left is why the far left has lost all credibility:)

  • villemar

    Authoritarian vs. Libertarian? More like Nihilist vs. Enlightened Rationalist

    • D_C_Wilson

      Now which ones are the nihilists?

      • condew

        The nihilists are the ones who think any organization bigger than themselves is evil, particularly government.

  • Norbrook

    Several years ago, I stopped calling myself a progressive, and started calling myself a “pragmatic liberal.” That was because the idiots of the left had mostly hijacked that term into meaning “impractical screechers demanding purity,” not actually working to do anything about it.

    What these idiot “libertarians” completely lack is an understanding of political structures, beyond pouting and stomping their feet about the ones that exist. In their fantasy world, if it was done away with, there would be a libertarian awakening and “enlightenment.” In reality, it’d be a disaster. It’s similar to the far left’s dream of if things get bad enough, the “people will rise up” and install a liberal paradise.

    In either event, they tend to forget that the first people against the wall are usually the idiots who thought it would be a good idea in the first place.

    • ChrisAndersen

      It’s almost Marxist in its romantic idealization of rebellion for rebellion’s sake. If you just destroy all the existing structures, what is left will be reborn into a newer, more ideal paradise.

      • Norbrook

        It’s a function of most “revolutionary thinkers.” Most of them never bother to read history, so they don’t quite grasp that after the “horrible oppressors” are overthrown and (usually lethally) disposed of, the actual revolutionaries decide that they don’t need all those inconvenient “thinkers,” dispose of them (again, usually lethally), and get on becoming just like the people they overthrew.

        In their fantasy, the way the world works is that they become the intellectual leaders into the new way of governing. Just without all that icky … governing … part.

        • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

          The world in their head is so orderly and neat. Everything makes perfect sense. Words flow seamlessly. Reality isn’t like that. People aren’t whatever you call them. Work is often tedious and challenging and always has to be done. Compromises must always be made in any group effort of significant consequence.

          So they lie, cheat, and steal.

      • kfreed

        Mmmmm… who is left are the tea bagging lunatics waiting in the wings… who happen to be remarkably organized and ready to step in the moment we let them.

  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    I always considered myself a pretty far left Liberal, but in today’s world I feel barely left of center as the lunatic fringe takes over more and more blogs and social media.
    By the way, this phenomena is illustrated well in Matt Tiabbi’s book “The Great Derangement”, and constantly reminds me that it was the far left who wasted their votes on Ralph Nader giving us a court appointed President by the name G.W. Bush.

  • http://shar.es/A2GzK MRSjavinnburr

    http://shar.es/zVEQ6 http://shar.es/zLZ4K http://bit.ly/19XeSGU http://shar.es/zNoJL http://shar.es/zP6xD http://shar.es/zSxKj

    http://shar.es/k8emx THEY D0 ABS0LUTELY N0THiNG, THEY ARE DELUSi0NAL, ANGRY, SELFiSH, LYiNG, C0RRUPT, GREEDY, CR00KED, STiNGY, EViL, HATEFUL, RACiST, C0MMUNiST REPUBLiCANS & THEY ALL HAVE C0MMiTTED P0LiTiCAL SUiCiDE4 2o14-THE UNREELECTABLE SUPER C0WARD BiGG TiME WHiNiNGASS KNUCKLE DRAGGERS J0HN “THE SUPER EViL PACiFiER SUCKA” B0EHNER & THE UNM0TiVATED UNREELECTABLE WELL KN0WN SUPER DASTARDLY S0RRYASS EViL WEASEL ERiC “THE EViL L0W D0WN SUPER SUCK UP KiSS ASS EXTREMiST” CANT0R & THE 0LD SLiMY DECREPiT SUPER DUMBASS iT’S DEFiNiTELY TiME 2RETiRE THE EViL SAB0TAGiNGASS MiTCH “THE BiGG TiME SLEEZY EViL SNiTCH” McC0NNELL “iNHERiT THE WiND” Y0U ARE G0iN’ 2B0W D0WN-BELiEVE-Y0UR 0BSTRUCTi0NiSM & D0 N0THiNG DAYS ARE NUMBERED-iT iS ENGRAVED iN ST0NE-DAMN RiTE-PRESiDENT OBAMA A MAN 0F ALL THE PE0PLE iN 2o16 & BEY0ND http://shar.es/ynNV6 F0RWARD!

    http://shar.es/zDcP5 http://shar.es/z8fOn http://shar.es/zEHVG http://shar.es/zKuSX http://shar.es/zzNOw http://bit.ly/15ArJKU http://shar.es/zxQAW http://shar.es/zwexC http://shar.es/zZSzm http://shar.es/zZlFq
    http://prntscr.com/1msk3o http://prntscr.com/1mpy0d http://prntscr.com/1mp7ms http://prntscr.com/1mmijh http://s.shr.lc/16yGHRl http://prntscr.com/1n3z5y http://prntscr.com/1n21qp http://prntscr.com/1my3le http://shar.es/zCl7N http://prntscr.com/1nbnli http://prntscr.com/1natp6 http://shar.es/CbKXO http://shar.es/zJaiS http://shar.es/zeSQb.

    http://fb.me/2qFt3JHfC THERE ARE STiLL 2MANY SUPER DUMBASS SUPER C0WARDASS SUPER LAZYASS UNW0RTHYASS EViLASS U.S. REPUBLiCAN SENAT0RS STiLL CUDDLiN’ & CARESSiN’ & FEELiN’ & LiCKiN’ & SUCKiN’ & KiSSiN’ & STiCKiN’ & DiGGiN’ & EXAMiNiN’ & SEEKiN’ & PR0BiN’ & P0KiN’ & EATiN’ REALLY, REALLY DEEP ALL UP iN WAYNE LaPiERRE’S D0UBLY CERTiFiED SUPER NUTTYASS 4HiS MANY, MANY MULTiTUDE 0F SUPER MiLLi0NS & THE SUPER DUMBASS REPUBLiCAN SENAT0RS ARE REALLY, REALLY L0ViN’ iT VERY, VERY DEEPLY http://shar.es/ynNV6 STiLL…

    http://shar.es/zTx8f http://shar.es/Jypbn http://shar.es/zT6HX http://shar.es/zF6ST http://shar.es/zRJky http://bit.ly/19XeSGU http://shar.es/zFia7 http://shar.es/z9M7R http://prntscr.com/1mwyz8 http://prntscr.com/1mw5v6 http://prntscr.com/1mvqrq http://prntscr.com/1muplx http://prntscr.com/1nagm0 http://prntscr.com/1n8yy2 http://prntscr.com/1n4xhs http://shar.es/zeGZw http://shar.es/zClnR http://shar.es/zCl2m http://shar.es/zZSzm http://shar.es/zZlFq.

    • cleos_mom

      Voted down for sheer tiresome incoherence.

      • judi

        YEP

      • Russell Byrd

        That shows a certain closed minded arrogance. A trait I despise in our right-wing “friends.” The delivery may be rough, but the message is not all that bad. I think the worst part is she is just too kind. :-)

    • Chez Pazienza

      That. Was. Awesome. Thank you.

    • CL Nicholson

      Either this person is nuts or they just provided the greatest, snarkiest parody of Emo-Progressive whining. I’m going for wise ass mockery.

    • Badgerite

      It made me laugh. So voted up.

    • 1933john

      Her cigarettes must have got wet.

  • Steven Skelton

    Smashing the two party system should be the number one goal of all Americans. Our two party system is really just one more choice than Soviet Russia.

    • villemar

      Nothing stopping you from moving to a Parliamentary democracy. Or Mogadishu if that’s your bag.

      • Steven Skelton

        Do they have a parliament in Somalia?

        • Guest

          What system do you think will replace the “two-party system”after it is “smashed”? So you do seem to at least grasp that two is more than one; here’s a clue, parliamentary systems, eg., the UK have more than two. Since you seem to think two is too few, one would suggest a parliamentary system. :shrug:

          • nathkatun7

            In practice, the U.K. has two parties: the party that controls the government and the opposition party. It’s true that the governing party and the opposition may be made of a coalition of two or more parties but the reality is that it’s either the Conservative Party or the Labor Party that dominates in governing or in being the main opposition party.

            What puzzles me, and amuses me at the same time, is that the people who want to smash the two party system are also the ones who are into “principled purity” and don’t believe in compromises. There is absolutely no way you can govern a country with a multiplicity of political parties without agreeing to compromise on some, if not most, of your positions.

            I would love to see how a coalition of the principled Ralph Nader progressives, who believe in regulating corporations and taxing the wealthy 1%, and the Rand Paul libertarians, who oppose all regulations and want to abolish the IRS and repeal the 16th Amendment, form a viable functioning
            government without compromising their respective, and very principled, positions. They may now agree that President Obama sucks and they are opposed to war and drones. They may also agree, with absolute moral superiority, that there is no difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. But that’s about all they agree on. They may succeed in smashing the two party system, but there is no way they will succeed in governing, without the give and take — that is compromise — that is central to democracy.
            The only governments that function on the no compromise principle of “my way or the highway” are dictatorships.

          • nathkatun7

            Sorry, Guest! My comment was not in response to yours. Rather, It was in response to Steven Skelton and all the “holier than thou” ideological purists who insist on spewing nonsense that there is no difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican party.

          • kfreed

            “I would love to see how a coalition of the principled Ralph Nader progressives, who believe in regulating corporations and taxing the wealthy 1%, and the Rand Paul libertarians, who oppose all regulations and want to abolish the IRS…”

            Me 2 :)

          • condew

            I find it a scary thought.

          • kfreed

            Atlas shrugs. He does not know.

            Actually, he knows. He just likes to pretend he’s not a tea bagger.

        • nathkatun7

          No functioning parliament! But they certainly have your ideal situation: They don’t have a two-party-system or a functioning government. In Somalia, its all about the survival of the most armed.

        • kfreed

          Hmmm… maybe you should book a vacation to Libertarian Somalia and find out.

    • kfreed

      LOL. “Smashing the two party system” in favor of a one-party system that puts far right tea baggers behind the wheel? ROFLMAO.

      NO thank you.

    • Chez Pazienza

      Jesus Christ you’re predictable, Skelton.

      • Steven Skelton

        As are you Chez.

        • Chez Pazienza

          Every time — seriously, just about every time — you find a way to make sure everyone knows that you’re sanctimoniously above all this petty left-right bickering when in reality you’re largely conservative and your policy would be no policy at all. You have no idea how tiresome it gets.

          • Steven Skelton

            Chez doesn’t always to respond to Steven, but when it does it’s always to tell him how predictable he is.

            Irony?

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            Consistency on your part.

          • Chez Pazienza

            You know what? You’re actually right for a change, Skelton. Why am I even bothering with you? Have a good one.

          • Steven Skelton

            You as well Chez….

            but if you’re going to attack me for my disdain of our two party stranglehold, I would love to hear you defend it rather than just attack me as boring.

            Or at least one of those awesome paragraphs where you tell me to fuck off as only you can. I read one of those at band camp a few months ago, and all agreed it was one of the best “fuck you” paragraphs in history.

          • kfreed

            Not so much irony as repetition… apparantly it’s become necessary.

        • Guest

          So your best moment here is ‘I’m rubber, you’re glue’ isn’t it.

    • Badgerite

      To be replaced with what? A one party system?

      • Steven Skelton

        Good Lord…is it too much to ask you to read the second sentence?

        • Churchlady320

          And multiple parties give us…what? Coalitions make no one happy, and, as in Weimar Germany, can be too fragile to withstand assaults from the minority. Not at all sure how having “only one more” is a bad thing or makes us endangered relative to Russian style ops. It makes all the difference. If you’re a third party fan, there is the option of working your ass off to make those views viable rather than peripheral. If they don’t appeal to the citizens, whose fault is that?

          • Steven Skelton

            Thank you for the thoughtful response.

            I do everything I can for the Libertarian party, but I support other third party efforts as well….even parties that I disagree with.

            I think the problem is that there are too many who believe that the Dems and Repsd are too powerful to be defeated and that we are forever trapped in our two party system.

          • Jan Civil

            To what end? This ‘parties’ is a convenient label for you to bash as if it makes you seem above it. What upsets you about it? As a libertarian, what is your real objection to the two parties? You haven’t said anything.

            Libertarian Party _is_ a third party. Why do you think it’s not as viable as R and D? Your childish ‘smash the system’ won’t happen. What is better about more parties? It looks like you can’t do anything past the surface and this label. Is there not enough Libertarianism in the GOP today?

            Do you not follow the remarks regarding Parliamentary system? It still breaks down into labor vs conservative, only there are factions and factions within factions. It doesn’t make anything move faster, certainly.

            What do you want, and who would it benefit. What is your argument? Do you want no government? No one knows from you what would be preferable; you have a rebel without a clue nihilist posture and not more.

            The ball is in your court. When you don’t make a play we can see you lack the competence to.

          • nathkatun7

            Suppose we have 10, 20, 30 or what ever number you chose. How would that make easy to govern a country of 300 million plus without finding away of compromising on principles and positions? Countries with multiple parties still have to form coalitions to govern. By their nature coalitions require compromises. The genius of the U.S. political system, which explains its stability, is that the two major political parties are basically made up of a variety of internal coalitions that may agree on some big issues but yet disagree on some issues, especially those have to deal with regional differences. Moreover, the two major political parties always found a way of compromising on major issues that impacted on the stability and security of the nation.

            The notion that a multiplicity of political parties would result in forming governments that are more pure and more principled than what we have under the two party system (which basically made up of different coalitions) is both naive and absurd. All you need to do is look at the countries that have multiple parties and how they struggle to form coalitions to govern if no single party wins 50%+1 of the votes. As I said earlier, coalition governments are by nature based on political compromises — the thing that both the current purity left and purity right in the U.S. hate so much. Only in Hobbs “State of Nature” can the individual have absolute freedom to do as he/she wishes without regard to the wishes of his/her
            neighbor.

          • kfreed

            Skelton the Parrot doesn’t have an answer as he belongs to one of those two parties.

          • condew

            I can guess which one.

          • kfreed

            RW Libertarian is still right-wing. The “Traditionalist” GOP (read Christian Right) happens to have a game plan with your name on it, i.e., how to make tools of so-called Libertarians:

            http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/FreeCongressEssay.html

            Noticing all the authoritarian religious fundamentalists you so-called Libertarians are electing (including the twin Fraud Pauls) and am pretty sure there’s nothing civil libertarian about it.

        • Badgerite

          I repeat, to be replaced with what? The ‘second sentence’ says pretty much what the first one does. You don’t think out two party system offers of choice. So? To be replaced with what?

          • Norbrook

            Even in parliamentary systems, there tends to be two “major parties,” along with the slew of minor ones. Even when there’s couple more “semi-major” parties, the best that they can get is to be part of a coalition, which for all intents and purposes ends up being a “two party system” all over again for the purpose of governing.

            The thing that all the complainers about the two parties ignore is that the US already has a shitload of political parties. Heck, on the ballot during the last election I had 6 different candidates for President, and local/state elections around here can have a rather confusing array of parties on the ballot. The problem, as Ross Perot found out, it’s a lot harder to create a national party than it looks, and none of the complainers seem to be particularly interested in actually rolling up their sleeves and doing real politics. Much easier to sit at a keyboard and bitch about it.

          • D_C_Wilson

            Perot’s Reform party was the closest thing we had to an actual viable third party since the Bull Moose Party. It’s a shame that he got bored with it and let Pat Buchanan turn it into the crazy xenophobic party.

          • nathkatun7

            Well said Norbrook! Actually here in California we always have about 6 political parties (sometimes more) on the ballot. There is, of course, the Democratic and Republican Parties. But we also have the Libertarian Party; Peace and Freedom Party; the Green Party; George Wallace’s American Independent Party; and, sometimes, the Constitutional Natural Law Party (I think that’s its the name). Some candidates simply identify themselves as Independents.

            Obviously most Americans are smart enough to know that minor parties have no chance of winning elections and so there is no sense in wasting their votes on them. Nevertheless, the real principled believers still vote for them. I believe the Libertarian candidate got about 2-3% of the votes in california. Candidates for both the Green Party, and the Peace and Freedom party, have also won about 5% of the votes in some areas for different positions.

            So even in the United States, voters have a choice to vote
            for political parties other than Democratic and Republican parties. Naturally, American voters tend to be very pragmatic by voting for either of the two major parties. I doubt that the alliance between Rand Paul’s rightist Libertarians and Glenn Greenwald’s leftist libertarians is going to change that. What Rand Paul intends to do, I presume, is run as as Republican while hoping to siphon off leftist Democrats either to vote for
            him as an anti-war anti-NSA; or be so disillusioned not to bother to vote.

          • Steven Skelton

            I’m not advocating a constitutional change.

            Just stop electing Dems and Reps. It’s really that simple.

          • ChrisAndersen

            Oh glory be! How could I have been so blind as to not see how simple it would be to bring about paradise.

          • ThePanicMan

            We can all fly- we just have to stop falling!

            BRILLIANT!

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Since the people who aren’t Dems and Reps tend to be so far out on the fringe, both far left and right, that they would only do damage if they were elected. We’re seeing evidence of that now. The country elected a bunch of Tea Party candidates in the 2010 midterms and what did we get? People who hate government, working in government, trying to destroy it. If you can’t see how extremists can ruin compromise, which is at the core of how our government works, then you shouldn’t even get a seat at the adult table.

          • D_C_Wilson

            And would the Tea Party have gotten as far as they have if they were an independent party rather than just a naked attempt to rebrand the GOP?

            Doubful.

          • Jan Civil

            “Just stop electing Dems and Reps”.

            If you want particular people, or probably types of people, you are free to work for your ends. I guess the USofA is just not ‘L’ enough for you, even as you can’t tell us anything about why.

            And given some questions, instead of addressing them in any substantive way, you now disavow your initial stance – you don’t want to smash the system, that was just blather – in favor of another version of a completely empty gesture. “It’s really that simple”. To do what? To elect who, to vote for what? Why would any person heed this? Your mouth is moving but you’re not saying anything.

          • formerlywhatithink

            Yo, Steve, I’ll try to explain why the two party system isn’t going anywhere, anytime soon.

            Rand Paul is the darling of libertarians all over the country. They loved his father and they love Rand. Bonus points come from the tea party liking Rand as well. Now, with his well publicized, well founded, reputation as being a libertarian wet dream come true, why doesn’t he run under the Libertarian Party? Because he knows his chances of election running as a third party is virtually nil. He’s politically savvy enough to know that without Republican support, there’s no way he gets elected (look what happened to Gary Johnson). So, basically the libertarian golden boy political, like his father before him, whores himself out to one of the two established parties because without it, he doesn’t get elected.

            There will be no viable third party as long as politicians like Ron and Rand Paul are willing to sell their libertarian values for votes.

          • Steven Skelton

            Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

            I would like to see the libertarians leave the Republican party. I would like to see the socialists leave the Democrat party.

            …and I’ll want in one hand, shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

          • nathkatun7

            Guess what, neither the Libertarians nor the socialists are remotely likely to win the majority of the votes to govern single handedly! Now, please educate me how a coalition of Libertarians-Socialists would be able to govern the United States while maintaining the purity of their ideological principles? Remember, ultimately the issue is not about how pure your ideology is, its always about governing effectively to satisfy the needs of most people.

            If Libertarians and Socialists think they can form an effective governing coalition, then they have to be upfront with the people about which issues they are willing to compromise their principles on for the good of the coalition, because there is no way that each faction can preserve their purity without compromise and be able to govern.

          • ThePanicMan

            “Democrat party”

            BUT HE SURE AIN’T A RIGHTY, NOOOOO SIR

            Tell me, how long will you maintain this facade?

          • D_C_Wilson

            There’s that and the fact that Randy isn’t actually a libertarian. He’s a far rightwing ideologue who takes some ideas from Ayn Rand and melds them with Christian Dominionism.

            In other words, he’s just a more extreme version of a standard issue republican.

          • formerlywhatithink

            but…but…he wants to legalize pot, so we should all vote for him!!!

            but…but…he bravely filibustered a bill so the government couldn’t attack us with missiles from drones, so we should all vote for him!

            That’s really about only two reasons I’ve heard from the far left about why they support Rand Paul, showing once again, what ignorant twits they are. Bring up any other issue concerning Paul and all you get is some sputtering about pot and drones.

          • D_C_Wilson

            And then he said he was fine using drones to summarily execute people for robbing a liquor store.

          • nathkatun7

            “Just stop electing Dems and Reps. It’s really that simple.”

            So who should we elect? Libertarians who want to drown the government in the bathtub and let everyone fend for themselves in a dogie eat dogie world? Or the “Purity Progressives” who think that we should imprison all heads of Corporations and swear to never use any military force to go after people planning to commit terrorist acts against the United States? By the way, if “it’s really that simple” how come neither the Libertarians nor the Greens have been able to convince the majority of Americans to vote for them? I think, in 2102, the Libertarian Party, for example, was on the ballot in all fifty states, yet it managed to win less than 3% of the popular votes. Instead of blaming the people who vote for Democrats or Republicans you should be blaming the political parties that have been unable to persuade voters to vote for them. As you know, candidates running as independents have been able to win elections without the D or the R behind their names. That’s because they do not run on narrow, political purity, agendas. Until candidates for the other political parties you want get away for running on “purity agendas,” they will continue to be marginalized. I think the current Republican party, now dominated by the crazy purists, may be headed in the direction of being marginalized.

          • kfreed

            “So who should we elect?”

            C’mon now. Answer: Tea bagging far right lunatic RAND PAUL 2016! – who, it should be noted, just OBLITERATES that left-right paradigm:

            “Rand Paul shatters left-right paradigm, can help grow GOP”
            http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/06/rand-paul-shatters-left-right-paradigm-can-help-grow-gop/

            Rand Paul’s premature campaign ad/video: “Rand Paul: Beyond the Left-Right Paradigm”
            http://www.dailypaul.com/285884/rand-paul-beyond-the-left-right-paradigm

            You knew that:)

          • condew

            Yes, I just read that someplace; and not long ago at all.

          • kfreed

            Goes to show how stupid the Right thinks we are.

          • kfreed

            “So who should we elect?”

            Why, tea partying Rand Paul 2016! – who, it should be noted, totally OBLITERATES that left-right paradigm, you know:

            “Rand Paul shatters left-right paradigm, can help grow GOP”
            http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/06/rand-paul-shatters-left-right-paradigm-can-help-grow-gop/

            [Yes, this is how stupid the Right thinks we are]

            Rand Paul’s waaaayyy premature campaign ad: “Rand Paul: Beyond the Left-Right Paradigm”
            http://www.dailypaul.com/285884/rand-paul-beyond-the-left-right-paradigm

            I kid. You knew that:)

          • condew

            I’d prefer to just stop electing people who don’t want the government to work. Ask politicians what they are going to do in office, not what they are going to block or destroy.

          • ChrisAndersen

            This reminds me of those who cheer when some politicians promises to shut down the IRS.

            Yo, if there are still taxes then someone has to collect them.

          • formerlywhatithink

            I volunteer. Please send your tax payments to me..

        • Jan Civil

          Where you say nothing; the ball is in your possession, but instead of making your case, you can only punt?

    • Badgerite

      ‘Smashing’ anything is usually not a good idea since you might actually need it.

    • That River Gal

      Soviet Russia? That’s too hyperbolic for words.

    • D_C_Wilson

      In Soviet Russia, the party chooses you.

      Seriously, while I would love to see more real choices for Americans, the two-party system is not going any where. Not in my lifetime. Better to spend your time fighting for your principles that screaming at the storm clouds.

      • Steven Skelton

        Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

        I disagree though. We are capable of electing candidates from parties that actually believe in something other than the winning 50.1% of the vote.

        • D_C_Wilson

          I don’t see it happening. Not unless the GOP really does implode over its current craziness.

        • ChrisAndersen

          Ours is a winner-take-all system. Winner-takes-all will always result in a two-party system.

          Always.

          You want to have more than two choices? Change the system.

          Just telling people to not vote for Dems or Republicans is a waste of time.

          • Steven Skelton

            Why is that winner-take-all will always result in a two party system?

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Because that’s the definition of “winner takes all”. The President may only win the majority of electoral votes but once he has, he is the one and only President. He doesn’t share governance with the guy who got the second-most votes.

          • Steven Skelton

            Believe it or not, I do understand how the executive branch works.

            My question is why the winner-take-all system will always produce only two viable parties.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Because you need to get enough people to support someone to get enough votes and people will gravitate toward two parties. It’s so simple, I can’t believe you don’t understand. If people knew that only 10% had to vote for someone to get them into power, they wouldn’t bother to get together with more than 10% of the people. Like in countries where they form government based on what percentage of the vote a party received. Party A got 10% so they get ten reps, Party B got 20% so they get 20 reps. But when you need 50.1%, half the people will band together to meet that standard and that pushes the other half to group together. It’s human nature and it’s just math.

          • ChrisAndersen

            My personal solution to the “two party problem” is not parliamentarianism (which has its own serious problems) but instant runoff voting. It would allow people to vote for alternative candidates without having the fear that they are throwing away their votes. “third party” people would have at least a decent chance of winning the occasional race, enough so that major parties would have to listen to their opinion in order to form governing coalitions.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            I’m partial to Condorcet and mail-in ballots. It’s so easy to vote in Oregon, it’s wonderful.

          • ChrisAndersen

            I live in Oregon as well. Yeah for mail in ballots.

          • condew

            And you a sure that every ballot gets to the count? Are you sure that ballots from certain zip codes don’t get lost at a higher rate?

          • ChrisAndersen

            Oregon has had it for nearly 20 years and I’m not aware of any accusations, let alone proof, that it has problems.

          • That River Gal

            Same for Washington. I like that I sign up when I get my driver’s license, and at least here, we have the option of mailing or dropping at an official ballot box location. No scandals. No harassment at polling places. No lines mean more people vote.

          • condew

            I’m not partial to mail-in or internet voting. If you can’t be assured of privacy when you vote, you can be coerced or you can sell your vote. Besides, if it’s too damn much trouble to go to the polling place, then it’s probably also too much trouble to be an informed voter.

            Imagine Koch Industries having a big employee meeting on election day where they collect signed but otherwise unmarked ballots. No ballot and you don’t have a job anymore.

          • D_C_Wilson

            Instant runoffs would help third parties in the presidential elections, thought I’m not sure if it would help them in congressional elections.

            And that’s the mistake more third parties continue to make. They think all they have to do is win the presidency and whatever verion of utopia they imagine will magically appear along with gumdrop trees and unicorns.

            In reality, no president can accomplish much if he doesn’t have support in Congress (See; Obama, Barack). A third party president would be a lame duck with no alllies in Congress.

            If a third party was actuallly serious about governing, as opposed to just making loud noises, they should start by running candidates for Congress and the state legislatures. Target districts you have a good chance of winning, first, then build up a coalition from there. You’ll be more influential building from the ground up instead of the top down.

          • condew

            That’s really the crux of it, you need instant runoff voting to have viable third parties.

          • nathkatun7

            I don’t see why this is so hard for you to grasp? Historically only two viable parties have been able to win the majority of the votes to be the governing entities on local, state, and national levels. Occasionally, Independent candidates win local, state offices and, in rare instances congressional posts. Essentially, unless the Libertarians or the Greens, or whatever party, can win 50.1%, as Democrats and Republicans regularly do, then we are stuck with two viable parties. This is not a theoretical question! This is political reality! The only way to change this reality is for political parties, other than the Democratic and Republican parties, to convince the majority of Americans to vote for them. If You can do that, then “the winner-take-all system” may not “always produce two viable parties.” So far, I see no evidence that the majority of Americans will be inclined to vote for political parties that are ideologically narrowly based.

          • ChrisAndersen

            When it is winner take all the loser(s) either unite to defeat the previous winner or they keep losing. But once the united losers win, the people they defeated must then unite in order to defeat them.

            Result: two parties.

          • nathkatun7

            Because a candidate of a marginal political party, which is unable to win votes in local, state, and national elections, will have no say so in formulating public policy. So far, with minor exceptions here and there, it’s the ideologically diverse and broadly based political parties that have the structure and resources to win elections. That’s the reality whether you like it or not. You want to change It, organize and marshall resources to elect Libertarians or Greens. If you do so, you will probably end up replacing either the Democrats or the Republicans as the second major political party, or may be both if the Libertarians and Greens win the majority of the votes. This is exactly what happened historically when the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party as the second major political party. By the way, as Norbrook so brilliantly wrote, throughout American history, there has always been more than two political parties for American voters to chose from. It just so happens that Americans, who are a very practical people, prefer to vote for the ideologically broad based political parties rather than the Ideologically narrow based parties that insist on purity. For example: I don’t think that running on a platform that focuses only on opposition to NSA and drones is likely to win you many votes from people who are focused on bread and butter issues. In my neck of the woods, people simply don’t get all the hoopla about NSA spying that is likely to nab terrorists, or the drones that take out people alleged to be planning for another 9/11. They do however understand, intimately, the issues of minimum wage, affordable health care and affordable education for their kids.

          • D_C_Wilson

            Not exactly. Our system was designed for power to be shared between the executive and legislative branches. And the legislative branch is further split between the House and the Senate. It’s designed to encourage opposing camps to come to a compromise rather than letting one faction ram its agenda through with limited debate, which can happen when a party gains a clear majority in a parliamentary system. What drives us toward a two-party system is the fact that it becomes difficult for the opposition to have any influence unless they’re aligned in a single party against the majority party.

            The last few years have shown us the major weakness in our two-party system: It assumes that both parties are actually interested in governing and want government to be able to perform at least it’s most basic jobs. Things are breaking down because one party has chosen nihilism as a political strategy rather than negotiation.

          • ChrisAndersen

            “What drives us toward a two-party system is the fact that it becomes difficult for the opposition to have any influence unless they’re aligned in a single party against the majority party.”

            Which is my point. The winner-take-all system is what produces that drive to unite the opposition into a single political entity. But once it becomes united, it forces its opposition to do the same.

            In winner-take-all, any 3rd party will either fail miserably or, if is at all successfully, be absorbed into (or take over) the structures of one of the previous two parties.

            I agree that our constitutional system is structured to make it difficult for one party to dominate all the levers of government. But the entry point into that system, the ballot box, is a huge barrier to all but the two major parties and it will remain so as long as it is winner-take-all.

          • condew

            Telling people to not vote for Dems or Republicans is worse than a waste of time.

        • Jan Civil

          So you go to dismiss all politicians in favor of something you won’t – because you can’t? – articulate in any way.

          You identified yourself as libertarian. I have a very good idea what you believe in, actually. Are there not enough politicians that spout that shit (these unexamined bullet points for an argument no one seems capable of making) for you?

          Again, you function on the surface of language and empty gestures that suffice as [if] ideas to you. You haven’t stated one idea about what government does or should do. You’re an empty bag.

        • nathkatun7

          Lets be generous and say you won 30% of the American votes for “believing in something.” How then do you propose to govern (without any compromise in your beliefs and positions) the rest of the 70% of Americans who simply don’t believe in the same thing you do? Unless, of course, you believe that only people who share your beliefs are entitled to govern–something akin to Plato’s Philosopher King!

          Here is the reality as I see it: In a democracy you better win 50.1% if you want to govern and implement policies to your liking. Otherwise, you have to be prepared to compromise with people who do not believe in the same things you do. Even with 50.1% in a democratic system of checks and balances like the U.S., you still have to find a way to compromise if you want anything done. If getting things done, that are not 100% to your liking, is not good enough for you, then you prefer either a divine monarchy, or a dictatorship, or as we are finding out with respect to the anti-democratic U.S.
          Senate rules, a tyranny of the minority.

          I wish you would be honest with us by confessing that you do
          not believe in democracy.

        • JozefAL

          “We are capable of electing candidates from parties that actually believe in something other than the winning 50.1% of the vote.”
          By “electing,” I’m guessing you mean “electing to office.” Unfortunately, without “winning 50.1% of the vote,” it’s damn near impossible to get into office–unless you happen to be in a state (like Maine) where it’s entirely possible to become Governor without winning 40% of the vote.

    • ChrisAndersen

      Oh yes, if we just get rid of this one evil thing (the two party system) then the promise of paradise will finally be fulfilled.

    • ThePanicMan

      Ignorant child.

    • ThePanicMan

      Lemme quote TBogg here to explain why you’re a schmuck:

      Let me see if I can explain it this way:

      Every year in Happy Gumdrop Fairy-Tale Land all of the sprites and elves and woodland creatures gather together to pick the Rainbow Sunshine Queen. Everyone is there: the Lollipop Guild, the Star-Twinkle Toddlers, the Sparkly Unicorns, the Cookie Baking Apple-cheeked Grandmothers, the Fluffy Bunny Bund, the Rumbly-Tumbly Pupperoos, the Snowflake Princesses, the Baby Duckies All-In-A-Row, the Laughing Babies, and the Dykes on Bikes. They have a big picnic with cupcakes and gumdrops and pudding pops, stopping only to cast their votes by throwing Magic Wishing Rocks into the Well of Laughter, Comity, and Good Intentions. Afterward they spend the rest of the night dancing and singing and waving glow sticks until dawn when they tumble sleepy-eyed into beds made of the purest and whitest goose down where they dream of angels and clouds of spun sugar.

      You don’t live there.

      Grow the fuck up.

      Now, since I know you’ll either gloss over this because it comes from someone who openly thinks you’re a schmuck or ignore it because it’s not agreeing with your childish fantasy, I’ll give you the TL;DR version here: You’re living in a fantasy. Snap the fuck out of it.

      EDIT: I love sites that fuck up HTML, don’t you?

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        That TBogg post is one of my absolute favorites. Kudos for it’s use!

      • ChrisAndersen

        Still one of the great classics.

    • Jan Civil

      In fact, there are a lot of different ideas competing in the Democratic Party, and there used to be a lot of variance in the Republicans. You have this simple reduction and only the glibbest of gestures out of it, which you seem to think says something.

      What would you have? I would be shocked to see you articulate it. It occurs to me this is what you’re restricted to.

      You look like an idiot with that.

      • formerlywhatithink

        If you look at the comment thread above, he’s been asked multiple times what should replace and the only answer is just another regurgitation of “the two party system sucks”.