Posted by Brad @ 4:02 pm on May 21st 2010

The End of the Liberal-Libertarian Alliance

David Weigel adding the context as only David Weigel can:

As I noted last night on Hardball, Paul’s campaign was surprised and unhappy that MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow drilled him so hard on the civil rights issue — something that was obvious when Paul sarcastically thanked Maddow for a brutal introductory video, clipping together all of his quotes on the CRA. Normally, it wouldn’t be news that a Republican candidate was annoyed by Rachel Maddow. But Rand Paul and his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), had been welcome on Maddow’s show, where they’d happily light into mainstream Republicans. Before the younger Paul became a Senate nominee, he was an emissary for a brand of Republican politics less threatening than the Dick Cheney kind — anti-Fed, anti-war, pro-drug legalization. (Paul is not personally pro-drug legalization, but many of his supporters are.) After he won the nomination, it was open season on his more extreme politics.

We saw this happen in 2008 with Ron Paul. In December 2007, the New Republic ran a piece on Paul by Tucker Carlson, the most glowing of several fun pieces it ran about him. Weeks later, the magazine ran an exposé by Jamie Kirchick of racist passages in newsletters that went out under Paul’s name. “If you are a critic of the Bush administration,” Kirchick wrote at the top of his article, “chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you.” Hint, hint — it was fun to indulge the libertarians for a while, but the time had come for good liberals to take them seriously.

I think Rand Paul has been whipsawed by the literally overnight shift in his coverage — from “check out this exciting insurgent candidate” to “will this insurgent candidate destroy the Republic?”


  1. I’ve spent the last two solid hours trying to find out where Jack Conway, Democratic Party nominee for Senate from Kentucky, stands on the War in Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or on authorization of military force against Iran. Or on any of the other military issues which were, when George Bush was responsible for them, the most important issues in the universe to most progressives.

    I cannot find a goddamn thing. Not on the candidate’s campaign website, not at, not anywhere else. One might imagine that progressives would give a shit about this sort of thing, what with there being one of the most unambiguous anti-war candidates in the universe on the ballot this November, and what with all these insurgent netroots efforts to drive pro-war Dems off the ballot.

    But when the rubber meets the road, the wars no longer matter so long as a Democrat is running them. Nor, in point of fact, is the 1964 Civil Rights Act the real crux of the matter. No, the important issue for the progressives who are calling the shots is the maintenance of power, and the occupation of Congressional seats by people with a D in front of their name, regardless of any and all ideological concerns.

    No doubt there are progressives out there with whom libertarians could make alliance. Depending on where Jack Conway ends up on foreign policy and a number of basic liberty issues, we may find out in short order exactly who those people are, and how many of them are out there.

    Comment by Rojas — 5/21/2010 @ 5:22 pm

  2. No doubt this will seem to some an about face from my comment 2 minutes ago in the DNA collection thread, but this post, and Rojas comment I can COMPLETELY get on board with. And I look forward to bringing this up in my ongoing conversation with my semi-progressive friends tomorrow.

    Comment by Jack — 5/21/2010 @ 8:43 pm

  3. I did manage to track down some online commentaty from Conway. Asked at the end of last year whether we ought to double down on troop strength in Afghanistan, he responded that we ought to enhance WOT resources against Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

    Which is probably a good idea, and I’d frankly support it more strongly than I would Paul’s pullout mentality. Of course, it doesn’t speak to whether or not Conway would actually, you know, do anything to change existing US military deployments overseas. Until he does otherwise, I think we can call him an advocate of the gradual draw-down that is the Democratic status quo.

    If true, this would put Paul squarely to the left of him on the use of military force overseas. It will be hard for him to get left of Paul on civil liberties. The question progressives now must ask themselves is how much those things matter to them, or whether Paul’s hard-right views on economics–and the D next to Conway’s name, with the accompanying balance-of-power question–trump everything else.

    Comment by Rojas — 5/21/2010 @ 10:05 pm

  4. Robert Scheer didn’t get the libs now hate Rand Paul memo:
    Count me as one lefty liberal who is not the least bit unhappy with the victory by Rand Paul in Kentucky’s Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Not because it might make it easier for some Democratic Party hack to win in the general, but rather because he seems to be a principled libertarian in the mold of his father, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and we need more of that impulse in the Congress.
    What’s wrong with cutting back big government that mostly exists to serve the interests of big corporations? Surely it would be better if that challenge came from populist progressives of the left, in the Bernie Sanders mold, but this is Kentucky we’re talking about.
    Rand Paul, like his dad, is worthy of praise for standing in opposition to the Wall Street bailout, which will come to be marked as the greatest swindle in U.S. history and which was, as he noted on his Website, an unconstitutional redistribution of income in favor of the undeserving rich…

    With the Democrats trusting our well-being to the likes of Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, who under President Bill Clinton did so much to enable Wall Street greed, would it not be good to have at least one Republican senator questioning the Washington spending spree?
    Yes, Rand Paul is bad on a lot of social issues I care about, and no, I don’t embrace his faith in the social compassion of unfettered free markets. But the alternative we have experienced is not one of a progressive government properly restraining free-market greed but rather, as was amply demonstrated in the pretend regulation of the oil industry, of government as a partner in corporate crime.
    It is the power of the corporate lobbyists that is at issue, and it is refreshing that candidate Paul has labeled Washington lobbyists a “distinctly criminal class” and favors a ban on lobbying and campaign contributions by those who hold more than a million dollars in federal contracts.
    Heresy, I know, but it is only thanks to Ron Paul, the father and hopefully the mentor of the potential Kentucky senator, that we got a congressional mandate to audit the Fed’s role in the banking bailout. How bad could it be to have another irascible Paul in the Congress?

    And Cenk Uygur of the young turks considers his victory good news for the progressives and bad news for the incumbent owned-by-lobbyist Washington culture.

    But Rand’s set himself up for some easy criticism.
    (listen to 6:20 in for the positive stuff)
    So there’s a plus to him, in that he’s actually principled, but he’s got minuses in the content of his principles.
    Big deal

    Comment by thimbles — 5/22/2010 @ 7:06 am

  5. And here is Alexander Cockburn:

    Here’s Maddow, brandishing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as though this is the only matter worth considering in the forthcoming race between Rand Paul and the Democrat, an awful neo-liberal prosecutor, Kentucky’s current attorney general, Jack “I’m a Tough Son-of-a-Bitch” Conway. Between Conway and Paul, which one in the U.S. Senate would more likely be a wild card – which is the best we can hope for these days – likely to filibuster against a bankers’ bailout, against reaffirmation of the Patriot Act, against suppression of the CIA’s full torture history? Paul, one would have to bet, and these are the votes that count, where one uncompromising stand by an outsider can make a difference, unlike the gyrations and last-ditch sell-outs of Blowhard Bernie Sanders. Liberals love grandstanding about what are, in practice, distractions. You think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is going to come up for review in the U.S. Senate?

    I don’t know that libertarians have any business demanding that progressives vote in a libertarian interest. But is it too much to ask that they vote in their own?

    Comment by Rojas — 5/22/2010 @ 3:20 pm

  6. They are (quick summary as I lost my previous post to a crash and I’m not typing it out again):

    What’s gotten Paul in trouble, however, is that he’s so skeptical of government power that he’s not even comfortable with the public sector telling private businesses that they can’t discriminate based on race. That, I fear, does have public policy implications.

    For instance: Can the federal government set the private sector’s minimum wage? Can it tell private businesses not to hire illegal immigrants? Can it tell oil companies what safety systems to build into an offshore drilling platform? Can it tell toy companies to test for lead? Can it tell liquor stores not to sell to minors? These are the sort of questions that Paul needs to be asked now, because the issue is not “area politician believes kooky but harmless thing.” It’s “area politician espouses extremist philosophy on issue he will be voting on constantly.”

    You can’t read something like what Greg Sargent posted and characterize liberal criticism as a tribalistic over reaction.

    There are things libs can find consensus with Paul on, such as the reduction of government reliance on military power in global affairs and a reduction of government in lives of citizens as it relates to the security state.

    But the basis of that consensus is that Paul is a radical when it comes to government reduction. Libs don’t want government reduced across the board, especially since many of the recent crisises we face are a result of 30 years of under regulation. It’s natural that on those issues we aren’t going to ally.

    So, again, I don’t see where the big deal is.

    Comment by thimbles — 5/23/2010 @ 5:44 am

  7. I entirely agree with Rojas that there are progressives out there that libertarians would be comfortable with. And the logic is entirely the same when you address libertarians. There are libertarians out there that progressives and liberals would be comfortable with and libertarians out there that progressives and liberals WOULDN’T be comfortable with. The Rand Paul spat is not the end of any type of liberal-libertarian alliance, which doesn’t even exist yet, because he was always and will continue to be a politician of the Right operating within the Republican Party. Liberals and Democrats were never going to ally with Rand Paul.

    More noticeable to me is that some of the libertarians most interested in the liberal-libertarian alliance are pushing back against Paul, such as Brink Lindsey:

    Comment by FreedomDemocrat — 5/23/2010 @ 5:15 pm

  8. The Rand Paul spat is not the end of any type of liberal-libertarian alliance, which doesn’t even exist yet, because he was always and will continue to be a politician of the Right operating within the Republican Party.

    Rand Paul is an anti-war candidate running against a conservative Democrat who, as far as I can tell, positions himself primarily as “tough on crime” and who has no positions that I can ascertain regarding the use of military force overseas.

    If this is not the situation in which a liberal-libertarian alliance is workable, then what circumstances precisely did you have in mind?

    Comment by Rojas — 5/23/2010 @ 5:55 pm

  9. That is an opportunity for Rand Paul to turn it around. If he can turn the issue into a discussion of whether the senate needs another Rahm Emmanuel selected, wall street supporting, security state, war never ending, democrat and stop talking about whether it’s American to punish a company which has completely screwed up an oil spill, then he will have a chance with liberal voters.

    He’s the one choosing the odd answers and making his election about containing all government instead of bad government.

    Comment by thimbles — 5/23/2010 @ 6:41 pm

  10. Rojas, so now you’re proposing that the liberal-libertarian alliance has to support libertarian Republicans? My point is that liberals will not support a Republican, even an anti-war libertarian one. That doesn’t mean that the liberal-libertarian alliance is dead or impossible, anymore than the fact that liberal Democrats didn’t support liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava is a sign that liberals no longer exist. Partisanship does mean something in American politics.

    Comment by FreedomDemocrat — 5/24/2010 @ 7:15 pm

  11. A liberal will not support a Republican even in a situation in which the Republican is the more progressive of the two candidates running? Party means more than the candidate’s stance on the issues?

    Well, that gives me my answer.

    Comment by Rojas — 5/24/2010 @ 9:58 pm

  12. A liberal will not support a Republican even in a situation in which the Republican is the more progressive of the two candidates running? Party means more than the candidate’s stance on the issues?

    That’s not a response to my points, and it’s a pretty awful generalization of liberal positions to boot.

    And it’s kind of hard for a liberal to support Rand Paul, no matter his view on the one issue of GWOT, when he’s attacking his opponent on issues like:
    °Repealing Obamacare: nearly 2/3 of Kentuckians want to see the Obama/Pelosi health care scheme repealed. 15 other Attorneys General have stood up for their state and sued to end the federal mandate on their citizens. But not Jack Conway. He’s standing side by side with the liberal Washington DC establishment.

    °Opposing Card Check Forced Unionism: Nearly 80% of American oppose forced unionism and support the secret ballot. The union boss power grab known as card check eliminates the secret ballot and puts more workers under union boss control. Jack Conway stands with his Big Labor masters who fund his and national Democrat campaigns.

    ° Cap and Trade: This dangerous bill would raise costs for Kentuckians, raise taxes – and could well singlehandedly destroy Kentucky Coal. Jack Conway supports Cap and Trade, something he’d rather the taxpayers and coal producers of Kentucky not hear about.

    Sorry, but Rand is going against libs on healthcare, labor, and the environment, and I have to wonder what his real position on social security must be.
    And that’s on top of Rand defending the coal company who’s negligence allowed 245 million gallons of coal slurry into Kentucky rivers.
    Who ended the alliance again?

    Comment by thimbles — 5/25/2010 @ 11:42 am

  13. That’s not a response to my points

    Quite correct, it is a response to FD immediately above.

    Your arguments pertain to the issues on which Paul is winning the race to the right against Conway. And they are fine, provided of course that those issues matter more to you than the war and civil liberties.

    Comment by Rojas — 5/25/2010 @ 12:07 pm

  14. An interesting read:

    Memo to those Tea Party activists out there who’ve been howling about those liberal wusses in the Obama Justice Department who read Faisal Shahzad his Miranda rights: congratulations. You’ve just opened the door for a major new expansion of government power.

    Having followed the Tea Party around on and off for a few months now it’s been hard not to notice some of the contradictory messages emanating from the movement. You’ll hear the same people who want to abolish the EPA complaining about the slow federal response to the Gulf oil spill, or the same people who are stocking up on guns to ward off the inevitable government assault on their property cheering for beefed-up drug enforcement laws and the no-knock search warrant.

    The reason I really respect the Ron Paul people is that they’re consistent on all of these things. If they don’t want the government telling you you can’t buy a gun, they also don’t want the federal government telling you not to smoke weed or patronize a prostitute. Paul understands that you can’t make appeals on general principle unless you actually believe in that principle across the board.

    It seems to me that a huge problem that Americans on both sides of the aisle have is that they believe in personal freedom, but only for themselves; for the other guy they seem always to want a powerful and intrusive federal government. Red staters and blue staters are both equally guilty of this in my experience. You get conservatives asking for a federal ban on gay marriage and then in the same breath screaming that abortion should be a states-rights issue. And you get progressives who want to pass their own state-by-state medical marijuana laws clamoring for federal bans on handguns.

    And… well, I’m digressing. The point is that this gesture by Eric Holder to drop to his knees and pray at the altar of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin is one of those things that both sides are going to end up seriously regretting.

    Again, the federal democrats are giving true conservatives the means to make their own civil liberties case based on the protection of citizens from the encroachment of government power, but Rand is picking the most unsympathetic of “victims” to defend.

    Even the red state people can’t hold their critical tongues:
    When you can’t count on the sycophants at red state, you need to tune your rhetorical strategy.

    But hey, he’s in Kentucky. It’s not like a liberal alliance would insure many votes anyways. For all I know, his negative coverage on issues might well play out positive to a Kentucky audience. Brad should have the polls pre and post Maddow up soon.

    Comment by thimbles — 5/25/2010 @ 12:13 pm

  15. Which is what, I think, people are going to have to decide, in terms of their priorities.

    I can’t fault a liberal for not voting for Rand Paul. But actively targeting him is quite another. Conway would be another Ben Nelson in the Democratic caucus, although quite likely with even stronger Police State and War on Terror hawkishness.

    Rand, for whatever else you may say of him, is roughly in line with normal Republicans in his position on business regulations, healthcare, and the like. I think his philosophical position is more extreme (or pure, if you like), but in terms of how he’d vote, he’d just vote no on everything, which is, indeed, what the Republican caucus is doing anyway and which, for that matter, Conway might too (he would not have been / will not be a safe or even reliable vote on health care, financial regulations, cap and trade, etc. etc.). Where Rand would substantively differ, for sure, is stuff related to civil liberties and foreign policy, and there he’d be almost literally the only Taft-style non-interventionist not just in the GOP caucus but in the Senate as a whole, and as Cockburn said above, about the only threat, certainly within the GOP, to take a lone wolf stand on civil liberties, torture, surveillance, et al. He would be a bigger maverick on those things than not just all other Republicans, but Jack Conway, and almost all the Democratic caucus, as well.

    Again, I wouldn’t expect a liberal to vote for Rand Paul. But what’s throwing me are the liberal interests, from partisan ones like Dailykos to more information leaders like Maddow, Josh Marshall, Yglesias, et al, who are actively trying to torpedo him. Again, if you weigh economic regulation and large and active federal authority over business much more heavily than you weigh everything else, that makes a sort of amount of sense I guess. But if you weigh it even in the ballpark of even—that is, if you view a vote on cap and trade as roughly as important as a vote authorizing a war in the Middle East or protecting the CIA from transparency and accountability or whatever other issue, I just don’t get the math that doesn’t make Rand Paul a pretty attractive monkey wrench to throw into Congress, especially to throw into the GOP caucus in Congress. The sudden vitriol throws me not just because the sudden and vicious hostility to libertarian philosophy on the left takes me a little by surprise (given a fair chunk of liberals were happy to share a bunker with me in the Bush years and the Pauls in the GOP primary years), but simply because it makes me raise an eyebrow on priorities in the same way the sudden deafness/hostility of the Obama administration to civil libertarianism of the Glenn Greenwald stripe throws me.

    To put that another way, it seems the choice of liberals looking to actively torpedo Rand Paul in Kentucky have a very simple choice in front of them. Is the potential for a marginally more active “no” vote on economic regulation matters more of a negative than an almost certainly more significant “no” vote on neoconservative foreign policy and civil liberties issues would be a positive?

    A fair few liberals are indicating their answer to that question is “yes”, which surprise me.

    Comment by Brad — 5/25/2010 @ 12:18 pm

  16. I guess I should add to that final question, weighing with the economic regulation question, “…and a social/cultural position which would be more wildly all-over-the-place on totems/hot buttons than a Southern Democrat or regular Republican would be, but would maybe lean more with the latter than the former.” Or however you would construct that.

    But that strikes me as more of a wash than anything. Rand Paul doesn’t strike me as the sort that’s going to champion or even particularly get behind interventionism on social/cultural questions (say, FMA, abortion stuff, etc.), and certainly not more than any garden variety Republican being elected to the Senate from Kentucky. Adding to that that he might become a voice for de-interventionism on some of it, like drug war issues. Totaling that up it looks, from a liberal perspective (which on these questions I share) like a wash to me. And on race—well, besides as a cultural totem, it’s entirely unclear to me how that factors into the math at all.

    Comment by Brad — 5/25/2010 @ 12:25 pm

  17. Well, many libs have dropped the ball on the war since Obama took over. They think it’s good that he’s escalating in the right country and seems to be trying to pull out of Iraq, but if you look at the whole picture Obama seems to be getting railroaded by his (political) generals and is avoiding radical changes that would leave the administration open to Cheneyesque critique.
    But most libs aren’t to involved on that front now that the incompetence isn’t as brazen as it used to be.
    Dems have dropped the ball on the civil liberties front, outside of Glen Greenwald, again because the violations haven’t been so brazen as they used to be.
    What they care about is wall street regulation, health care regulation, job creation, and pollution + resource extraction regulation. Conway has a history as an Attorney General of enforcing regulations and fighting fraud on behalf of consumers.
    Rand Paul has a history of attacking such initiatives.
    As I learn more about Conway, he seems more like an Alan Grayson figure than a Ben Nelson one.
    And as I learn about Rand Paul, he seems to be a bit stupid when it comes to politics.

    Comment by thimbles — 5/25/2010 @ 12:50 pm

  18. Adding, btw, that Rand is pretty vocal and vehement also about not tipping the scales in favor of business too. He’s been vigilant against Wall Street and the Federal Reserve and, like his father, isn’t guilty of the sake kind of corporatism that often supercedes free marketism among many on the right. He would certainly be much less of a cronyist or corporatist than any garden variety Republican, and arguably less than anyone in Congress.

    Nice mitigation on foreign policy and civil liberties though. He’s escalating in Afghanistan and “seems to be” trying to pull out of Iraq although he’s made no more substantive progress on that than Bush did. In practical impact, Obama is a pure continuation, even escalation, of Bush’s second term. Lord knows, had I known the bar was low enough to be cleared by “seems to be trying”, I might have realized the profound unseriousness of objections to nation-building abroad coming from the left in 2005-2007.

    So too on civil liberties. “The incompetence isn’t as brazen”? Really? That’s the bar? Sit for a minute and parse that out yourself; I don’t think I need to bother. It’s sort of like saying “he seems pretty stupid about politics” as a negative, not in a practical sense but in a value sense.

    So, like I said, it seems progressives would much rather regulate industry than protect civil liberties or move the United States into a more peaceful and non-intervenionist foreign policy. It’s not just that they’d weigh the former more, it doesn’t even appear to be a particularly close call. Good to know. If the animating principle and the core concern of liberals is indeed the regulation of industry…well, see the post title.

    Comment by Brad — 5/25/2010 @ 1:20 pm

  19. The violations are every bit as brazen as they have ever been, if not more so. We are now openly assassinating US citizens as a matter of policy, and the Obama position on Bagram is an exact mirror of the Bush position on Guantanamo Bay. If Dick Cheney was a war criminal, than Barack Obama is now a war criminal. There is no avoiding it.

    As for the war, there is simply no way of justifying the shift in the administration’s position from the campaign to now, so it is nice to hear that nobody’s trying.

    Look, I think we’re all in the position of understanding one another at this point. There exists a very substantial wing of the progressive caucus which either will not support a non-Democrat under any circumstances, or which values government involvement in the economy more than it values the rest of its agenda. Those are, of course, not the only progressives out there, and it will presumably be the remainder of that body with whom libertarians will work, so I suppose we can all learn to live with one another.

    But please, for the love of God, no more crocodile tears EVER from you people where Republican wars are concerned, and no more bitching about the civil liberties violations in which your favorite politicians have made themselves aggressively complicit. You’ve had your chance to make a difference on those issues, and apparently unsafe fruit and predatory lending matter more.

    Comment by Rojas — 5/25/2010 @ 1:27 pm

  20. Hey, hey, hey. Back the hell up. I wasn’t giving my opinion on Obama’s stance on civil liberties and war policy, I was giving my opinion on why libs aren’t as fired up about those issues as they were.

    In my opinion, things like the escalation of Afghanistan with little to no end game, the abandonment of Guantanimo closure, the sanctioned assassination of an American citizen, the defense in court of national secrets, and a host of other things piss me off. I think Obama has been a failure on these fronts, a complete capitulation to the policies of the past including the retention of many of its law breaking architects. I am not the one letting Obama off easy.

    But the fact of the matter is that republicans when they were running things employed brazen incompetence and seemed to relish every opportunity to be undiplomatic pricks. This pissed off the world and about 50% of your country, more as time went on. People take notice when you have jack-asses like John Bolton being the face of American international diplomacy and macho-republimen like Don Rumsfeld as the war architects. So yes, it’s a failure under Obama, but it’s a low profile failure unlike under Karl Rove when they were using the war as an election plank.

    If you want my opinion, ask for it. The question you asked was “Is the potential for a marginally more active “no” vote on economic regulation matters more of a negative than an almost certainly more significant “no” vote on neoconservative foreign policy and civil liberties issues would be a positive?

    A fair few liberals are indicating their answer to that question is “yes”, which surprise me.”

    I was giving the reasons why a fair few liberals might think “yes”. I was not excusing Obama nor mitigating anything his current policies are entrenched in.

    Comment by thimbles — 5/25/2010 @ 2:09 pm

  21. You’ve had your chance to make a difference on those issues, and apparently unsafe fruit and predatory lending matter more.

    Yeah. Financial corruption that empties the global economy into the pockets of crooked bankers does matter more to me since I’m a part of the global economy.
    As do issues with the food supply because I and my children consume the food supply.
    As do issues with the environment and the industrial destruction of which because I and my children live in this environment and the idea of living in a toxic desert does not appeal to me. If I wanted to do that, I’d move to Iraq.
    Civil liberties do matter and I’ve been more outspoken about them than most, but if you ask me to rank civil liberties against consumer and labor protection, I would have to rank civil liberties as a lower priority (which is not the same as a non-priority) because consumer and labor protections have been so eroded over the last 40 years. It would be nice to have a politician that steadfastly defends all three, but in the absence of such, right now environmental problems, consumer product regulation problems, and unemployment problems are more dire.
    And the support for doing anything about them is tepid as is without someone who is philosophically opposed to all government intervention making the case for unregulated free markets solving them.
    From what I’ve read about Conway, he seems a law and order progressive. At this time, that might be what’s required.

    Do you have evidence that he’s a DLC, Blue Dog, corporate, democrat? Because, for a lib, a guy who’s progressive is preferable to a libertarian, and a guy who’s libertarian is preferable to another useless corrupt blue dog loser.
    Before today I knew nothing of Conway. What my research has turned up so far doesn’t indicate he’s another useless cynic, whoring out for favors, Daschale dem. If I’m wrong, disabuse me of my mistaken notions.

    Comment by thimbles — 5/25/2010 @ 2:41 pm

  22. A liberal will not support a Republican even in a situation in which the Republican is the more progressive of the two candidates running? Party means more than the candidate’s stance on the issues?

    Yes. And I say that not as a defense of this behavior, but just someone noting that it seems to be the status quo these days.

    Comment by FreedomDemocrat — 5/25/2010 @ 9:16 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.