90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Political Earthquake: Unpacking Eric Cantor’s Stunning Primary Defeat

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor goes down in primary defeat to Tea Party challenger Dave Brat. We look at the aftermath in Virginia and Congress.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., delivers his concession speech as his wife, Diana, listens in Richmond, Va., Tuesday, June 10, 2014.  (AP)

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., delivers his concession speech as his wife, Diana, listens in Richmond, Va., Tuesday, June 10, 2014. (AP)

Eric Cantor, defeated.  Republican icon.  House Majority Leader.  Lined up to be Speaker of the House.  Gone down in flames in his primary election battle in his congressional district in Virginia.  The winner:  Tea Party purist Dave Brat.  It’s an earthquake in Washington.  House majority leaders don’t lose primaries.  But Cantor has.  The Tea Party was said to be waning.  Not in Cantor’s district.  Money?  Cantor was loaded.  Brat was not.  Brat won.  Now come the aftershocks, on Capitol Hill and beyond.  This hour On Point:  the primary defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Jeff Schapiro, reporter and columnist for the Richmond Times-Dispatch. (@RTDSchapiro)

Ken Rudin, host of Ken Rudin’s Political Junkie podcast. (@kenrudin)

Amy Walter, national editor of the Cook Political Report. (@amyewalter)

Nancy Cordes, congressional correspondent for CBS News. (@nancycordes)

Matt Kibbe, CEO and president of FreedomWorks. (@mkibbe)

From Tom’s Reading List

Slate: Haunted House — “There may be many reasons Cantor, a seven-term incumbent, lost to David Brat, a professor at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, Va. Worry among Republicans that he was backing some form of immigration reform that would allowsweeping legalization of the undocumented population was the crystalizing issue.”

National Review: Looking Back at the Tea Leaves on Cantor — “Primaries are often criticized for low voter turnout. But they are also expressions of the grassroots sentiments of political parties. The lesson tonight is that establishment candidates ignore their most ardent voters at their peril. As political analyst Stuart Rothenberg put it tonight: ‘The GOP establishment’s problem isn’t with the Tea Party. It’s with Republican voters.’”

Washington Post: GOP strategists try to assess impact of Cantor loss on other primaries — “The results from Virginia emboldened tea party advocates and enthusiasts, who suffered several high-profile defeats in intraparty contests this spring. It also put the establishment on notice that the long-running struggle inside the party will continue beyond this year’s campaigns and into the 2016 elections. But establishment strategists said Cantor’s loss to conservative David Brat may have been the result of particular circumstances that cannot easily be replicated in other races.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • HonestDebate1

    Brat was outspent 25 to 1. Who says money buys elections?

    • JGC

      I read that Cantor spent more just on steak dinners for his fund-raising supporters, than Brat spent on his entire campaign. Brat sounds like a very savvy economist. Maybe he can help me with my household budget.

      • Human2013

        Is this sarcasm. The last thing this country needs is another economist from the right soaked in theory and removed from fact.

        • Don_B1

          Not only “theory,” but false theory !

          See my response below. Even Milton Friedman excoriated the “Austrian” or Austerian School of von Mises, Hayek, etc. as having done immense harm to the economy (and the theory of economics).

        • JGC

          I am mainly enjoying a huge upset within the Republican leadership, especially an upset to someone like Cantor who is the human equivalent of fingernails on the chalkboard. I do admire how Brat came in so under the radar for his victory, and that he wouldn’t give Grover Norquist the time of day. He remains a bit of a cipher at the moment, but now he has the national ear and we’ll soon be learning a lot more about his views. Of course, I can’t vote in the Va-7th, but I wonder if other candidates are studying Brat’s game plan.

      • Don_B1

        If he can, it would be because he believes, or preaches that he believes, that the government should be run like a household budget.

        But a household is not a closed system, like a country with trade to the world less than 10% of its GDP. A household’s GDP does not come from financial interactions within its members, but from interactions (trade) with outside parties.

        In the economy of a country, my spending is your income and your spending is my income. In a household, one member’s spending is not another’s income.

        In a country, when both you and I see the strong imperative to cut spending, without a government to make up the lost spending, both of our incomes will decrease.

        And the failure of the government to increase spending enough (the stimulus — ARRA — was just under $800 billion over two years when the economy had lost some $2 trillion) and for a long enough period. Every time the economy showed indications of recovery, the Republicans, particularly in the House of Representatives, managed to insert some cut in government spending that took the wind out of the economy’s sails.

        • Human2013

          Thanks for making that point, well said.

    • Human2013

      I do!

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        But not this one.

        • Human2013

          Most Americans don’t have $300k to run for office, so, yes, this one was bought. I do agree, it was a bargain.

        • TFRX

          Not this particular one.

          You wanna go back to “Let’s make a team of 5’4 guards i nthe NBA because Spud Webb and Muggsy Bogues”?

      • StilllHere

        Name one election that was bought.

    • jefe68

      He’s your kind of guy, or so it would seem.
      You lot wont win another national election, and guess what, in the next decade as Latinos gain political power and grow as a demographic states like Texas are going to move to the center and then the GOP will be on it’s way to losing the Senate and most likely the House of Reps.

      • Human2013

        I can’t wait for the right to redistrict themselves into the Pacific Ocean.

    • Don_B1

      This is the counterexample that “proves the rule.”

      What it really says is that a hugely unpopular (2 to 1, unfavorable to favorable rating) person cannot “buy his election” but not much more.

      But you like to use features of apples to prove that oranges are like pears: keep it up and you will be shown as the clown you seem to want to be.

      • HonestDebate1

        There was another one recently, who was it?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Maybe this is the shakeup the GOP sorely needs. Brat seems like a solid guy.

    Laura Ingraham reported that Brat received zero Tea Party endorsements and had difficulty getting any support from leading Tea Party leadership. It will be interesting to see if Kibbe takes “credit” for this victory.

    Perhaps Brat had Tea Party grass roots support but it appears he did not have organized Tea Party support.

    • JGC

      From Vox, “12 Things to Know about Dave Brat…”, by Andrew Prokop

      http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5798702/things-to-know-about-dave-brat-the-man-who-took-down-eric-cantor/in/5562623

      #3 on the list is interesting: Brat missed some power breakfasts with notable conservative political brokers because it was exam week at Randolph-Macon.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Why not #6:
        “Brat’s students love him — and think he’s hot.”

        Brat’s general election opponent is also a professor from the same school. Fun times in the faculty lounge.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      He won because he scared people. “Let’s blame immigrants for all our problems” essentially. And he thanked God for his victory against his opponent – who is Jewish.

      Who would Jesus blame for our problems?

      • jefe68

        The Ingraham comment was loaded if you think about it.

        • TFRX

          A robot has passed the Turing test.

          I can only conclude that the statement “The Ingraham comment was loaded” is so applicable to every time Ingraham opens her mouth that I can only conclude that this jefe thing is a bot.

          • jefe68

            What? Are you for real?
            Did you not hear what she said?
            Do you not think she new Cantor is Jewish?

          • TFRX

            Nah, I just was riffing on “Laura Ingraham said something that was loaded”.

            That’s basically any time air is passing over her vocal cords.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Ed Schultz, is that you?

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          What did she say?

          • jefe68

            She said Obama should have traded Cantor instead of the 5 Taliban for Bergdahl. She’s a real piece of work

          • JGC

            That is extreme. Maybe Brat needs to publicly disassociate himself from Ingraham’s comment.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Do you really think she was serious? It was rhetoric at a political rally.

          • JGC

            No, she wasn’t serious. But it is still an extreme and below-the-belt thing to say about a soldier in your own party. It’s not like Eric Cantor was a Charlie Crist or an Arlen Spector.

            But if there were to be public pressure to remove himself from that sort of endorsement, then that creates a wedge between Brat and one of his prominent supporters (just a tactic, speaking as a Democrat.)

  • JGC

    Do you think Cantor’s people are talking to Murkowski’s people about logistics to mount a write-in campaign? I am sure they are loathe to relinquish their power.

    • Yar

      He can’t, Virginia has a sore loser law to prevent it.

      • JGC

        Oh, well, maybe Cantor and his staff can take some remedial courses in lobbying through the poli.sci dept. at Randolph-Macon this year, and be ready to join the Lobby Brigade at some point in 2016.

  • J__o__h__n

    I think the country is worse off with even very conservative Republicans being unseated by right wing extremists, but I can’t say I’m sad to see Cantor go.

  • Yar

    Social media is a disruptive technology, I suspect it played a significant role in this upset. There may be more in November, I believe write-in candidates could change the political landscape, even on the local and state level.

    • jomuir

      write-in’s played a huge part in Detroit’s mayoral election last year.

  • MrNutso

    I wonder what role religion played in the voting?

    • JGC

      Do you mean a turn-out-the vote in Christian churches? However, I don’t think it was anything particular to do with Cantor himself being Jewish.

      And how could Cantor’s internal polling numbers have been so off base, kind of like what happened with Rove when he was sure his polling indicated Romney would easily take the 2012 presidential race?

      • MrNutso

        Internal polling is nothing but rationalization. Better to believe you are losing than think you are way ahead and coast.

  • liminalx

    It would seem “reports of the death of the TeaParty have been greatly exaggerated” lol. The USA continues ripping itself apart by its thinly sewn hypocritical seams…

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      We’ll see if this Brat guy wins in the general election.

      • liminalx

        Let’s hope not!

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        LOL!!!!!

      • JGC

        “…in Virginia’s heavily Republican 7th district.” I’m afraid it will be a hard slog for the Democratic challenger, unless Brat ventures into controversial comments like were made by some of the Tea Party candidates in the last two elections.

        • MrNutso

          Brat just needs to keep his mouth shut to win.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          It is about 57% Republican.

          Eric Cantor *was* the Tea Party guy.

          It is quite possible that Mr Brat will turn off lots of sensible GOP voters. We’ll see.

          • MrNutso

            Sensible GOP voters?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            I *hope* they exist!

          • TFRX

            There’s always room for another Tea Party guy. Like Highlander, Brat will acquire the powers of Cantor; everything assumed, received quality they loved about Cantor will become the mantle of Brat.

            Watch the right-wing media.

  • NewtonWhale

    This is what happens when a party serves up nothing but red meat. For 50 years the GOP feasted on right wing extremism while demonizing “liberals” and “the government”. Eric Cantor himself spent $1 million on TV ads calling Brat, the Tea Party’s new hero, a “liberal college professor”.

    They drove out every Republican not actually frothing at the mouth. Those who remain have an insatiable demand for still more red meat. The problem is there’s nothing left to do now but swallow their own tail.

  • MrNutso

    Cantor’s strategy after Obama’s election was mass opposition by the Republican party, but that strategy ultimately bit him on the tuchus. No cooperation was supposed to appeal to the Republican base. The base is deep but narrow. Saying you won’t support anything the President proposes doesn’t play to a base that thinks that Democrats in general and Obama in particular are illegitimate. Failed Indiana Senate candidate Richard Murdoch sum’s it up. “I think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view….”

  • MrNutso

    I’m starting an Eric Cantor revolving door pool. Guess the date he resigns from Congress and takes a lobbying or think tank job.

  • MrNutso
    • JGC

      Yikes! That is sure one big hate-fest there. Maybe a turnip could have entered the Republican primary against Cantor, and still have won by a landslide.

  • creaker

    I expect the party elite on both sides will start tweaking the rules – their power is the control they have over our voting choices. Now that that power is threatened I expect they will circle the wagons and “fix” it.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    The tree of liberty must be perpetually replenished from the blood of incumbents.*

    * Whatever that bit is the Sieg Heil faction of GOPer party yacks on about.

  • James

    I wonder if the amnesty factor has been overplayed in the media.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Yes and no.

      It was a big issue but not the only one.

      The Tea Party thing is definitely being overplayed by the Dems and the media.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Overplayed? Apparently, that is just about all Professor Brat talked about.

  • brettearle

    Though unlikely, did anti-Semitism, somehow, surface in the campaign–in a way that it had not done so in the past?

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Lobbyist Nutter for Rent. Inquire E. Cantor, Washington.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Eric Cantor. Destroyed by the best disinfectant of sunlight.
    Transparency* “done did ‘im in.”

    * Cantor spoke; Virginians listened; voters booted.

  • 65noname

    “we’re going to lokk at this from every angle … ” except, of course the left wing angle. after all, this IS corporate radio!!!!!!

    • MrNutso

      I’m curious what the left wing angle is?

      • 65noname

        we won’t know until we hear it. but we won’t hear from corporate radio

      • 65noname

        I don’t know; corporate radio rarely provides it.

    • Matthew Stephenson

      actually its public radio

      • 65noname

        actually, it is corporate radio

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      The “left wing” angle is certainly covered. Check the guest list.

      • 65noname

        I did. I repeat:

        ” ‘we’re going to look at this from every angle … ,except, of course the left wing angle. after all, this IS corporate radio!!!!!!”

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Not to worry. He’ll end up being the head boy for AIPAC. His kids will still go to private schools and colleges. Plutocracy never really loses.

  • Matthew Stephenson

    What does this tell us about the Republicans’ pollsters? Has the GOP lost their ability to read polls?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      They hired Romney’s guy, I guess?

    • Human2013

      Statistics, mathematics have never been their thing. Their interests are in the the New Testament.

  • MrNutso

    So Brat will be for cutting corporate welfare?

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Now serving Number 10287483.
    –Boehner’s Republican Refurbishment Shoppe

    {no GOPer ever leaves the D.C. free lunch counter}

  • Kathy

    While I enjoyed a giggle at the notion of this right wing scumbag getting unseated, his replacement is obviously worse. America needs a second party that can be trusted to govern, but the Republicans are just off on the crazy train. This doesn’t bode well for the future of American democracy.

    • OnPointComments

      If Republicans are on the crazy train, it’s the Democrats who are driving the locomotive: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Sheila Jackson Lee, the despicable Barbara Boxer, the despicable Harry Reid, moonbat Nancy Pelosi, Pork Chop Patty Murray, Indian Princess Elizabeth Warren, Hank “Guam Is Tipping Over” Johnson, and on and on.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        You’re holding back – tell us what you *really* think!

      • TFRX

        Hahaha.

        Please, go away to the Chuckle Bucket where your crap gets laughs.

      • Kathy

        I agree, the democrats are too far to the right.

  • http://www.google.com Big Brother

    Eric Cantor lost because Americans want illegal aliens deported. We are tired of people like Obama’s Aunt Zeituni living off the system.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      “Eric Cantor lost because [some] Americans want illegal aliens deported.”

      There – I fixed it for ya’.

    • Human2013

      Please don’t speak for “Americans.”

      By the way, the right is playing you, as always.

      They LOVE illegal immigration…it undermines wages and builds the estates of the wealthy. Illegals are their underpaid Nannies, landscapers and general laborers. They don’t WANT immigration reform.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    This has knocked a hole in the bottom of the already tippy GOP House boat. Who will replace Boehner?

    • jefe68

      If the GOP keeps tracking further to the right, as this is evidence of, they have little chance of winning the White House anytime soon. Also as demographics are shifting, alienating Latinos does not seem to be the best way forward. So much for the GOP campaign for the “bigger tent”.

      • MrNutso

        Yet gerrymandering will help Republicans maintain control in the House and elections cycles give them a chance to take the Senate (Democrats having to defend more seats).

        • jefe68

          That’s true, but what will they do when the districts change demographically?

          One can only hope that gerrymandering will go the way of the dinosaur and become extinct.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        No. Brat is NOT to the right of the party. Everything he ran on IS the GOP platform.

        • jefe68

          He’s not what one would call a moderate.
          I’ll say it again, if the GOP keeps on alienated Latinos and the middle class, they will lose more elections on the national stage. It’s simple math.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Eric Cantor was a leader in the GOP. That seems to be contradictory to your claim.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Not really. The platform is public record. So is Cantor’s actions.

  • TFRX

    “You reach across the aisle at your own peril.” even if you’re an Eric Cantor.

    It’s 17 minutes after the hour. Countdown is 43 minutes to NPR’s next news headline newsquote wherein people want BothSides to WortkTogether and when they don’t It’sObama’sFault.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Bad news for Blackburn and Bachmann. They will no longer be the only brats in Congress.

  • NewtonWhale

    So Brat won by calling for a return to “Judeo-Christian principles” against the only Jewish Republican member of Congress.

    You might very well think that Brat did not include the “Judeo” in order to be inclusive. I couldn’t possibly comment.

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      He was being (cough, hack).. magnanimous. Hoober Doober

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    100 year floods are now occurring every couple of years now. Time to come up with new metaphors for no-longer-rare events. How ’bout the word: commonplace?

  • Mike Muszynski

    Please discuss if this was engineered in large part by Democrats showing up to vote for a fringe candidate – Brat – so Tramell (the Democratic challenger) woud have a fighting chance. This might not be about Teapublicans or Republicans but Dems staging a coup??

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Cantor was a key part of a weak, mushy GOP leadership team. Ineffective as an opposition party.

  • OnPointComments

    In my opinion, the sentiment of the voters who elected Dave Brat may be an indication of the sentiment of many voters throughout the country. I think people are tired of business as usual by those entrenched in Washington DC, who reward their cronies, think the Constitution is a suggestion, and who have created a government behemoth that grows ever larger, consumes massive resources, and insinuates itself into all aspects of our lives.

    • streetglide

      Amen!

  • hennorama

    Brat Wins, “Adult” Loses.

  • StilllHere

    Another nail in the coffin for the theory that elections are bought. We need more money in elections, it’s good for the economy and promotes free speech.

    • MrNutso

      Only to the extent that if you are loathed by the electorate, no amount of money can buy you victory.

      • StilllHere

        The loathing is bipartisan.

      • TFRX

        I believe that’s Phil Gramm’s Black Hole of Charm

        at play.

    • manganbr

      Sounds like you’re easily persuaded (of what you already want to believe?). I would need to see a much more thorough long term study of what influence this very new influx of money has on elections across the country over a long period of time, rather than formulating an opinion on the basis of one low turn out election in a heavily conservative district.

      • StilllHere

        Good, when you see that study, let us know. For now we’ll just look at the preponderance of cases where winners were outspent by gigantic multiples by losers.

        • manganbr

          Really, you really think there’s more examples of these kinds of upsets than of the side with more money winning? What gives you this perception? Because, as you can imagine, a lot of folks don’t have that perception, so you shouldn’t take it for granted if you actually want to persuade anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.

          • StilllHere

            All of my countless examples disprove your rule, even more so if I can bring in externalities like voter turnout, which way a district leans, weather, odd or even election day…

          • TFRX

            And voter suppression.

            Countless? How many fingers and toes have you got?

          • manganbr

            I don’t follow any of this.

    • TFRX

      Pfft.

      The exception. Please ignore all the times it plays out other ways.

      • StilllHere

        Name 100, if it’s so widespread.

        • TFRX

          Keep JAQing off.

          And I can’t count all the times the press corps covered “So and so’s war chest is impressive, so there won’t be a serious candidate against them–nobody wants to be cannon fodder.”

          • StilllHere

            JAQ yourself.
            I’m not taking your beltway inbreds’ view as gospel but you keep swallowing their shat.

          • TFRX

            You really are a dolt, aren’t you?

  • manganbr

    Another Republican who is for expanding free market principles EXCEPT for in the realm of immigrant workers. There we need a strong federal government to police the border and deport illegal immigrants. How can Brat claim both to be a theorist of free market economics and win on the basis of anti-amnesty policy? What does anti-amnesty have to do with the free market? There’s plenty of free market republicans who have articulated a more coherent case for accommodating so-called illegal immigrants for the proper functioning of the free market, because those immigrants are so thoroughly intertwined with it by this point.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Conventional Congress types better start marching down Constitution Avenue arms-joined singing Die Wacht am Rhein if they’re going to convince the GOPer base they’re serious about governing the country. Break out the browns shirts — solid right wing means up against the hard stop nowadays.

  • TFRX

    Are we going to hear more about Limbaugh and Ingraham without anyone saying “Hey, what’s going on with journos and opinionators actively working in campaigns?”

    • hennorama

      TFRX — “opinionators” applies to those two, but “journos” does not.

      Unless it was intended as an epithet, of course.

      • TFRX

        THere’s hardly a difference on the right any longer. Matt Drudge absolutely DRIVES Politico, and poor, sappy Diane Sawyer can’t say no when a Chris Cilizza says “People are talking about” something in the Betlway.

        (That Cilizza and Sawyer aren’t getting checks signed by the same media cos matters not. The names are almost interchangable.)

    • OnPointComments

      And other journos and opinionators such as the New York Times, network TV news, all of the Soros-funded media…

      • TFRX

        Hahahaha.

        Keep fooling yourself.

        • pete18

          Let’s bring in those Edward R Morrow journalists from Balloon Juice, then we’ll have real objective reporting.

          • TFRX

            Why do you keep reminding your ignorant buddies that a hack like Jake Tapper got absolutely trashed for his hackness by some liberal blogger who’s not on the mainstream’s Rolodex?

          • pete18

            It’s always fun watching you try to distract from the main point. Who cares about Jake Tapper? I just enjoy seeing your pompous defense of your double standard for news sources. Opinionated left wing bloggers are valid, opinionated right wing bloggers and radio hosts are not.

            Some day you’ll also provide us with your expert list of all the other approved, objective news sources so we can all be saved from our own ignorance.

          • TFRX

            “Who cares about Jake Tapper”?

            Simple: How about “Everybody who makes Network Nightlies and Sunday Gasbags go around, and informs the plurality of Americans with their ‘news’ ?”

            And when it comes to sources: You propose, I’ll dispose. Or better yet: Don’t waste your time losing. I wouldn’t follow your sources out of a burning building.

          • pete18

            A beautiful non-response, as per usual.
            You’re the only one making claims about a superior knowledge on news sources. So far all you’ve given us is drivel like Balloon Juice. Put up or shut up.

          • TFRX

            Once more, with no feeling:

            “Who cares about Jake Tapper”?

            Simple: How about “Everybody who
            makes Network Nightlies and Sunday Gasbags go around, and informs the
            plurality of Americans with their ‘news’ ?”

            And when it comes to
            sources: You propose, I’ll dispose. Or better yet: Don’t waste your time
            losing. I wouldn’t follow your sources out of a burning building.

  • Tom

    Question from a Brit:
    Does this mean a Democrat has a chance to compete against Dave Brat in the next Senate race? Or is Virginia solid Republican no matter what?

    Tom

    • MrNutso

      The district is heavily Republican. The election is for Brat to loose.

    • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

      It means freedom for Scotland. Finally. HD

    • manganbr

      not a senate race. it’s only part of Virginia we’re talking about.

    • hennorama

      Tom — Virginia has an open primary system, so Democrats were free to vote in this election.

      Turnout increased by nearly 18,000 votes (almost 40%) compared to the 2012 primary, so it’s possible that there were significant numbers of Democrats voting, in an effort to get rid of Rep. Cantor.

      Source:
      http://ballotpedia.org/Virginia's_7th_Congressional_District_elections,_2014#cite_note-usa-14

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Were you listening? Amy Walter addressed this. Turnout was light in D precincts and heavy in GOP precincts.

        Try again.

        • hennorama

          WftC — thank you for your response.

          Writing that “it’s possible” does not preclude that it did not happen that way.

          Thanks again for your response.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Possible — in your dreams.

          • hennorama

            WftC — TYFYR.

            Prior to the result, I hadn’t thought for a single second about VA-7, so I certainly wouldn’t “dream” about it.

            Are there any other things you want to claim that I “dream” about?

            Thanks again for your response.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I just find the myriad of conspiracy theories and other political theories quite amusing.

            (see DWS twitterverse for more amusement).

          • hennorama

            WftC — TYFYR.

            So, that’s a “No” as to my question then?

          • WorriedfortheCountry
        • JS

          Perhaps those D’s in GOP districts voted against Cantor?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Anything is possible. It just isn’t plausible.

          • JS

            Just as plausible as D’s in D districts voting for against Cantor

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Think — house of commons. Not the Senate.

    • Jim_thompson

      let’s hope a Democratic Congressman gets to represent that seat.

    • 1Brett1

      Virginia’s politics are never so predictable as to be open and shut for Republicans. Virginia goes from Red to Blue back to Red all the time.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    We want Hills! We want Hills!
    Bring her on! Bring her on!
    (HRH Hillary)
    –GOPer America*

    * Please don’t spit on the floor.

  • George

    He was running in a gerrymandered Christian conservative district, and he is Jewish. Is it completely taboo for anyone to mention this?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Sure mention it but sounds like you are “grasping” for an explanation.

      Also mention that he is running for his 8th term.

    • James

      It’s more stupid (and political) then taboo, because it ignores the seven previous wins in the same district.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Brat is an economics Professor.

    Expertise sorely needed on Capitol Hill and at the White House.

    • JS

      I though professors were elitist in their ivory towers and not to be trusted?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Why paint with such a broad brush?

        • JS

          Sorry, I should have said,

          “I though the right saw professors as elitist in their ivory towers and not to be trusted?”

    • Duras

      Vote for the academics!

  • Mary

    question…could he run as a independent?
    -Mary

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      I don’t think so.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    GOPer America spotted driving ox carts around the Capitol.
    BRING OUT YOUR DEAD.
    5 BUCKS A HEAD.

    I’d pay to watch that on PBS.

  • MrNutso

    Tax cuts for the wealth – Check
    Reductions in social programs – Check
    Take away health insurance – Check

    Looks like Cantor’s got it covered.

  • Jim_thompson

    The problem for the “establishment” GOP is their cover is now blown. While they have been giving lip service to immigration reform, they have been thwarting it behind the scenes all along. The radical fringe is now the norm in the GOP. Just look at their actions and record since controlling Congress(and even last time under Gingrich): they have gone about denying LGBT rights, they have gone about denying minority(and all) voters rights, they have gone about denying women’s’ reproductive rights, they have gone about denying worker’s rights, they are against equal pay laws, against raising-or even having-a minimum wage, supported laws denying public accommodations based on a warped view of “religious freedom” and blocked any and all attempts to address any issue surrounding immigration reform. Come on folks, even the John Birch Society has made a big welcome comeback in today’s tea party GOP.

    • William

      The GOP have been very clear on immigration reform. Secure the boarder first and enforce immigration laws. What is so difficult about that? Do we want to see more of the Democrats immigration reform that we see now with tens of thousands of children being sent across the border? That is reform we can live with?

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        Secure the boarders in the boarding house on the border?

      • Jim_thompson

        GOP has been very clear: non white, non English speakers need not apply.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Do you really believe that?

          I’m not affiliated with the GOP but these kind of statements really drive me nuts.

          • Jim_thompson

            Of course I do. The facts speak for themselves. That is what the GOP base believes and stands for. Don’t believe me, just look at their record and rhetoric.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Tim Scott, Alan West, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Nikki Haley, Susanna Martinez, Bobby Jindal ….

            None of these fine folks were elected by the base? You appear to view things through a very disturbed and distorted lens.

            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/09/who_is_racist_119139.html

      • hennorama

        William — if the GOP wants to “Secure the boarders first,” that means they are inviting strangers in to eat and sleep in their homes.

        In other words, welcoming others.

        Somehow I don’t think that’s what you meant, but it is an interesting item to add to my list of Typos/Freudian Slips/Autocorrections That Make Me Smile.

        Thanks for your generous contribution.

      • JS

        “secure the border first” is an unattainable goal because no border can ever be 100% secured, therefore the GOP can always say, “oops, not secured yet” and thwart all future reforms. Same with saying “after the war on terror”.

        We need jail time and deportation of people HIRING undocumented workers. No illegal alien ever took anyone’s job, the employers GAVE IT AWAY.

  • Tom Jackson

    Think it points out there is a “lower case” tea “party” since it appears to have been almost completely a local opposition

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    I don’t want to spoil the party so I’ll go.
    I would hate my disappointment to show.*
    So who’s going to give me the big payday?
    –E. Cantor, Washington {FOR SALE}

    * apologies to R. Starr.

  • MrNutso

    I was following Matt Kibbe until this Reagan fiscally responsible statement. This about a man who started the exponential upward trajectory of our structural debt.

    • Jeff

      At least we won the cold war with Reagan’s spending…what is Obama’s debt buying today (which is significantly higher than Reagan’s debt levels)?

      • MrNutso

        We won the cold war, because all the Soviet hardliners who were weaned on WW II died, and a younger more pragmatic leader was appointed as party chairman. If the geriatric set continue to retain power, the cold war would have continued.

      • JS

        Like it was said above: Two wars not started by Obama, expansion of Medicare not started by Obama, a huge tax cut, and a financial crisis. How much have Obamas policies added to the debt compared to these other factors?

        • Jeff

          Obamacare? SNAP program doubling in spending within 5 years, federal spending exceeded 25% of GDP, debt limit after debt limit without meaningful cuts and finally the IRS scandal of targeting conservative groups, using the revenue arm as a weapon.

          • JS

            Really? Obamacare barely underway and its exploded the debt already?

            Just a thought: maybe the SNAP spending has to do with the crashed economy (more people fired=more people on SNAP?)

            Actually, the IRS “Scandal” should be seen as a decrease in the debt, since it was targeted to reduce the number of non-profits

          • TFRX

            SNAP prgograms go up during a big recession–ohnoes!

            And you really need to read up on the history of the IRS “scandal”.

            And “debt limit” is something Libertarians didn’t throw little fits about until Obama.

            (No, I don’t care if you were one of the two hundred who did. Your singular, unreplicated views had no influence on the process.)

          • Jeff

            The funny thing is that yes, I did care then about the debt and I did speak up!

        • OnPointComments

          Under President Bush, two wars were occurring, Medicare was expanded, and taxes were cut, and he never had a trillion dollar deficit like President Obama had in FY2009, FY2010, FY2011, and FY2012.

          • northeaster17

            The wars were occuring? Nothing like taking a bit of responsibility

          • JS

            Yes, wars just “occur”

          • JS

            Incurred under President Bush, but paid for under President Obama

      • Duras

        If you look at the rate in which deficits (not debt) increased, Reagan blows Obama away. In fact, deficits didn’t increase under Obama. He inherited a $1.2 trillion dollar yearly deficit.

        And if you look back at the leading drivers of the deficits during that time period, they were:

        (1) Tax cuts on top income

        (2) Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

        (3) TARP

        The top two drivers were things republicans fought to keep in place. The third one was a bipartisan deal – a deal that had to be done because deregulation allowed banks to be so big that if they failed, they would cause a Great Depression.

        • OnPointComments

          The US never had a trillion dollor deficit until Barack Obama became president.

          Surplus/-Deficit under Bush
          FY2001: 167 (war in Afghanistan starts)
          FY2002: -202
          FY2003: -473 (war in Iraq starts)
          FY2004: -504
          FY2005: -377
          FY2006: -284
          FY2007: -179
          FY2008: -498

          Surplus/-Deficit under Obama
          FY2009: -1,515
          FY2010: -1,374
          FY2011: -1,351
          FY2012: -1,110
          FY2013: -642

          • Duras

            See citations above. You are posting lies.

          • OnPointComments
          • Duras

            If you had read the articles I cited, you would see that the deficit in 2009 of $1.2 Trillion occurred at the beginning of January. Obama didn’t get elected until January 20th. Not one policy got implemented until April and they didn’t take effect until late summer. By January, the deficit was already $1.2 trillion dollars. Your numbers are deeply misleading.

          • OnPointComments

            How about FY2010? FY2011? FY2012?

          • Duras

            Look at the leading drivers of the deficits and guess who was protecting them!

    • OnPointComments

      Reagan increased the debt by $1.8 trillion.

      Obama has increased the debt by nearly $7 trillion, and he’s got a year and a half left.

      • MrNutso

        So it’s only Obama’s proposals that created additional debt. Nothing to do with the slashing of revenue, unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare Part D and the second worst financial crisis in the history of the nation. If so, how do you explain the budget deficit falling faster than at any time since WW II.

        You may not like him, but Obama is not the blame of every one of your pet woes.

        • OnPointComments

          The budget deficit is falling faster because President Obama increased spending so dramatically from FY2009 through FY2012.

          The US never had a trillion dollar deficit until Barack Obama became president.

          Surplus/-Deficit under Bush
          FY2001: 167 (war in Afghanistan starts)
          FY2002: -202
          FY2003: -473 (war in Iraq starts)
          FY2004: -504
          FY2005: -377
          FY2006: -284
          FY2007: -179
          FY2008: -498

          Surplus/-Deficit under Obama
          FY2009: -1,515
          FY2010: -1,374
          FY2011: -1,351
          FY2012: -1,110
          FY2013: -642

      • manganbr

        But did you adjust these numbers for inflation? and what is 1.8 trillion relative to GDP and the value of the dollar then and now? I imagine less stark a contrast at least. Do you think those factors are irrelevant?

  • Chicken lady

    E Cantor has always seemed to me to be interested in his own political future – first and foremost BUT this upset says to me two things:

    1. Some Republicans rely on unstable and inaccurate metrics – sort of a flashback to Mitt Romney who thought he was going to win right up to the last minute (as reported by the NYT in both instances).

    2. Though this may be an anomole, it seems that passion can beat money if enough like minds get organized. We knew this from many years ago but recent politics has made this idea seem idealistic and unrealistic. This may be the only way that we get our government back from the moneyed who seem to believe they are entitled to get what they want.

    I wish the liberals would organize on their issues with the same intensity as the tea party.

  • creaker

    I expect a lot of incumbents are going to put on their Tea Party, “Judeo Christian” masks before their own primaries.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    Never leave home without your Google Maps app. You might just need it one day — to find your way back to your district.
    –Your Friends at Google

  • NewtonWhale

    “Conservative ideas” are to “ideas” what
    “military music” is to “music”.

  • http://hlb-engineering.us/ HLB

    What a revoltin’ development this is!
    –Chester A. Cantor

  • creaker

    If the left had moved to the left the way right has moved to the right, we’d have card carrying anarcho-communist atheists unseating Democratic incumbents.

    • JS

      Unfortunately that is exactly what many people on the right think we do have,

    • VinceD2

      Obama?

  • Thor Klamet

    I was impressed that Matt Kibbe made his statements about Reagan and fiscal responsibility without cracking up. His voice sounded quite smooth to me. I don’t know how he does it. I sure wouldn’t want to play poker against Matt Kibbe.

    Scary, whether no matter what your political beliefs.

  • PD

    Fairly laughable to hear Matt Kibbe complain that Republicans failed to get their ideas on the table about things like healthcare. He’s right, but the Tea Party didn’t, either. “Defund Obamacare” is not a health care strategy.

  • Kevin Johnson

    Are the majority of voters are so sick of money in politics that the more money politicians raise, the less engaged voters become? With members of Congress spending 30-70% of their time fundraising, could money politics be the root cause of the divide in Congress?

  • Duras

    Ding Dong Cantor is dead!

    • Human2013

      Lol

  • Duras

    Vladimir Putin would breeze right through the republican primaries: 13% taxes, anti-union, anti-environment, anti-humanities, and a staunch defender of unlimited campaign financing.

    • OnPointComments

      Karl Marx would breeze right through the Democratic primaries, then there would be income equality and equality of misery for all while the liberal overlords luxuriated in their dachas.

      • Duras

        Explain.

        • OnPointComments

          My hyperbole matched your hyperbole.

          • Duras

            What did I say that was untrue? Name one thing. Read about Putin! Read about what’s happening in China.

            Course in General Semantics: “The map is not the territory.” “Capitalism, socialism, and communisms” are maps. The territories are “anti-union, anti-environmentalism, etc.” It’s not hard to see.

          • OnPointComments

            Have you lost your mind? Are you saying that “Vladimir Putin would breeze right through the republican primaries” is not hyperbole?

          • Duras

            He believes in 13% flat tax rate; he is anti-union; he is anti-humanities; he is pro-money in politics, he’s against gay marriage, etc. Maybe, Putin can’t get through the republican primaries because you know his name, but his ideological clone would breeze right through.

        • Human2013

          Nice rebuttal.

  • tbphkm33

    GO TEA BAGGERS, GO!!!

    I love the Tea Baggers – with every win, they not only alienate more-and-more main stream voters, but resolve the bond between millions of voters and the Democratic Party.

    Thank a Tea Bagger today – working hard to prove that it really is the Not-So-Grand Old Party. Proudly illustrating that the Nopublican Party truly is full of right-wing crazies. The Taliban and Nazi’s of American society.

    • Arkuy The Great

      Just wondering; if people who hew to the political right are to be called “tea baggers” is it not appropriate to call those on the left “fudge packers”, “pillow biters” or “peter puffers”? If homophobic slurs are now acceptable in US politics then it cuts both ways.

      • TFRX

        Tea Baggers named themselves that, so “cuts both ways” it doesn’t.

        • Arkuy The Great

          Really? Care to show us an official publication in which this is shown to be the case? Or are you just singling out the action of someone in a crowd perhaps not so literate in sexually deviant practices?

          • TFRX

            Official?

            I thought grassroots was what the Teabaggers were all about. The Americans for Prosperity haven’t been stupid enough to say “teabaggers” because they have a few closet cases on staff (statistically almost a certainty).

            But your particular need to say “official” here speaks of tapdancing away looking for another excuse.

            And please, say more about “sexual deviance”. It looks so good on you.

          • Arkuy The Great

            So you cannot show us anything in that regard. Thanks for proving my point.

            And, unfortunately, current political rhetoric has forced me to receive a major lesson in sexually deviant practice nomenclatures that, for the 40+ I existed in this world prior thereto, I was blissfully ignorant. And I do not feel any more liberated or fulfilled because of it.

        • 1Brett1

          I remember seeing people at early rallies (before the TP’ers knew their name was also slang for a sexual act) who had tea bags dangling from their hats.

          • Human2013

            LMAO

      • PD

        @Arkuy. I’m certainly no expert on these things, but I’m quite sure “tea bagging” may be practiced by both hetero and homosexual couples – probably far more by the former, just in terms of sheer numbers. So it’s by no means a homophobic slur. And those on the right did pick the name Tea Party all by themselves – apparently without quite thinking it through.

        • tbphkm33

          “As a reference to members of the currently active Tea Party, the word has been used in speech and print by both liberals and conservatives. In this context, the term “teabagger” is a reasonably conceived informal name for an affiliate of the Tea Party, and as a word in the news, it earned a mention for the year 2009.” — “‘Teabagger’ Finalist For Oxford’s ‘Word Of The Year’”

        • Cutler Hamilton

          Thanks PD. I needed a giggle today.

    • JS

      Just a bit over the top, don’t you think?

    • JONBOSTON

      Absolutely sick and demented comments unless you believe free enterprise , fiscal responsibility, observing constitutional liberties, a strong defense , and faith in God are ideas linked with Nazi’s and the Taliban. Frankly it’s comments like yours that are so revolting and despicable that motivates the Tea Party.

      • Duras

        The Nazis did blame the economy on a “parasitic” racial minority in order to push corporate agendas.
        The racial scape-goating technique is virtually the same as what the republicans have done. Now, the degree of the consequences are disparate, but the political method is the same.

        • pete18

          You embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge of Republican and Tea Party policies, proposals and politics and you insult the people who actually suffered under Nazi rule with such a glib and partisan comparison.

          It’s clear the Tea Party isn’t dead based on all the fearful, and empty ad hominem
          attacks coming from the libs in response to this victory.

          • Duras

            It’s not ad hominem. It’s history. The movie Schindler’s List alluded to the fact. Schindler, like other businessmen backed the Nazis and permitted the racial scape-goating techniques in order to improve his business interests. That’s why IBM, Mercedes, etc. famously backed the Nazis.
            Now, I’m from the South and when Obama was elected, I say those Stars and Bars flags go down and the Tea Party flags go up.

            Ronald Reagan created this ideological mess when he convinced white southerners that their taxes are going to welfare queens. It’s not hard to understand.

            I’m not calling the Tea Party “Nazis,” but the political method is the same, while the consequences (although both are harmful) are quite disparate.

          • pete18

            It’s clear you also don’t know what fascism is or how to separate facts from left wing propaganda (around 80% of republicans believe Obama was born outside the country ). What are you guys all gonna do if the Republicans win back the senate? There won’t be enough cyanide pills to go around.

          • Duras

            Read Hannah Ardent’s “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” and Robert O. Paxton’s “The Anatomy of Fascism,” and read Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and you will definitely see the same blaming of racial minorities for the problems of the nation because they are “lazy” and “parasitic.”

            Here: I stand corrected on the Birther percentage. This citation says that over 50% of republicans and over 50% of Tea Party (I don’t understand the difference so much) would not say that Obama was born in this country. They either said “he wasn’t born in this country” or “I don’t know,” despite evidence of the short form Birth Certificate and the news paper article. Obama was the first president to release the long form Birth Certificate.

            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-one-in-four-americans-think-obama-was-not-born-in-us/

            I don’t understand how you don’t see this as fascism. It’s a basic claim that he isn’t a pure American based upon name and complexion. Whatever … “Arbeit macht Frei.”

          • Arkuy The Great

            Interestingly, the original source for the the claim of Obama’s foreign birth may well have been…Barack Obama himself. This article claims it was a mistake by his publicist but it persisted in their PR materials from 1991-2007. Surely, the Harvard Law Review President was aware of it during that 16 year period and said nothing, which would be a tacit acknowledgement. Regardless, I suspect that Republicans, “tea baggers” or what-have-you were not in on that conspiracy.
            http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566

          • Duras

            Again, the short form birth certificate and the newspaper article had been released well before the poll I cited.

        • JONBOSTON

          It’s disturbing how unhinged and sick those on the left have become . Truly upsetting and discouraging that comments like yours that 20 years ago would have been laughed off as moron left wing wacko comments increasingly reflect the mindset of Democrat supporters.

          • Duras

            You see, what you have done is an ad hominem. You and Pete have done nothing but ad hominem attacks.

            It is absolutely true that republicans use racial scape-goating techniques. They play upon that old joke I heard growing up in the South: “what’s the best way to starve an n-[word]? …Hide his food stamps under his work boots.” This is the language of painting a parasite race. It is completely untrue: most people on food stamps work and they work for wealthy people who won’t pay them enough to earn a living wage. Nonetheless, the white majority south bit the hook, and that is why we are seeing the white southerner’s desperation manifest in the form of the Tea Party.

            The Tea Party reeks of desperation.
            And it is no wonder that two self-described Tea Party, Neo-Nazis shot police officers in Las Vegas the other day. Republican ideology is not far off from Nazi ideology: both are Social Darwinists and Fascistic.

          • JONBOSTON

            You accuse me of an adhominen attack and then you engage in one by assuming that those you disagree with are guilty of all kinds of anti-social behaviour and motivations. Sorry , but if you don’t want to be called a left wing moron , don’t sound like one.

          • Duras

            I didn’t accuse you personally of that behavior. But I described the Tea Party with evidence.

            Not only did you misread my comment, but the incessant ad hominem attacks suggest that you are trying to convince yourself of something.

          • JONBOSTON

            You obviously can’t read . I never assumed you were attributing anything to me but to the TeaParty. Your association of two Nazi white supremacists in the Las Vegas shooting with the Tea Party is evidence of absolutely nothing other than a demented imagination.

          • Duras

            Ad Hominem means “personal attack,” which implicitly refers to the interlocutor.

            All I did was show the similarity between the rhetorical techniques of the republican party and the Nazis. To which, you have yet to argue against.

            And I didn’t say that the two shooters speak for the general, but I did say, “Republican ideology is not far off from Nazi ideology.” Considering the Social Darwinism, racial scape-goating, and fascism, it truly is not far off. And again, saying that the ideology “is not far off” and saying the political and rhetorical techniques are the same, does not mean that I am saying that the consequences (the violence) are the same. People can share similar ideologies where one group is passive, while the other is violent.

          • JONBOSTON

            The assumptions you’ve made to support your associations and opinions are despicable and totally unhinged. You sound like a left wing idiologue who is probably beyond reason so why engage with your assinine offensive comments . When you make a demented and sick statement that Republican ideology is not far off from Nazi ideology then it’s hopeless to dialogue with someone so unhinged and delusional. Do you realize that nearly half of all voters vote Republican. Are they all expressing ideology compatico with Nazism?

          • Duras

            It is perfectly fine to compare Gilded Age child labor with Stalinist child labor. One was capitalist; the other communist. No one would say that I’m making an ad hominem attack.
            Thus it cannot be an ad hominem attack when I say that China is anti-union, anti-environment, anti-humanities. All of this is true. Just like the political and rhetorical methods used to build party membership are the same as the republicans and the Nazis. I think republicans have a lot of fascist traits.

            But they are not Nazis.

            Hitler ran around blame a racial minority because they were “lazy” and “parasitic.” Go to yahoo news and read the comment section and you will hear the same thing. Didn’t Fox News take down their comment section because of this?

            Whatever is in a human being from another place and time is not alien in any other human being. People are still capable of goose-stepping, hate, violence, bigotry. Sorry, but by and large, republicans don’t love their neighbors let alone their enemies.

          • Arkuy The Great

            That’s right, and here’s a prominent southern Republican of the era of which you speak engaging in such despicable race baiting….What’s that? He was a Democrat!? Do tell! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZ4G251WR4

          • Duras

            George Wallace was a conservative.
            Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican and a liberal.
            Using party names is stupid because the ideology changes over time.

          • Arkuy The Great

            In what universe does a “conservative” call for “generous increases for beneficiaries of Social Security and Medicare” in a campaign? Wallace demanded just that as part of his ’68 Presidential run. Your assertion is a total fabrication. And George “Segregation Forever” Wallace was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat until he died. The “Republicans are racist” slander collapses under the most basic scrutiny. QED.

          • Arkuy The Great

            Your evolution from yesterday to today is fascinating. First you said this:

            “It is absolutely true that republicans use racial scape-goating techniques.”

            Then you said this when confronted with uncomfortable evidence:

            “Using party names is stupid because the ideology changes over time.”

            Goalpoasts on wheels. You shift with the needs of the hour, apparently.

            Oh, and George Wallace’s Presidential platform included sizable increases in benefits from several Great Society programs. That’s not conservative in any universe.

            The Democrats own George Wallace, his “Segregation Forever” and the code-worded dog whistle politics on display in this ad.

          • Human2013

            Please be sure to note one of America’s greatest exports: the science of Eugenics. We certainly helped Hitler gather the science of inherent white superiority. Then Jesse Owens ran on Hitler’s parade.

          • pete18

            The components of fascism as defined by Webster: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

            On a continuum, the policies of the Democratic Party are far closer to being fascist in nature than anything the Tea Party or the Republicans do. I am not calling the democrats fascists but I am pointing out the comparison on a scale, since you want so badly to make this foolish analogy to vilify those you disagree with. Democrats believe in a centralized autocratic government and have policies that try to regiment economic and social activity far more than Republicans do. Obamacare is a perfect example of this because it FORCES people to purchase a
            service whether they want to or not and has dictated what should be in the
            health policies people have to buy.

            The basic foundation of German and Italian fascism in the economic realm was the government running and controlling the economy and businesses but still using a veneer of a capitalist market. They required private owners of property to use their assets for the “national interest” and set market prices and wages politically, rather than letting the market determine them. Does that sound more like democrat or republican policy to you?

            The democrats also slide much closer to fascism on the scale by giving higher value to the rights of groups over the rights of the individual, while the Republicans place much more emphasis on individual rights.

            You’ve misrepresented the figures twice now on the birthers.

            Your 2011 poll, for whatever it’s worth, indicates that 45 % of Republicans and Tea Party supporters thought Obama was born in another
            country. You claimed it was over 50% and this was after your initial false
            assertion of 80%. Making stuff up and
            exaggerating numbers doesn’t give your case, or your motivation too much
            credibility. While believing Obama was born in a foreign country based on
            little evidence might make a case for some Republicans being overly willing to believe bad things about a political opponent (of course this is never true of democrats), to say this is an argument for them being fascists is absolutely ludicrous.

            As to racial scapegoating, can you please tell us what Tea Party policies fit these criteria? You’ve done a lot of mumbling about signs going up in the south and jokes you’ve heard, two outlier Neo Nazis in Vegas (does the politics of the Unabomber mean that most environmentalists are terrorists?) and things that you find desperate, but I haven’t heard anything concrete about what the Tea Party stands for, or wants to initiate as policy that you find racist. Please educate us.

          • red_donn

            Republicans and Tea Party members believe in just as much social control as Democrats. It was the Moral Majority and the culture war groups who really began to focus the government on a host of social issues. There’s a fascinating history of the evolution of that sect, which perverted some well-meaning groups over the decades. It should be noted that the largest study of religion in America happened to have a few political questions on it, and found that 70% of the Tea Party supporters identified as evangelical Christians. Other studies found that most Tea Party supporters had little interest in the current fiscal talking points prior to Obama’s election and so I am not much surprised to find the Tea Party representatives in Congress I have passed practically no libertarian economic reforms, but managed to pass a great many bills focused on abortion and contraception.

            Let us turn to race. Considering that Nixon rebuilt the Republican party on the Southern Strategy and Reagan’s support for various distasteful politicians, we should not give those administrations the benefit of the doubt when they speak disparagingly of “urban attitudes” or hand Nelson Mandela over to the South African government. Those who inherit those attitudes, over time, often do not recognize them as such, but continue with policies of voting restriction and drug testing welfare built on the same platform. Statistically, there’s no reason to implement these policies according to the proposed reasons, but in terms of effects it’s well known who gets focused on.

            The very fact that Obama’s birth came up as an issue, and remains in doubt, is racist enough to need no further comment. Much as Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for presidency came into question when her daughter became pregnant, but Romney’s slew of grandkids did not, the question betrays the attitude.

          • Duras

            Yeah, not only did Reagan support the South African apartheid, but I believe he started his campaign at the city where three civil rights organizers were hijacked while driving at night and murdered in Mississippi.

          • pete18

            “but I believe he started his campaign at the city where three civil rights organizers were hijacked while driving at night and murdered in Mississippi.”

            Just when I thought you couldn’t come up with a more absurd piece of evidence you top yourself.

          • pete18

            One of the democrats favorite lines of attack in trying to accuse Republicans of being racists is the “Southern Strategy” but it is mostly a myth. Here are two great articles for you to read on this topic. One gives the breakdown on the voting numbers in the south (the shift to republican votes started happening well before 1964):

            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/30/southern_whites_shift_to_the_gop_predates_the_60s_118172.html

            The other addresses the bias Democrats use in the assumption of the southern strategy as compared to how they breakdown democrat voting patterns, as well as their dishonesty in how they apply their assertion of “coded language” used by republicans to win white voters. The same technique is used often by liberals here when discussing Republican beliefs and policies:

            “The problem comes when we try to extend this forward. Black and Black try to do this by showing that Nixon and Reagan crafted positions on busing, affirmative action, and welfare reform in a political climate in which many white voters doubted the virtues of preferential hiring, valued individual responsibility, and opposed busing as intrusive. To be condemned as racist “code,” the GOP’s positions would have to come across as proxies for these views -and in turn these views would have to be racist. The problem is that these views are not self-evidently racist. Many scholars simply treat them as if they were. Adding insult to injury, usually they don’t even pause to identify when views like opposition to affirmative action would not be racist. In effect, these critics want to have it both ways: they acknowledge that these views could in principle be non-racist (otherwise they wouldn’t be a “code” for racism) but suggest they never are in practice (and so can be reliably treated as proxies for racism).

            The result is that their claims are non-falsifiable because they are tautological: these views are deemed racist because they are defined as racist. This amounts to saying that opposition to the policies favored by today’s civil rights establishment is a valid indicator of racism. One suspects these theorists would, quite correctly, insist that people can disagree with the Israeli government without being in any way anti-Semitic. But they do not extend the same distinction to this issue. This is partisanship posturing as social science.”

            http://www.claremont.org/index.php?act=crbArticle&id=1073#.U5rQPJRdVM4

            “The very fact that Obama’s birth came up as an issue, and remains in doubt, is racist enough to need no further comment. ”

            And why is that? Outside of the fact of you saying it is so and that it is an often used liberal meme, please explain the connection between that reality and that assumption.

          • red_donn

            I shall take your points in reverse order, if I may.

            I laid out all the simple analysis of the Birther movement which it requires. So long as the man running for president was white, with a comfortable sounding name, there was no call for proof of citizenship. However, when a black man with a foreign-sounding name took to the campaign trail, demands for proof of citizenship rolled out.

            What could be the possible rationale behind questioning the citizenship of a US Senator? Should the same have been asked of Harry Reid, even the ideological opponents of the senator would have blinked in confusion, “But of course he’s a citizen – let’s not be silly.”

            Yet it happened, continues to happen, this one time.

            In a controlled experiment, if you change just one variable, you attribute the change in the result to that variable change, placing probability of certainty in accord with evidence. If this reasoning, to you, is mere unsubstantiated assertion, then I shall advise you to disregard the rest of my post, save for those quotations I garnered from your sources.

            It seems to me that you raised in your comment the argument that the Southern Strategy itself existed is a myth.

            What could be the possible rationale behind questioning the citizenship of a US Senator? Should the same have been asked of Harry Reid, even the ideological opponents of the senator would have blinked in confusion, “But of course he’s a citizen – let’s not be silly.”

            Yet it happened, continues to happen, this one time.

            In a controlled experiment, if you change just one variable, you attribute the change in the result to that variable change, placing probability of certainty in accord with evidence. If this reasoning, to you, is mere unsubstantiated assertion, then I shall advise you to disregard the rest of my post, save for those quotations I garnered from your sources.

            It seems to me that you raised in your comment the argument that the Southern Strategy itself existed is a myth.

            From your own link at RealClearPolitics:

            “[T]here’s no doubt, at least in my mind, that GOP candidates used racialized appeals to try to win over Southern whites. None of those debates are impacted by the observations above.”

            The analysis provided by that article does not deny the tactics of the Southern Strategy, but only that it was a massive reversal of all previous voting tends. Indeed, I find this to be a very solid and common sense, demonstrating the economic trends that were shifting votes prior to overt racialization. If the argument is that race isn’t the only factor in elections….well, that’s hardly a stirring defense.

            Now, from the Claremont link:

            “Now to be sure, the GOP had a Southern strategy. Willing to work with, rather than against, the grain of Southern opinion, local Republicans ran some segregationist candidates in the 1960s. And from the 1950s on, virtually all national and local GOP candidates tried to craft policies and messages that could compete for the votes of some pretty unsavory characters. This record is incontestable”

            I find it most unconvincing when an argument is put forward that – “Well, really, what *can* you prove? Isn’t it possible that maybe it’s a coincidence that policies and wedge issues just happen to repeatedly focus negative attention on minorities?”

            Let’s put this to a test. Reagan had the Sullivan principles, so do we say his support for the apartheid regime in South Africa, even as they imposed martial law and declared there would never be democracy for blacks, had nothing to do with race? A ridiculous notion. Imagine if a small population of blacks had been oppressing a white majority under the same circumstances, and picture Reagan rushing to their defense.

            I might continue to look at the principles themselves that undergird these policies. Think you that the gradual infirmity that has overtaken Southern (or national, for that matter) economic populism just happened to occur in accord with racialization and nationalism? We are not so charitable given a historical perspective of, say, the southern Redeemer period.

            Nominally voting restrictions, criminalizing unemployment, and other measures *might* not have been racist because they affected whites, but we feel no need to be so charitable in the historical perspective. Indeed, the oppression of poor whites was much to the advantage of certain societal elements, who were the ones putting round the most incendiary racial rhetoric and propaganada in order to secure support for “potentially non-racist” postions.

          • pete18

            “I laid out all the simple analysis of the Birther movement which it requires. So long as the man running for president was white, with a
            comfortable sounding name, there was no call for proof of citizenship. However, when a black man with a foreign-sounding name took to the campaign trail, demands for proof of citizenship rolled out.”

            Actually, the citizenship of many past
            white candidates with conventional sounding last names has been questioned, including the likes of John McCain, George Romney and Barry Goldwater.

            “What could be the possible rationale behind questioning the citizenship of a US Senator? Should the same have been asked of Harry Reid, even the ideological opponents of the senator would have blinked in confusion,
            “But of course he’s a citizen – let’s not be silly.””

            I guess you would have to ask those “racist” supporters of Democratic Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton, because that’s where the
            initial accusation of Obama not being born in the US comes from.

            http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53563.html

            This wasn’t a matter of Republicans asking one set of questions
            about Obama that were different from the ones they were asking of other white candidates, it was Republicans responding to accusations that were initially made by Democrat supporters of Hillary Clinton. Although one can never rule out race as a reason for some Republicans
            believing those accusations, to consider it to be the only, or even the most likely reason is the flaw in your syllogism.

            In politics, people naturally are more ready to believe the worst about their opponents because they are invested in the goodness of their
            own candidate and the defeat of the other side. This is as true of democrats as it is republicans, note the 2006 poll listed in article I linked to above, which found that over 50% of democrats “suspected the Bush
            Administration of complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks”. This is an even more absurd and unlikely
            accusation than a candidate being born in a foreign country and had no evidence to support it. When Vince Foster was found dead in a DC park during the Clinton administration there were a large number of Republicans willing to believe that
            the Clintons, (white politicians) had somehow murdered him, even though it was a crazy accusation and the evidence clearly showed that he had committed suicide.

            Couple this with the fact that in the
            2012 primary, Herman Cain, until the accusations of an affair pulled him out of the race, was leading the polls among Republicans with his highest support coming from Tea Party supporters, who gave him a 69 to 5 percent favorable to unfavorable score, and it is hard to find race as the primary reason for Republicans
            and Tea Partiers disliking and mistrusting Obama. I would suggest that his politics are the more likely suspect.

            http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44881446/ns/politics-decision_2012/#.U5x-a6ieylh

            “It seems to me that you raised in your comment the argument that the Southern Strategy itself existed is a myth.”

            I said it was “mostly a myth” in acknowledgement that there
            certainly were, as the article I posted points out, and you added to your response, an attempt by “virtually all national and local GOP candidates—to craft policies and messages that could compete for the votes of some pretty unsavory characters,” but as the article also mentions, “This record is incontestable. It is also not much of a story—that a party acted expediently in an often nasty
            political context.

            What is a myth is that the trend of white southern voters toward
            Republicans was something new based on the racial factors of the late 50s and early 60s, and that the policies of the modern Republican Party was engendered from that particular period and are inherently racist.

            “And election results show that the GOP became the South’s dominant party in the least racist phase of the region’s history, and got—and
            stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity.”

            While you see that as, “hardly a stirring defense,” I would
            say the reverse is true, It’s hardly a stirring indictment.” While there may be racists who are attracted to the economic and social policies of the
            Republicans, that does not make the policies themselves racist nor the
            Republican party as a whole.

            By definition, affirmative action is a “racist” policy because it gives favor to one group and punishes another based exclusively on race. I’m
            sure that there a fair amount of people who support this policy, who feel hostile and vengeful towards white people, but I wouldn’t define the intent of the policy to be racist or that the majority of people who support it to be so. Why are the assumed “coded” polices of the Republicans considered racist by so
            many liberals, yet the policies that openly treat people differently on the
            basis of race are not?

            The one advantage I think I have in this conversation is that I used to be a democrat, so I understand the motivations behind the support of
            their policies and I know they are, for the most part, well intentioned. Over
            time, I slowly came to new positions and I know that they are not only well
            motivated ones but are arrived at with lots of initial skepticism, rather than blind parroting or family tradition. I assume this to be true of most other conservatives unless there is clear evidence that shows otherwise.

            The charge of racism is a serious one, and shouldn’t be levied
            without a lot of clear and substantial evidence. The left seems to make this charge frequently and flippantly, often in the place of argument. I think they do this partially out of habit and emotion but mostly, I think, out of not having a clear understanding of conservatism, making it easier for them to broad brush and categorize it as “the other,” which they can then easily vilify, the thing that they are always accusing republicans of doing to minorities.

          • red_donn

            I don’t hold that the entirety of Republican policies are based on the race motive – far from it.

            The charge of racism, from some, is of a particularly serious nature, be it latent or otherwise. Those who believe “coded language” is always just that, and understood by all who support certain to ideas to be specifically racially targeted, are working from a simplified position. There’s nothing inherently racist about Milton Friedman’s economic positions, it merely relies on a few critical false assumptions.

            However, the basis of most racism, cultural racism rather than genetic so to speak, often comes from sets of assumptions, forming an in and out group. We’re a xenophobic species, prone to paranoia and fits of violence – those cultures without these traits typically had the misfortune to encounter those that did, leaving us only with the latter. This has been usefully exploited over the course of history, since it is our nature to identify positively with the “in” group and be wary of the “out” group.

            “And election results show that the GOP became the South’s dominant party in the least racist phase of the region’s history, and got—and

            stays—that way as the party of the upwardly mobile, more socially conservative, openly patriotic middle-class, not of white solidarity.”

            After posting my comment, I wondered if I had given sufficient consideration to this very line of the article. These regions formed the basis of the populist Southern politics that I discussed, but now have taken up many of the ideologies that they previously thought to run counter to their own economic interests. I hesitate to bring up “What’s the Matter with Kansas” without reading more of the actual social statistics involved, but I believe that the dissolution of Southern populism required a culture issue, or issues, at bottom.It is my belief, when comparing trends, that this is in line with two major political developments in American history

            Anti-slavery movements in pre-colonial America, the populist supporters of William Jennings Bryan and Huey Long, it was their societal ancestors who took the longest to be won over as supporters of current Republicans. As in the past, it required a social issue to divorce them from what they perceived as their economic interest.

            The historical parallels are present in the two previous incidents. In pre-colonial America, poor southern whites were turning strongly against slavery, identifying less with the masters than the slaves, until laws were passed differentiating whites from blacks and creating a very small middle class. This gained sufficient social and economic buy-in to quash much of the rising anti-slavery movement, since whites now identified themselves as better than blacks and had a chance, however slim, to move up in society.

            The laws of the Redeemer period were less overt than those explicitly delineating blacks alone to be fit for slavery. At this period, the disenfranchisment of the poor affected as many whites, mostly populists, as blacks; both to the benefit of the former aristocracy. That could only be achieved by focusing on the “out” group, the minority, both in rhetoric and the policy of criminalizing unemployment, which essentially reinstituted slavery in the South.

            Why do Republicans keep searching for statistically insignificant, practically nonexistent, voter fraud? It’s a holdover from the exact same sentiments of the Redeemers and the “states rights” crowd of the Civil Rights era, nothing more. Theoretically, one can argue it’s a general concern, but the history of the “concern,” its present state, and the effects of such measures are readily available to those who look for them – I’m not so charitable as to then claim the movement is without significant racism.

            **The rural South took a long time to shift to Republicans because it entailed a shift in their fundamental political-economic positions.** This was accomplished by stressing pride in their culture, the real hard-working Americans as opposed to greedy socialists, lazy liberal students, and the “inner city voters.”

            The “upwardly mobile” line is somewhat telling. As opposed to what? The Democrats support many, indeed most, of the same neoliberal policies as Republicans, sharing an economic ideology at bottom. However, there are a few real economic differences when we get down to social welfare programs, and these have been targeted with a great deal of racial imagery, particularly surrounding the “entitlement culture.” ** It is by no means necessary to be racist to hold more closely to Republican positions than Democratic ones (insofar as they exist) but racism has been part of the packaging used to sell these ideas to poor whites who themselves partake of these programs. **

            Why do we hear of small, predominantly white towns as “real America” and the demonizing of, as I said, “urban welfare queens?” The poor of Appalachia and the deep South have far more in common, economically, with the euphemistic “inner city population” but are widely for all sorts of talk about “entitlement culture” displayed by a certain subset of largely Democratic voters. Enormously wasteful drug testing on welfare recipients was not imposed by whites interested in catching trailer meth addicts, any more than voter restrictions were based off serious statistical concerns. We all know which group is the butt of most jokes about food stamps and welfare checks, don’t we?

            **Again, it is not necessary to justify these positions via any sort of racial indictment, yet it occurs, in no small part because that is how these attitudes have repeatedly been established.**

            Frankly, I’d be happy to see a lot less federal involvement in the areas that don’t want it. Let them opt out, no longer paying as much tax nor receiving so much aid. California would stop subsidizing Alabama and I expect we’d see a resurgence of southern populism within twenty years. Let neoliberal positions stand or fall on their own merits, and my respect will go to those who argue well for them.

            I suspect you yourself are among those who would demand my respect in debate.

            Frankly, I’d be happy to see a lot less federal involvement in the areas that don’t want it. Let them opt out, no longer paying as much tax nor receiving so much aid. California would stop subsidizing Alabama and I expect we’d see a resurgence of southern populism within twenty years. Let neoliberal positions stand or fall on their own merits, and my respect will go to those who argue well for them.

            I suspect you yourself are among those who would demand my respect in debate.

          • pete18

            Thanks for the thoughtful and lengthy response. When I have a little more time
            I’ll follow up with a few more thoughts.

          • red_donn

            I look forward to it!

            My general position is that social minority groups (racial or otherwise) are often used as a method to divorce the public from reason, and instead to act on, or more accurately against, another group’s stereotypes. It has been the case that, in certain parts of America, race has been a, if not the, primary divider, perhaps now surpassed by the “culture war.”

            I should admit to my failure to properly address similar tactics used by Democrats and their historical predecessors, for who the fear of Catholics, first Irish and then Italian, was a big weapon in the North for a long time. Political control of the economy is often enforced by painting capital interests very vaguely with a broad brush, which serves only the politico-industrial complex rather than actually empowering workers, etc. I’m afraid my attempt to lay down the general case underlying my assertion of the use of race made me a little haphazard in responding to some of your other good points.

          • red_donn

            It may be said that I, for my part, have an advantage in this conversation as well. My tendency was, for much of my young life, close to certain Republican arguments. I took for granted, as many well-to-do whites have, certain priviliges that I grew up with, and never thought to ask if they truly applied to others. It is this assumption of certain priviliges or a belief that the system works a certain way (particularly without much discrimination or economic exploitation) are key to many conservative positions that are, likewise, well-intentioned.

          • Duras

            First off, fascism exists outside of governments! It is an ideology, not a form of government.

            Second, liberals don’t believe in centralized government; in fact, since Reagan, the number of House representatives have decreased even though population increased. Not to mention, John Locke, the Father of Liberalism, influence the separation of powers doctrine.

            Also, “centralized government” is a misnomer; “centralized power” is the real threat. And with the elimination of campaign finance laws and the merger of monopolies and government, republicans have successfully destroyed market competition and centralized power in the hands of macro-economic elites while promoting human competition; i.e., Social Darwinism!
            Third, I gave a citation for the “over 50%” number.

            Fourth, the right wing fascism (and the Nazis were certainly right wing) promote flag-waving patriotism and the predominance of one religion over another. Real patriotism is descent. And God knows how the republican voters go wild when someone isn’t wearing his or her flag pin. (See Hitler’s chapter on flags.)
            Nonetheless, republicans don’t drive around with bumper stickers that say, “Embrace Ethnic Differences,” or “One Human Family.” Those kinds of logics are the antithesis of fascistic thinking.

            The merger of corporations and government is the hallmark of fascist countries: you can see that in 1930s Germany and Italy. In fact, Hitler hated Marx. In rages against Marx in his Mein Kamph.

            Just read a book or two instead of pulling a dictionary definition on a term that names something as complex as ideology.

            Moreover, I don’t deny terrorism doesn’t happen in all realms of ideological thinking. There are ecoterrorists. However, fascism comes from right wing ideology. And that is my point, and the republicans are becoming increasingly desperate and more fascist.

          • pete18

            That’s a riot, Republicans don’t drive around with bumper stickers that say “Embrace Ethnic Diversity” therefore they are fascists. That is the epitome of the liberal mindset.

            Sorry, nationalism and flag waving doesn’t equal fascism.

            I guess you didn’t read your own citations:

            “Among all Republicans, 45 percent believe he was born in another country, as do 45 percent of Tea Party supporters, the poll shows.”

            I’d be happy to match my world history reading list with anybody.

            A whole lot of tap dancing but still no
            citation of racist Tea Party ideas, proposals or philosophy.

          • Duras

            The age of nationalism was from 1850 to 1950. Promotion of a more exceptional people over another people is to forget we are all biologically the same.

            Read the chapter in Mein Kampf about flags and nationalism. This is why we read Mein Kampf: so we can identify fascism when it comes around again. And there is certainly an articulation of the “Negro Problem” coming from the political right (Tea Party and Republicans if there’s a difference). I’m not a moron. I grew up and still live in the South. I hear it all the time: “I worked hard and don’t want my money going to black people on the North Side.” Republicans voters decode the coded racial scape-goating rhetoric of republican politicians all the time. In fact, if you look up speeches from conservatives from the 1960s, the rhetoric is the same except they have dropped the words “black, negro, and colored” from the same sentences you hear today.

        • Government_Banking_Serf

          The Socialist Roots of Nazism.

          I’ll take the reflections of a Nobel Laureate who lived there over an Internet hack for the Democratic party.

          http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html

          • red_donn

            With respect to Hayek, one cannot end the analysis of Nazi roots at 1918.

            Certainly it is no secret that Germany was, at one point, considered the most likely source of serious socialism. Marx held to the belief that they, as the most technologically and economically advanced country, would be the first to move onwards, as did early Lenin and Trotsky. However, it is only Hayek’s assumption that Hitler rose out of this rather than against it.

            I refer to “Imagining Hitler” by Christopher Hitchens, as a quick summary of forces surrounding the Fuehrer that one must understand. Hitler was the creation of a select number of elite power brokers, only a handful of whom understood, at the very end, what they were unleashing. 1917 Munich, the association of Jews and unions, and resentment of the Kaiser for WWI were all matters they wished to halt and bring to heel. They were no friends to the socialists, communists, and unions – who were immediately shattered by Hitler.

            Note, with some care, that the “British aristocrats” who were critiqued by the cited Germans went on to support Hitler up until the war began. Further, consider that he was held by the capital powers as a bulwark against Stalin. Surely, Hayek’s narrative must account for this alliance!

            It seems to me, that the bulk of Hayek’s arguments, and those of many others, arise from the sheer looseness of the term “socialism.” Anything that calls itself socialism is treated as such, particularly if there is a tyrannical government behind it. In these selfsame arguments, wherein socialism generally means nothing more than “statism,” capitalism is defined by “free markets and private property rights.” Milton Friedman considered capitalism to be synonymous with “liberty” and to be the absolute absence of exploitation. With respect, I consider this to be an absolutely useless collection of terminology

          • ExcellentNews

            Yes, Nazism IS based on socialism. In fact, far right and far left are very similar in their tactics, disregard for rationality and data, and oligarchic form of government.

            Of course, your point is that Obama is a “socialist” and the Democratic party is a “socialist”. Which is certainly NOT the case today, and has never really been the case in the past. Obama is a SOCIAL DEMOCRAT – a political philosophy based on rational humanism, free enterprise, economic equality, and effective governance. Social democracy is not a theory, but a proven policy that brought prosperity to the US in the last half of the 20th century, and was successfully copied by Western Europe and few Asian countries.

          • Duras

            First off, this has nothing to do with the fact that they used the same rhetorical and political techniques as the current republican party. Second, socialism is not an ideological end game–conservatives exist in socialism and communism and push for the same anti-union, pro-”business” strategies. Putin is a great example of how communists and capitalists conservatives are the exact same people.

      • Government_Banking_Serf

        Exactly. Folks like tbphkm33 believe in the benevolent dictator fallacy, and wish they could be it. They resent self government, and the central position of liberty in the American experiment.

        While everybody knows the GOP has scrambled from the birth of the Tea Party movement (formed during GW Bush era in response largely to the shocking lawless behavior of Paulson, Bankers, Fed etc to engineer bailouts to save the elite) to co-opt their message for votes, while of course the GOP never would follow through, the fact that so many do not believe there is a grass roots Tea Party and that its all a ruse, is disturbing and depressing. As is the fact that so many status quo apologists would line up to defend Washington hacks over a large segment of the rightfully outraged general populace.

        Just because some Tea Party folks may be more socially conservative than other establishment skeptics might like, to discount and denigrate them is shortsighted and shameful.

        The acceptance of the status quo that comes with defending the DNC or RNC as good partisan soldiers, is helping to solidify the destruction of this country, and our position as effective Serfs under a corrupt Government/Banking Cabal.

      • ExcellentNews

        Actually, it’s the rhetoric from candidates supported by the Tea Party that motivates comments from mainstream Americans.

        Free enterprise??? LOL… funded by the billionaire oligarchy. Free enterprise for billionaires by billionaires. The rest of peons need not apply…

        Fiscal responsibility??? These are the folks clamoring for war with Iran to protect Israel, and another cold war with Russia. Incidentally, what is the Tea Party proposing to do with the tens of millions of US workers whose jobs have been offshored by “Free Enterprise”? Gas chambers? Internet marketing jobs?

        Constitutional Liberties??? That does not belong in the same sentence as “Faith in God”. Especially when your faith in God is a particular brand of Southern Baptism that denies science and individual freedom.

        • JONBOSTON

          I pity you. You sound like a total loser. Just so you know, I live in the Boston area and am not a Southern Baptist or Christian.

    • 228929292AABBB

      Say what you will they’re the only ones putting a dent in the otherwise impermeable bond between money and politics. You don’t like conservatives? How’s your President doing on holding Wall Street accountable? What’s the Occupy movement done except render a few parks unsanitary? I don’t think the Taliban and Nazis have any relevance here but if they did you’d be wise to remember it’s not Republicans handing out Taliban at a 5 to 1 ratio.

      • northeaster17

        Where has the teaparty tried to hold Wall St accountable? Also are you saying that one American solider is not as good as five Taliban?

        • 228929292AABBB

          1) by throwing the politicians Wall Street supports out of office and 2) I’m not going to discuss the relative value of each of God’s creatures. I have been an American soldier, so please forego your lecture to me about our worth.

      • disqus_TIClM2voqP

        What dent has the Tea Party made in the bond between $ and politics? They’ve blocked any reform and are completely funded and owned by the Koch Brothers. This idea that they’re a grass roots organization pushing for freedom is a load of baloney. Brat winning is the tea party monster out of control and attacking their masters. You reap what you sow republicans.

      • TFRX

        Americans for Prosperity and a thousand other astroturf groups would beg to differ. That is, if it weren’t so successful in getting you to think what they want you to think.

        • ExcellentNews

          Americans for Prosperity is to grassroots groups what astroturf is to real grass….

    • Human2013

      Can I get the t-shirt.

  • 1Brett1

    Virginia’s politics have always been a bit wacky…with pendulum swings going from left to right, back to the left and back to the right again, all the time. Also, Cantor’s district is pretty fickle. I don’t see it as any real sign of a Tea Party resurgence, although pockets of Tea Partiers do seem to well up from primary to primary, election to election, in various places around the Old Dominion. One thing is for sure, the Republican Party is divided and they generally keep tracking to the right (which won’t serve them well in national elections).

  • 228929292AABBB

    I find the Tea Party abhorrent in several ways, but still I celebrate this. There is essentially no difference between the Democrat and Republican establishment, the average person has largely given up on government, and this is the only group which is having an effect. They want to elect witches? Go ahead, I’m ready to be ruled by witches. It couldn’t be any worse.

    • JGC

      The frustration is well communicated, but Tea Party candidates are only promoting Judao-Christian ethics: no Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists , Warlocks or Wiccans, etc. need apply.

      • ExcellentNews

        Ahem … Muslims DO follow “Judeo-Christian ethics”. In fact, fundamentalist Islamic countries in the middle east are the closest thing you get to a Biblical government and Biblical law today.
        Theologically, Islam is based on the OId and New Testaments, and recognizes all the prophets and messiahs from Judaism and Christianity.

  • twenty_niner

    Hillary’s latest “potatoe” moment:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEUCdRqxfo

    Hopefully, she brushes up before the campaign.

    • harverdphd

      Does anyone really believe Hillary is that intelligent?

  • Steve Ford

    on the redistrecting. just draw a line from the dome of the state house north and go clockwise around till you have enough for the first distrect so forth and so on its fair and impartial.

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    Bailouts were the #1 Anti-accountability move by the establishment. Tea Partiers came out after that happened. In that regard, they have been the most in front in demanding Wall St. accountability.

    But we were too squeamish for real accountability, and real free market feedback. We had to continue the lack of Rule of Law and the crony capitalism, per usual.

    • disqus_TIClM2voqP

      How come the Tea Party doesn’t work with Elizabeth Warren then? Also, how come the Teabaggers are against the CFPB > Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

      • Government_Banking_Serf

        Because the government is corrupt and inept, and ham-handed regulation and central management will create more long term problems than it solves ( see the VA).

        If you were asking about straight up prosecution of Wall St charlatans, and voting out the political bums who allow them to act lawlessly (Glass Steagal repeal and loopholes), that would be another story.

        But trusting the Democrat establishment to put a dent in our rigged market, crony-capitalist system, that is not free market, that is not based on equally applied, predictable Rule of law, but instead acts via corruptible discretion, winks and nods, is as foolish as trust the establishment Republicans with it.

        Charming rhetoric and good intentions do not trump the historical track record.

        • disqus_TIClM2voqP

          Couldn’t the same thing be said about the Tea Party? That charming rhetoric and good intentions do not trump the historical track record?
          I agree with a lot of what you say in terms of Glass Steagal and corruption of government. Where I disagree is that we’ve had ham handed regulation or overly centralized management that has caused our current problems. I think maybe you contradict yourself when you cite the repeal of Glass Steagal but blame over regulation for our problems. To me that regulation helped prevented a banking system crash for 70 years. I think over regulation is bad but if anything we have too lax regulation. That’s what has led to the mess were in. And the real scandal with the VA is that the healthcare system for most everyone else is worse than the VA. Wait times are longer and care is substandard compared to the VA. In many ways the VA is the best system we have. I fault the repubs from blocking funding and then attacking the president for the problems as well as their management of the wars that created so many Vets in the 1st place. But maybe that’s where we get back to the same page in terms of corrupt government and Wall Street profiting from the war.

        • Zack Smith

          This ^

      • OnPointComments

        The CFPB is an excellent example of an unaccountable government agency. Neither the agency nor its budget are accountable to the Congress or the President. The CFPB has embarked on a data gathering operation on American citizens that rivals the NSA. The CFPB has signed on to the DOJ’s fallacious theory of “disparate impact,” which says that a company is guilty until proven innocent if its percentages don’t meet CFPB standards. The CFPB is in the midst of renovating its headquarters at a cost of $55 million dollars — no, wait, they’ve increased it to $95 million dollars — no, wait, they’ve increased it to $185 million dollars. CFPB director Richard Cordray says he doesn’t know what the square footage is — after all its only $55, no, $95, no $185 million of taxpayer money. The headquarters was described in a Senate hearing this week as “opulent.”

        CFPB is unaccountable from its illegally-appointed director to its lowest employee. In March, the CFPB announced that it would no longer perform employee evaluations because the right number of certain employees didn’t get the right number of good evaluations. Disparate impact in action. “A current CFPB employee who, speaking on a condition of anonymity, commented that the ‘level of hypocrisy’ at the CFPB was ‘shocking,’ and observed that if the CFPB was a lender with similar statistics, ‘it would be written up, immediately referred to the Justice Department, sued and publicly shamed.’”

        I hope one of the first things the next president does is rid us of this corrupt unaccountable agency.

        • disqus_TIClM2voqP

          You’re swallowing a lot of misinformation by the forces that want to be able to loot our economy like the good old days from 2001-2008. You’re worried about a $185 million building while that’s pocket change to the people who want to crush this agency . They ramp up their propaganda/lies about the CFPB and you swallow them hook, line, and sinker.

          • OnPointComments

            I watched the hearing this week on C-Span. Did you?

          • disqus_TIClM2voqP

            I don’t watch propaganda. Think about it. They have you all hot and bothered over a cost of a building to distract you from their desired lawlessness. You’re all bogged down in untruths about the CFPB’s accountability when what they desire is to steal with no cop on the beat so they cannot be held accountable for their stealing. They have you worried about pennies as a diversion to steal trillions.

          • OnPointComments

            How much stealing has the CFPB saved us from so far?

          • disqus_TIClM2voqP

            1. Mortgage lenders can no longer push you into a high-priced loan: Until recently, lenders were allowed to direct borrowers toward high-interest loans, which are more profitable for lenders, even if they qualified for a lower-cost mortgage—a practice that helped lead to the financial crisis. In early 2013, the CFPB issued a rule that effectively ends this conflict of interest.

            2. New homeowners are less likely to be hit by foreclosure: In the lead-up to the financial crisis, lenders also sold Americans “no doc” mortgages that didn’t require borrowers to provide proof of income, assets, or employment. Last May, the bureau clamped down on this type of irresponsible lending, forcing mortgage lenders to verify borrowers’ ability to repay.

            3. If you are are delinquent on your mortgage payments, loan servicers have to try harder to help you avoid foreclosure: During the housing crisis, loan servicers—companies that collect payments from borrowers—were permitted to simultaneously offer a delinquent borrower options to avoid foreclosure while moving to complete that foreclosure. New CFPB rules force servicers to make a good faith effort to keep you out of foreclosure. That’s not all: Loan servicers will now face civil penalties if they don’t provide live customer service, maintain accurate mortgage records, and promptly inform borrowers whose loan modification applications are incomplete.

            4. Millions of Americans get a low-cost home loan counselor: In Jan 2013, the CFPB required the vast majority of mortgage lenders to provide applicants with a list of free or low-cost housing counselors who can inform borrowers if they’re being ripped off.

            5. Borrowers with high-cost mortgages get an outside eye: Lenders who sell mortgages with high interest rates are now required to have an outside appraiser determine the worth of the house for the borrower. If a borrower is going to be paying sky-high prices for a fixer-upper, at least she’ll know it beforehand.

            6. Fly-by-night financial players will be held accountable: Part of the CFPB’s mandate is to oversee debt collectors, payday lenders, and other under-regulated financial institutions that profit off low-income Americans. The bureau is preparing new restrictions on debt collectors, and considering new regs on payday loan industry. In the meantime, the bureau is cracking down on bad actors individually.

            7. Folks scammed by credit card companies get refunds: In October 2012, the CFPB ordered three American Express subsidiaries to pay 250,000 customers $85 million for illegal practices including misleading credit card offerings, age discrimination, and excessive late fees. This past September, the CFPB ordered JPMorgan Chase to refund $309 million to more than 2.1 million Americans for charging them for identity theft and fraud monitoring services they didn’t ask for.

            8. Student lenders face scrutiny: The CFPB oversees private student loan servicing at big banks to ensure compliance with fair lending laws. In December, the agency announced that it will also start supervising non-bank student loan servicers, which are companies that manage borrowers’ accounts. Many of these servicers have been accused of levying unfair penalty fees and making it hard for borrowers to negotiate an affordable repayment plan.

            9. Service members get extra protection: In June, the CFPB ordered US Bank and its non-bank partner Dealers’ Financial Services to refund $6.5 million to service members for failing to disclose fees associated with a military auto loan program. In November, the CFPB ordered the payday lender Cash America to pay up to $14 million for illegally overcharging members of the military.

            10. Consumers get a help center: If your bank or lender does anything you think is unfair, the bureau has a division dedicated to fielding consumer complaints. The agency promises to work with companies to try to fix consumers’ problems.

          • TFRX

            I don’t know that swallow is the tierm. This one isn’t being fooled by his side.

            He’s not an innocent carrier, but a Typhoid Mary of disinformation..

          • disqus_TIClM2voqP

            That is a really good point. Typhoid Tea Party of ignorance dressed up as patriotism.

    • HonestDebate1

      I won’t really quibble with your conclusion but I think the Tea Party movement started under Bush, mainly because of his spending but also because of his immigration policy. TARP certainly was a turning point but even there I think some thought it was prudent. Bush laid the groundwork for the GM fiasco too. Then Obama came along with the “stimulus”, Obamacare and a gazillion regulations, The Tea Partiers were energized for 2010.

      I agree with you about our squeamish nature. I was a little too squeamish during TARP to not support it but it may have been better to go ahead and crash then be done. The market is so artificially influenced by QE, it’s encores, bailouts, Obamacare deadlines delayed and world events, no one has confidence in squat. We need a big fat correction.

    • ExcellentNews

      Ahem … the bailouts were the parting gift of Bush to the business elites that bankrolled him. They were also the result of 20 years of conservative economic policies.

      The Tea Party was bankrolled by the oligarchy as soon as it became apparent that their traditional Republican shills had lost credibility with most Americans. And the oligarchy really has only one goal in mind – repeal the inheritance tax, which prevents the establishment of a permanent aristocracy in the US.

  • HonestDebate1

    How come there never seems to be any navel gazing from the left wondering how to reach out to Republicans? The Tea Partiers are Americans, listen.

    • jefe68

      Because most of them seem pretty intolerant and are not interested in compromising on how to tie their shoes, let alone anything to do with governing.

      • HonestDebate1

        There were no OP shows, post the 2010 midterm shellacking, asking where democrats went wrong. It was a thumping. It’s always about the Republicans need to pander. Why?

    • Mike_Card

      You already know, you dog!–But I’ll point it out for those who don’t.
      The purposes of parties are to form groups of like-minded thinkers (or supposers…). The purpose of politics is to find common ground. The T-party refuses to accept any view that isn’t theirs.

      • HonestDebate1

        What does the left accept?

        • Mike_Card

          I don’t think I’m the Left, but it seems to me the L
          eft is willing to admit there aren’t enough of them to get things done, so they compromise. The T-party insists on their way or the hiway. The Left never got anything by steam-rolling; they’ve always had to compromise.

          • HonestDebate1

            Obamacare was steamrolled, no compromise.

    • TFRX

      That’s funny-haha.

      I mean, if you’re not being serious. Then it’s just being funny-strange.

      • HonestDebate1

        Really TFRX, don’t you see the arrogance in your position?

      • jefe68

        He’s a real kidder that one.

    • jimino

      I have ALWAYS been for giving them what they want. Let’s start with Mississippi, staunchly tea party, by cutting them off from the federal teat they have always lived on.

      See, we are all about reaching out. To those who do not advance moronic positions.

    • ExcellentNews

      Exactly what must normal Americans do in order to reach out to the right wing? Propose to hold public hangings of evolutionary biologists at Budweiser Stadium? Invade Sweden? I’m pretty sure even those would be turned down as not “conservative” enough…

  • S Mack Mangion

    I would have liked some discussion about the D that will run in November. The D’s are hardly a monolith when it come to policy issues. What are his positions on the issues?
    And for that matter did not the R state his issues; and won?

  • Mike

    Unpacking? Everything is “unpacking” now. The misogyny show two weeks ago used the word “unpacking”. in the show title.

  • AngelicaUNC1

    Tom– You completely missed the reasons that Brat won. He advocated for the American worker and the resultant wage devastation caused by ILLEGAL immigration! Brat properly pointed out that both the left and the right have acted in concert to sell out the best interests of American workers and the long-term best interests of the United States, with the establishment Republicans being bought by the US Chamber of Commerce and the Democrats embracing the lawbreakers over the blue collar and middle wage workers. 20% of African American men voted for Romney because they properly understand that they are being harmed when the Democrats that they previously supported side with ILLEGALS. Americans, including this life-long registered Democrat, are WAKING UP!

    • FrankensteinDragon

      Do you really think you need to yell–”illegals”! How do you know they’re all illegal–or is it just you just dont like the color of their skin. Have some compassion. Many of these immigrants are children escaping war and violence brought on by your free trade policies and corrupt interference of your gods the kochs and his fowl ilk.

      you are right about one thing–dems and repugnant-thugs are fowl nasty and illegitimate. They are big part of the problem. But compassion is needed here, not hatred and racism and white power.

      • AngelicaUNC1

        How do I “know they’re all illegal”???– Because I am ONLY talking about those who are!!! Get it???!!!??? I am making the distinction between ILLEGAL and LEGAL immigration, and the caps are to highlight that distinction, a distinction that you fail to apprehend when you imply that ILLEGALS are of some singular race. ILLEGALS are comprised of all races. And further, I didn’t say anything whatsoever about race– YOU DID THAT! I am talking about all ILLEGALS no matter what race or country of national origin. It is your intellectual dishonesty that prevents you from having an honest discussion about ACTIONS (immigration lawbreaking) as opposed to innate characteristics– I discussed the former, while you improperly mentioned the latter! I have compassion for poor and middle class American and LEGAL immigrant workers whose government is selling them out by the refusal to enforce U.S. immigration laws!

        • FrankensteinDragon

          relax. You got problems. Why so bent out of shape about it. Why does it even matter if they are illegal? Who makes the laws? Laws are not written in stone. laws are made by the rich and greedy–mostly. People like you rant about big government but its always you who creates big government–feds, war machines, bureaucracy surrounding immigration and denying health care–by the way, immigration is historically based on racism and class-ism and creed. That’s just a fact. The only legals today are those who can afford it–massive wealth or a great deal (relatively). Poor people are denied immigration–even when it concerns life or death. They are denied because of their nationality, their poverty, their race. Its a fact. And you are stirred up by vile people with inherited wealth who advocate free trade policies exacerbating the issues. Stop free trade, bring jobs back to america (not fracking or coal) and make laws that prevent dark money and corporate bullying and you will not have to worry about your prosperity–perhaps you will have enough to aid those desperate children seeking the same thing that your ancestors came over for.

          your aggressive tone only shows your violent nature and lack of understanding. chill. breathe. cool. If you don’t come from a hateful place people wont mistake your comments as hateful.

          UNC is probably not the best place to get an intellectually honest education. grow up.

    • jimino

      Relative to illegal immigration, vastly more damage has been done to the American worker by US capital being allowed to be deployed anywhere in the world to relocate US jobs to the cheapest source of labor, oftentimes used in slave-like conditions, then allowing those who profit t from calculatedly harming our country to remain here, enjoying all the benefits of US residency while paying taxes on their gain at the lowest rates ever.

      When this elephant in the room is noticed by and acted upon by someone like Brat and his followers, I will take their concerns seriously.

      • AngelicaUNC1

        The problem is not either or, it’s both. I agree that the American tax system should incentivize American multi-nationals to hire Americans. At the same time, ILLEGAL immigration is a massive and devastating problem that will cripple our country!

    • Thor Klamet

      It is also ILLEGAL by the way to knowingly hire armies of illegal immigrants, to go out of your way to attract them, to make ILLEGAL immigrants a critical piece of your business plan.

      But that’s the REALITY. Most farm workers are illegal and they are here harvesting our crops and putting food in our grocery stores because, for decades, Republicans and Democrats have allowed this.

      Of course we could put a bunch of CEO’s and upper and middle managers in jail, levy multi-billion dollar fines, and put a stop to what has become common practice. I imagine you would say that we should indeed do this. Food prices might go up but there would be plenty of jobs for Americans, you might tell us.

      If your opinion is that we should stop corporations from hiring ILLEGAL immigrants then that’s fine. Maybe you’re right.

      But the REALITY is that we have PURPOSELY allowed our OWN corporations to become utterly dependent on cheap TECHNICALLY illegal labor.

      You want to make it REALLY illegal? OKAY. Let’s do it. Put the CEO’s in prison, levy the fines, secure the borders, pay the higher food prices, rejoice in lower unemployment. If that’s your opinion, that’s reasonable.

      I’m fine with a real opinion, whether or not I agree with it. What I have trouble with is the idea that we should ignore the fact that we have ENCOURAGED millions of people to come here and supply cheap labor so we could have low food prices. I’m a conservative. I believe in taking responsibility for your actions.

      The illegals are here because WE WANTED them here. You want the jobs to dry up? You want them to go home? Fine. But don’t pretend millions of people working for Tyson, Smithfield, Conagra and other AMERICAN corporations have slipped in unnoticed over the past 30 years. They did no such thing.

      • AngelicaUNC1

        Yes– my opinion is that we should enforce the law across the board. Employers who knowingly (or with reckless disregard) hire ILLEGALS should suffer stiff fines and prison! Absolutely. The problem is the complicity of 3 groups: the SELFISH ILLEGALS, the LAWBREAKING BUSINESS PROFITEERS, and our TRAITOROUS LEADERS WHO are selling out the AMERICAN WORKERS as well as the American taxpayers who are forced to pay BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to fund these ILLEGALS!

        • Thor Klamet

          I wouldn’t call them selfish. A giant corporation goes out of its way to offer billions of dollars in jobs to poor, desperate people. And the people show up ready to work. Big surprise. Powerful people can tempt poor people with offers of jobs and money. What else is new?

          I’d list the people at fault as follows: 1. politicians, 2. business leaders, 3. consumers like me who don’t strenuously object to cheap food harvested by illegal labor.

          The illegals themselves don’t even make the list. OF COURSE they came here by the millions. Our companies offered them jobs and handed them money. How do you expect them to react?

          When the CEO of Conagra openly says, “Come, cross the border, I’ll give you a job and help you take care of your family,” do you really think someone who has no good options in his own country isn’t going to accept this offer?

          I am very powerful. I vote. I have money. I like low grocery bills. I’m well informed. I am a million times more selfish than some illegal immigrant working long days at wages I would laugh at. He’s sending money home to his family. In his shoes, I’d probably do exactly the same thing.

          We asked for them. We got them. They’re here and we rolled out a green carpet for them.

          “Break our laws, we’ll pay you, don’t worry, our politicians aren’t serious about enforcement, we hire illegals every day. Come one, come all!”

          I understand you want them to go home and that you have good reasons. I get it. But if we suddenly decide to enforce our laws and we send them home, it should be with an apology and a thank you note and a picture of the CEO of Conagra in his jail cell. Anything less is, in my opinion, an insult to rationality and humanity.

          • AngelicaUNC1

            Well I certainly agree with you about the LAWBREAKING BUSINESS part of the problem. But it is not correct to say that the ILLEGALS should not also bear their portion of the blame. And, I certainly don’t agree with giving them a “thank you note”. It is a choice to selfishly violate our immigration laws to the same extent as it is to steal. It’s actually very akin to stealing. And, by the way, I didn’t roll out any red carpet. As a registered Democrat, I have been speaking out about the harms of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION for years! This blackmarket labor system about which you speak is particularly harmful to low and middle wage workers, and especially minorities. Further, I prefer to pay a fair, living wage vs. poverty level wages (as such poverty level wages impose upon the taxpayers the requirement to grant corporations corporate welfare, as when they do not pay the healthcare and other cases for their employees, the American taxpayer must do so). I prefer fair trade over the race to the bottom wage model endorsed by the open-borders and pro-amnesty advocates!
            We permit 1 MILLION LEGAL immigrants into our country every year. These LEGAL immigrants pay substantial fees, wait a long wait (outside the U.S.), and go through a background check. The notion that ILLEGALS should be able to circumvent the very laws with which LEGAL immigrants comply each year is positively UNACCEPTABLE, and wrong morally and otherwise!

          • Thor Klamet

            I didn’t mean to accuse you of rolling out the red carpet. I was confessing my own collusion with the status quo. I buy the food at the low, cheap-labor prices. I don’t insist that the CEOs go to jail. For all intents and purposes, I might as well be personally asking poor Mexicans to violate our laws and cross the border and I might as well be paying them out of my own pocket.

            All I can say for myself is that I have “plausible deniability” because the path between my money and the poor Mexican is indirect. But I know exactly what is happening and I’ve done nothing to change it. I’m the one who is selfish.

            The Mexican guy is poor and is willing to collude with corporate executives and politicians to break our laws. It’s true that illegal immigration is illegal. Obviously. But consider this.

            Suppose a billionaire offers all the police officers in your town ten thousand dollars each every year if they go the whole year without issuing a speeding ticket. Most of the police go along with this and collect their money. Nothing is done about it. Since it is so easy to get away with speeding, lots of people break the law and speed and the accident rate goes up.

            Yes, the speeders are breaking the law. But they aren’t at the root of the problem, are they?

            The illegal immigrants themselves aren’t the problem either. The problem is the corporations who pay out billions of dollars to get people to break the law and the politicians and law enforcement officials who do nothing about it (where I define “nothing” as a set of actions and inactions that leads to millions upon millions of illegal immigrants living and working in this country).

            Go ahead, give me a billion dollars and tell me I can pay people to break the law and then do nothing to stop me. What will happen? Will I be able to find people willing to break the law for me? Of course I will.

            You wouldn’t break the law for me because you are moral and ethical. But your neighbor would. And if he won’t, your other neighbor will because he really needs the money. And if you catch one of the people I’ve paid to break the law and do nothing to me, I’ll just find someone to replace him.

            My point is this: The ONLY way to stop illegal immigration is to go after the corporations. Perhaps some Republican politicians have said we should prosecute CEOs. I’m bit cynical I admit so I don’t think there are any such politicians. I think most of the Republicans who discuss this issue (I don’t mean you) are fundamentally dishonest about it and have no intention of supporting the ONLY policies that would work (real laws with real teeth and real CEOs at the very least out of a job). It’s all just rhetoric (again, the party line is just rhetoric, not your thoughtful comments).

    • ExcellentNews

      The American worker is not devastated by immigration, illegal or otherwise. The American worker is devastated by the offshoring of 25,000,000 high-wage US jobs to slave-labor dictatorships. The export of US jobs has generated over 20 TRILLION in wealth for our oligarchy, and our tax policy has let them keep these misbegotten gains in full.

      • AngelicaUNC1

        I don’t dispute what you are saying IS a problem (off-shoring)– it certainly is! However, you are incorrect about ILLEGAL immigration, as it costs us HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, lower wages for the American middle class and low-wage workers (who then partake of welfare to keep up), and also result in lost job opportunities! It is a MASSIVE and UNSUSTAINABLE problem!

  • Zack Smith

    Thank you for bringing on Matt Kibbe. It’s a refreshing change of pace from the establishment guests.

    • TFRX

      Submitted without comment.

  • FrankensteinDragon

    The tea party is the party of plutocrats. Free trade has devsted this country. These ignorant people hate one kind of immigrant and not another. They are racist. They are gun nuts. They hate immigrants so much and yet advocate free trade in the same breath–duh…free trade facilitates most of your problems you cry about and is a big reason why so many of our brothers and sisters and small children are migrating north. End free trade–a crackpot religion–and you will see jobs come back to america. the problem with tea party people is they really dont understand the world or any of the issues and are being manipulated by the plutocrats–the corporate-aristocracy. The biggest threat to this nation is ignorance. Look up ignorance or obnoxious in the dictionary–see tea party.

    They are right about one thing–the democrat and the republicans are frauds–corrupt thugs of the corporate aristocracy. Time for change. Time for left wing governments–vote green. Vote for compassion and democracy–not fascism like the kind we see in power and in the tea party.

    • ExcellentNews

      Well said. Ignorance is the friend of fundamentalism. Which is why the right wing is opposed to public education and public broadcasting.

      • JINNASH

        AHHHAHA. You actually believe that tripe.
        Public broadcasting is simply consists of left wing ideologues who have a hard time getting jobs. Public education varies from district to district. And vouchers have been shown to help the most vulnerable(see the Washington DC experiment and its success).
        Ignorance is the providence of the left. Their ideas ALWAYS fail in real life and they ALWAYS blame others. Time to snap out of your “safe space” and face reality.

        • Duras

          FDR and the unions created the middle class and made America an economic superpower. We went to the moon and built Silicon Valley when taxes on the rich were north of 70% and unions were strong.

          Reaganism is what is causing the decline. Liberalism brought us out of the Middle Ages. Liberalism ended monarchies and aristocracies. Jeffersonian democracy was borne out of the liberal philosophies of Locke and Bentham. Liberalism freed the slaves–Lincoln uprooted a wealth economy in order to help black labor; he redistributed the land and gave it to black people, so much that the former slave owners would have to work for their former slaves. It would have been more surprising had Lincoln not gotten shot.

          Liberalism ended the Gilded Age.

          • JINNASH

            Wrong Again. Did FDR help? Jury still out. And I know their is evidence for and against it.
            Reaganism caused an increase in the middle class. Only the completely dishonest academia and worthless media types who looked at projection rather than the actual results.
            No Lincoln did not redistribute in the modern sense. That is another left wing lie. Also, trying to compare liberalism of today to that of Jefferson is another lie. Are you starting to see a pattern here? Do you understand that you are in the DO NOT TRUST category.
            And don’t forget Liberia. Monroe implemented the return to Africa option. Some took advantage of it, others did not.

          • Duras

            Lincoln said “labor is more important than capital.”

            Second, if the distribution of wages had stayed on the same trajectory since 1979 (before Reagan radically changed the way wages are distributed) average income would be somewhere between $80K and $88K.

            The jury is not out on FDR. Was there are lot of government before the Great Depression? No. Was there a middle class before the Great Depression? No. Was there a 40 hour work week? Did people have pensions? Could people afford college? Were we an economic superpower? All before the Great Depression…? No.

            FDR and the unions built the middle class. It is the winner-and-loser, Reaganist, neoliberal capitalism that has destroyed the middle class and gutted genuine community in this country. And if you make less than $350K, you are considered a loser by rich republican standards.

            And since Reagan, America has lost their unions, their pensions, their wages, the budgets are never balanced, the economy grows at a much slower rate, college tuition is ridiculous, free trade agreements, the deregulation of Wall Street, the rise of corporate monopolies, almost everything has been privatized: hospitals, schools, colleges, the military. America has certainly forgotten the lessons of the Gilded Age and the pre-Depression era. And if you look at the FDR republic, the age of “tax and spend” liberalism, from the 1940s through the 1970s, there are more balanced budgets, affordable tuition, more public hospitals, more homeownership, a lot less people in debt, and the economy grew at a much much faster pace than the Reaganist era of the 1980s to the present.

          • JINNASH

            Worthless fact on distribution of wages. What truly matter is that wage growth outpaces inflation. The facts you mention are the pervue of overgrown crybabies.

            Everything else you state is completely false and it is disproven by real fact; not a bunch of dishonest left wing academia dwellers using projections rather that actual data.

            When you read this chart, you will notice that the analyst blame taking us off the gold standard as the culprit. Obviously, economists will debate it but the data is clear, wage growth exceed inflation.

            http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/real-wage-vs-inflation-growth

      • William Patrick Bower

        Public education is a failure. Public radio nothing but intolerance, hate, and propaganda.

        • Duras

          Yeah, set up charter schools that are funded by corporate advertising just like schools in China.

          • FrankensteinDragon

            sarcasm right?

        • FrankensteinDragon

          Which makes me wonder where you were educated…because public education, if it is a failure, is a failure because racists and fascists refuse to fund public ed equally and actively wage wars against it and teachers–teachers–how shameful is that! only to set up privatized corporate charter schools and biblical schools. Charter schools are a failure. Especially to the our democracy. If you want a two-tiered system so bad what the hell are you doing in America?! Go to Israel where you can live in a fascist racist apartheid police state. Corporate free trade Capitalism is nothing more than fascism–plutocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy: the elite class and the troglodytes beneath them. It is a very sad thing when some people think they are better than others. Inherited wealth doesn’t make you a better person. nefarious means of wealth doesn’t make you better. Most likely it means you come from a twisted, corrupt, inhumane family. Worshiping these criminals is just pathetic.

        • FrankensteinDragon

          hate?! really? that’s a demented thing to say. propaganda–maybe, sometimes, but far more honest than corporate networks like the criminals glen beck and fox affiliates–all network tv. Absurd lies.

          The best radio is listener supported community radio (no religious) Programs like Economic Update, Education Today, Democracy Now, Flashpoints, Counterspin, Against the Grain, Behind the News with Doug Henwood alternative energy radio…just to name a few.

          Anyone rational and compassionate human being with a propensity to think or appreciate critical and innovative thinking is always on the Left. The right is ignorance by definition, and hatred, pettiness, and greed. People gravitate left and right based on values.

          Values? If you have a small heart or just don’t understand anything about the world (not always your fault) than you cling to backwards and inhumane, unreasonable perspectives and beliefs that in your heart is all you understand, but if you begin to think, to question, to travel, to experience life, open your mind, and appreciate life and people you will go left.

          All Christians should know–the Christ character is Left and would know doubt vote Green if given the choice. The Bible is a parable–it begins with rightist views–terrible by nature–terrorism, genocide, racism, war, murder, mayhem, pettiness–and progresses finalizing with Christ–the left and a human life-affirming expression. When Christ talks about the damned he is talking about those of the old testament–everyone on the right–the murderers, the thieves, the small-minded and petty, the cowardly, the inhumane, the destructive, the violent, the waring- scaremongers–the hypocrites.

          Nobody wants to hurt you. We just want you to understand. Open the mind. relax. Chill. Dont hate.

    • William Patrick Bower

      Democrats are so ignorant most can’t feed themselves. Racist? Hating white men is racist; have a long look in the mirror.

      • FrankensteinDragon

        um okay–i just did–i’m still white. And if you can read, which obviously you can not–i am not a democrat. try reading the post Mr. ignoramus.

  • AlyshiaNorgaardlab

    My Uncle
    Riley got an almost new red GMC Canyon just by some parttime working online
    with a laptop. visit their website F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  • ExcellentNews

    I’m sure most of you are familiar with the boiled frog story… If the water is heated slowly, the poor frog does not realize its being boiled alive.

    Something similar is happening in America. The Republican party has crept from being the party of Reagan to being the party of Brat. Fundamentalist. Ignorant. Hateful. And nobody seems to have a problem with that.

    Where is this trend going? What will the “mainstream” candidates talk about in 2030? Who should be stoned for public entertainment in Budweiser Stadium? Whether immigrants should be machine-gunned or gassed?

    This is probably how rational Germans watched their country slide into the madness of Nazism 70 years ago. And that slide was not accidental – it was bankrolled by the industrialists at the time who liked Hitler’s promises of a docile labor force and “small government” (no kidding – look it up yourself). Just like the Kochs, Murdochs, Greens and their ilk bankroll the Tea Party today.

    • William Patrick Bower

      The Nazi’s were leftists

      • StilllHere

        They still are.

        • Duras

          If you look at all the neo-nazis in American and Europe–they are right wing. In fact, two of the four or so parties in Greece were neo-nazis on the right and communists on the left.

      • Duras

        Hitler in Mein Kampf directly attacked both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany.[65] However, a majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as being a far-right form of politics.[66] When asked in an interview whether he and the Nazis were “bourgeois right-wing” as alleged by their opponents, Hitler responded that Nazism was not exclusively for any class, and indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved “pure” elements from both “camps”, stating: “From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism”.[67]

        It was in this speech that Hitler, for the first time, enunciated the twenty-five points of the German Worker’s Party’s manifesto that had been drawn up by Drexler, Feder, and Hitler.[41] Through these points he gave the organisation a much bolder stratagem[39] with a clear foreign policy (abrogation of The Treaty of Versailles, a Greater Germany, Eastern expansion, exclusion of Jews from citizenship), and among his specific points were: confiscation of war profits, abolition of unearned incomes, the State to share profits of land, and land for national needs to be taken away without compensation.[42] In general, the manifesto was antisemitic, anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, and anti-liberal.[43]

        It’s from Wikipedia and it’s all cited.

        • William Patrick Bower

          Wikipedia? Why not quote MSNBC, or Yahoo news… but I repeat myself. Wiki is now working for the government. Corrupted.. In any event.. Socialized medical care.. and the appeal of collectivism, as long as someone else pays…was what brought those monsters into power… the same race baiting and hate mongering that Obama was elected on. I don;t care how much your professor loved you.. he was lying or ignorant, or both.

          • Duras

            Follow the citations. They are numbered. I always check the citations.

          • Duras

            Also, by saying the phrase “race baiting,” you are unwittingly acknowledging your racism.

            You can’t bait a non-racist. I’m white, people can say whatever they want to me. But because I’m not a racist, I’m not going to say, “you’re trying to race bait me.” It’s impossible.

            My theory on this goes back to MLK. MLK peacefully protested and people threw rocks at him. And the lesson the conservatives have learned is “don’t fall for race baiting.” How about don’t be racist…? Why can’t conservatives learn a lesson about civil rights, instead of learning how to obfuscate their racism?

          • Duras

            Also, collectivism cuts many ways. On one end, we have a bunch of goose-stepping republicans saying, “I’m an individual … I’m an individual … I’m an individual …” like a broken record. It’s one very long echo-changer with them. That is the tribalism type of collectivism and the dangerous kind that can be found on right and left movements. Today, it’s on the right in America.

            The other type of collectivism that you refer to is a basic notion in community or citizenship. Personally, I believe as Adam Smith believed that the rich have a responsibility to maintain equal opportunity. I don’t know how people can believe in hard work and meritocracy without believing in equal opportunity. Once equal opportunity is established, then we can have meritocracy. Obviously, this requires a social contract and social responsibility on the rich. Society is a dichotomy of social responsibility on the rich and personal responsibility on the rest.

            Moreover, as Henry David Thoreau said, “The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual.”
            And what is more democratic than having equal power of voice?

      • ExcellentNews

        Left and right are labels. At their extremes, there is really little difference. It’s the rule of ideology and oligarchy. It’s the demise of reason and democracy.

    • OnPointComments

      The water has been heating for 5-1/2 years, and the fuel has been the President and the Democratic party dividing the country and pitting citizen against citizen. There is hardly an utterance by the President or Democrats that doesn’t include the vilification of someone or some portion of American citizens, whether it’s President Bush, the rich, business owners, corporations, the Koch brothers, conservatives, Republicans, whites, WalMart, and on and on; and telling others that they have no responsibility for any shortcomings in their lives, it’s all the fault of white privilege, income inequality, the war against women, greedy employers, and on and on.

      Perhaps divide and conquer might have worked if their level of vitriol wasn’t matched by their level of incompetence. 5-1/2 years and the economy is anemic, people have dropped out of the workforce, unemployment is too high, $17.5 trillion in debt, the US has abandoned its allies, and no where in the world is safer than it was before this administration took power. Utter incompetence accompanied by an unending litany of scandals, lies, deaths, and corruption.

      The water has been heating for 5-1/2 years, and there’s a year and a half left. But the American people aren’t frogs, and they can’t be fooled forever. I think they’ve recognized that “Hope and Change” is a charade put on by this administration and others in Washington. President Obama’s approval rating is at an all-time low and hasn’t been above 50% for more than a year; the approval rating of Congress has never been lower. There’s an election in November. I predict change.

      And really, Godwin’s Law? After only 319 comments?

      ______ is a gifted orator who uses his talents to captivate the majority of _________ into believing in him. ______ is said to mesmerize the nation, capture them in a trance from which they cannot break loose. He is adept at using populist themes targeted at his audience, including the use of scapegoats who are blamed for the economic hardships of his listeners.

      [from Wikipedia] You can fill in the blanks.

      • ExcellentNews

        What exactly are the personal “shortcomings” that Americans must take “responsibility” for? Decent wages? Clean environment? Labor laws? Freedom of opinions and lifestyles? You seem incensed that most of us are not (yet) living like the slave laborers from China.

        The President has hardly done any vilification or finger pointing. Many Democrats have however correctly pointed that the GUTTED American economy and RELATED obscene inequality ARE the result of conservative policies, including those pursued under Bush and promoted by a variety of corporate and private interests who have directly benefited from them. Skin color and sex have nothing to do with it. Inherited wealth and crony privileges have everything to do with it.

  • HonestDebate1

    As the country continues it’s leftward lurch, I remain amazed. The Tea Partiers are portrayed as extreme and the extremist are portrayed as mainstream. Some are actually upset at Obama for not delivering on things that were impossible like closing Gitmo, ending indefinite detention, giving us single-payer, or rescinding Bush’s tax cuts. Some idiots actually believed he’d be transparent or close the income gap. Unbelievable. He’s a disaster and the notions he is not left enough or he trying as hard as he can or the Tea Partiers are sooo far gone they should be given zero credibility, are very out of touch with mainstream America.

    Do those of you who get your views solely from left wing sources all think this way?

    • ExcellentNews

      Left wing sources? Most people here do not listen to Pacifica or Al Jazeera. NPR and most mass media outlets in the US are pretty neutral. When they offer an opinion, there is usually some factual evidence. E.g. as in – Bush tax cuts did little to build a sustainable and robust US economy, but they helped the top 0.01% amass wealth and power unseen since the Great Depression. FACT.

      Leftward lurch? Corporate profits have never been better. The billionaires have never had it so good, or never had so much power. If this is left, God help us when the rightward lurch comes around.

      • HonestDebate1

        The tax cuts benefited the poor more than the rich. After the rates were lowered in 2003 the unemployment rate went down for 52 months and over a half trillion extra revenue dollars flowed in by 2007. So you’re wrong about that.

        • ExcellentNews

          I thought the “47%” pay no taxes…. so how can the tax cut benefit them ??? Anyone with basic math skills can easily figure out where the tax cuts went….

          Seriously, the facts do not quite correlate with the spin provided by the Chamber of Commerce. Unemployment started going down as a result of the economy naturally bouncing from the dotcom bust and 9/11.

          In fact, economically, the Bush reign was characterized by the export of 15,000,000 high-wage US manufacturing jobs, and their replacement with low-benefit McJobs. Consumption was fueled by credit, not wages. During that era, the US economic engine was being already gutted and set up for the crash of 2008.

          Whatever extra revenue was collected from the bounce in 2003 was wasted on crony contractors (2.1 TRILLION on the war on terror sure did not go in the swiss accounts of our soldiers) and corporate welfare (prescription drug benefits, coal subsidies..etc).

          • HonestDebate1

            They pay no taxes because bush took 6 million off the rolls. Bush did that to the poor.

          • ExcellentNews

            I hate to sound like Mitt Romney, but the tax relief to the poor was tens or hundred $ per family – it’s nothing in the big picture of the US economy. In fact, the tax burden on the poor (defined as the total taxes paid as fraction of income) has INCREASED since 2000, due to higher taxes and fees in other categories.

            One of the brilliant rhetoric maneuvers of conservative consultants is to define the “poor” as this vast mass of Democrats who live off the “rest of working us” (Republicans of course). Naturally, in this light, nobody would want anything to do with the poor.

            The poor exist, but the real division in our economy is that of the predatory 0.01% on top against the bulk of the working middle class. If we keep it up for another 20 years, everyone will be poor.

  • LucySinclairsyk

    Peyton . true that Jessica `s blurb is shocking, last
    monday I got a gorgeous Peugeot 205 GTi after having earned $6860 this past 4
    weeks an would you believe ten-k this past-month . with-out a doubt this is the
    easiest-job I’ve ever had . I actually started six months/ago and pretty much
    immediately started to bring in minimum $84… p/h . Read More Here F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  • Government_Banking_Serf

    “Now Let’s Replace All the Other Big-Spending Eric Cantors
    Eric Cantor was a noxious, cookie-cutter, U.S. Chamber, GOP hypocrite. We need legislators who don’t just talk limited government but do it.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/11/now-let-s-replace-all-the-other-big-spending-eric-cantors.html

    • ExcellentNews

      We need EFFECTIVE government who does what the private sector is clearly unable to do. A fundamentalist shill like Brat is NOT part of an effective government.

  • X Y & Z

    “Politicians are the lowest form of life on Earth.
    Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politicians”.

    General George S. Patton

ONPOINT
TODAY
Jul 22, 2014
Smoke rises after an Israeli shelling at the Shijaiyah neighborhood in Gaza City, Monday, July 21, 2014. The top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip signaled Monday that the Islamic militant group will not agree to an unconditional cease-fire with Israel, while Israel's defense minister pledged to keep fighting "as long as necessary," raising new doubt about the highest-level mediation mission in two weeks. (AP)

The escalated Gaza offensive. We’ll get the views from both sides and the latest developments.

Jul 22, 2014
Lt. Col. James Howard Williams, aka "Elephant Bill," is the hero of Vicki Constantine Croke's new book, "Elephant Company." (Courtesy Random House)

We’ll travel to the jungles of Burma for the remarkable true story of Billy Williams—aka “the elephant whisperer”—and his World War II heroism.

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 21, 2014
In this May 15, 2014, file photo, Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, during a committee hearing to examine the state of Veterans Affairs health care. (AP)

Will he run for president? We’ll ask Vermont’s Independent U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders.

 
Jul 21, 2014
Toys and flowers are placed on the charred fuselage at the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 near the village of Hrabove, eastern Ukraine, Sunday, July 20, 2014. (AP)

The United States and Russia after the downed plane. We’ll unpack the politics and latest news. Plus: the latest from Gaza.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: July 11, 2014
Friday, Jul 11, 2014

As we prepare for a week of rebroadcasts, we reflect on Facebook posts, misplaced comments and the magic of @ mentions. Internet, ASSEMBLE!

More »
Comment
 
Two Former Senators, One Fix For US Democracy?
Thursday, Jul 10, 2014

Former US Senators Tom Daschle and Olympia Snowe joined us today with a few fixes for American political inaction.

More »
Comment
 
Future Radio Interns Of America: On Point Wants YOU!
Thursday, Jul 10, 2014

On Point needs interns for the fall. Could YOU be one of them?

More »
2 Comments