Cuccinelli struggling against second-rate Democrat

Showing ideological unwillingness to govern has political consequences. The Tea Party is now poisoned brand and they firmly control GOP primaries.

Yeah your media pals have done a good job with the slander. Kudos for siding with the corrupt police state.

American Sunset now inevitable, say hello to dystopian police state. Cheers.

False dichotomy. Plus it isn't slander if it is factual truth.

Or if you say it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
It will be true. You know the way Democrats prove things.

Wow, just wow. The only factual truth in there seems to be that the polls are suggesting a Democrat win for governor. Literally everything else in there is pure conjecture and lefty pandering by Pravda, I mean The Atlantic.

But its not, and its not.

Just look in the mirror. You "speak" against govt corruption and malfeasance, but actively support the worst offenders. You and the rest of the so-called liberals. Gonna fix a lot of things with that approach

Well, given how marvelously Obamacare is functioning on roll out, I suspect that once again, news of the death of the Tea Party is a bit premature.

GO TEA PARTY GO!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147635/tea-party-movement.aspx

Back to the original topic. Isn't it amazing what you can do with polling...

As a progressive, I am not a huge fan of current administration and would gladly vote against it if there was even remotely sane alternative. There isn't.

It is like choosing to trade herpes for a case of testicular cancer. While both are unpleasant, with later you know there is good chance it is going to kill you and you are likely to lose your balls.

Well, we all know how warped your sense of "sane" is so this comes as no surprise. Kind of interesting how it changes based on the current leftist media memes as well.

When Freidersdorf pointed out in his article that Rand Paul actually was pretty sane and did not fit the mold some left wingers tried to pidgeonhole him into you seemed to be in agreement.

But now that the biggest benefactors of govt looting have funded a smear campaign against anyone who might stand in their way over a govt slowdown (wasnt a shutdown only about 15% of FedGov shut down) its "omgfg... theyreeee innnsaannneeeeeeee !!!1!one!1"

And thusly, I lulz.

It is just really to bad the right doesnt have any less radical choices. Some of the fiscal conservatism I used to like. Its all the other shit I can't stand.
The main character in HBO's newsroom said it best:

To be a republican today, you have to:

To be a Democrat today you have to:

Make edge cases out to be typical for GOP
Want to install an unaccountable police state run by intel agencies as de facto govt
Think the largest wealth transfer in the history of the world from poor and middle to very top is A-OK
Play a race card at any and every opportunity
Buy into faulty models of how X issue works, while ignoring any rebuttal, context, or comparison

Sorry Derid, but there is no "typical GOP" left. It all got hijacked into radicalism. You will have better luck finding moderate Taliban than moderate GOPer. You can thank KoranFoxNews dogma for that.

As to police state - you remove progressive's ability to punish neolibs (analogous to necons), so while you are correct that this is happening under our watch, the alternative simply does not exists. Plus don't even think about absolving your own side from its share of responsibility for this.

The fact that you think my "side" has anything to do with this situation shows how incredibly unrelated to reality your thinking is.

GOP establishment did perpetrate much insanity, grassroots revolts, big money excoriates said grassroots.. left wingers hop on bandwagon, and you with them.

And why on the "left" is there no alternative? Because the leftists are politically and intellectually lazy thats why, in addition to being moral cowards. It takes moral courage to stand up and fight for something when literally billions of dollars of slander are thrown by your enemies at a very naive and impressionable populace.

No alternative exists, because the US left, and by all I have seen yourself included will support any atrocity if only they get told that they are superior to the "other" by doing so. Its ludicrous, considering its as easy to pick out Left Wing idiocy, clownishness and extremism as it is Tea Party or any other flavor of non-leftist political groupings. If a Tea Party guy had pulled a Booker (new NJ Sen) and talked about his fake drug dealer pal, all the leftist rags would have been all over it, you yourself would likely have posted it up here as yet more "evidence" of "deranged" right wingers or something. (of course people expect Dems to be deranged so it doesnt tend to make news)

People are just incredibly easy to manipulate if they can be convinced that there are only two "sides" to anything.

Homeland Security, Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping all started before Obama's Term 1.

Valid charge is that your my side didn't do much to stop it, pretending that your side has nothing to do with it is history revisionism. As much as you love to forget this, but Bush years did happen.

You are absolutely out of your mind. Derid just got through explaining to you that your paradigm is the only one in which there exists only two sides. The rest of us do not believe there are only two sides and for the most part we all know that the two groups you call "sides" are one in the same. There are none of us left who (if any of us did in the first place) think that the patriot act is/was a good idea. In fact, as soon as they started delaying the built in sunset for it, we started screaming about it. A policy Bush started and Obama has continued.

When Obama has spent 5 years carrying on the same policies of Bush, you no longer get to scream about it being Bush's fault. Bush was bad. Obama is no better. Look only at their policies and you can't even tell them apart.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165509/obama-job-approval-declines-19th-quarter.aspx

This is Obamas numbers dropping faster then the tea party from the same site you got the tea party numbers from.


So what is your point now knowing that Obama is doing worst then the tea party

Hey JetStar, I know you are lurking....

Please do me a favor, and educate your fellow extremist liberal here as to precisely which "side" I was on. Seeing as you were active in the debates here circa 2001~2003 you should remember exactly who was railing against the surveillance state as soon as it was instituted, who was against the Iraq war, and who said the continued money printing if we financed an additional huge war in that fashion, was going to, in approx 3-5 years time cause a major financial calamity.

Also might want to remind your liberal cohort who was on the pro choice side of the discussions.

Thanks Jet.

That Derid has left the town. Over last couple years I have watched your views slide down into the blackhole of epistemic closure. It isn't that you no longer listen to anything I say that bothers me, it is that you lost willingness to listen to anything coming from the outside of the fever swamps. Now you are just another angry misinformed old man shouting at "lieberals".

Here is the news for you - conservatism is dead and not coming back. What have left is a post-truth outrage machine.

Enjoy eating your Cruz 16 crow.

Apparently you dont know what epistemic closure is, because you have been frequently misapplying it. Also somewhat amusing is that I actually read most of the liberal rags, and value good writing and reporting when I see it. Unfortunately false continuum and false consensus is all the rage these days and when so many on the "left" cannot even start with valid premises its hard to find them convincing.

You seem demonstrate an open lack to disregard anything said. Its not that I disregard anything you say, its just you dont say anything new regardless of any facts or arguments placed before you.

Kind of amusing, because I dont shout at real "liberals". I just hold disdain for sheep who dont even have a grasp on their own core vision, and follow the media herd off into logical irrelevancy and think extreme hyperbole makes for convincing arguments.

If your idea of a real "liberal" is a guy who spends their time excoriating "Tea Party" people, and thinking apologizing for the incompetence, corruption, wealth transfer policies, and outright malfeasance of the Clintons and Obamas et al... yet still supporting them 100%.....

Well.. I suppose I do shout at those hypocritical flakes on occasion. I do find it extremely interesting that someone who supposedly is a "liberal" can support Obama, Clinton, Feinstein, Pelosi and crew... then turn around and accuse others of not listening to anything outside of some "fever swamp".

Emotion and self-image have trumped intellect in the segment of politics that self identifies as "liberal". That is what I find sad.

Disagree with misapplying. Way I use the term - extreme version of confirmation bias to the point that everything is self-referential. 'If you don't understand my explanation, read previous sentence in this post or you are wrong' kind of thinking.

Simplified example: political right's belief that cutting taxes is always beneficial for the economy that flows into small government that flows into hate of deficit spending. None of these concepts are necessary wrong, but when you loop them and ignore everything else - they lose intellectual coherency and becomes dogma. If I were to point out that cutting taxes during recession will inevitably increase deficit spending I get blank stares and get accused of "extreme hyperbole".

This is in a way a framing problem compounded by indiscriminate poisoning the well. You won't hear any arguments that are not framed on your terms, and if I try to fit my arguments into such limited frame then it inevitably creates coherence problems.

I have offered this demonstration before - I can channel conservative views without average person being able to tell that I do not share them. At the same time I sincerely doubt that you could fake a convincing liberal for anyone but your fellow right-wingers.

Its so strange, because you honestly seem to be projecting yourself on to me. It is kind of creepy how your assertions about me continue to reach new heights of irony.

quick example: Lately I have been channeling Stockman , who opposes most tax cuts during recession. I have given thoughts on taxes before, but it does not matter what I or anyone else says : you hear entirely what you want to hear. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say you have an imagined concept of what other people actually think, and you somehow internalize what they say in a manner that comports to the caricatures you have fixed in your mind. This creates an extremely distorted view of reality, and pretty much guarantees that any assertions you make are grounded in false premise.

If you want to talk about framing problems, what you really mean are premises and assumptions. What you really seem to mean is that you are incapable of identifying and attacking premises you believe to be incorrect. At least you admit to having a coherence problem. But again, this is not even a real problem.. objectively speaking, but rather a result of the distorted view you hold of everyone else.



Not sure this merits much of a response, just know I facepalmed exceptionally hard.

The end analysis is that you project an extremely limited, two dimensional view of the world. Anything that does not neatly fit into your mental model gets fit, regardless of whether the geometry of the peg matches the shape of the hole. As a result it does not matter what is said, or what concepts are articulated by others - if they do not match your own, the result will be you shouting "crazy redneck tea party etc" , while ironically talking about how others overuse "poisoning the well".

But as has been and will likely always be, self gratifying rationalizations based on intellectual hubris is what being a Utilitarian is all about.

I LOL'd. Typical elitist asshattery.

It's amazing to me how much many of us do agree on, and let the radical stuff divide us.

I enjoy the debate and staying sharp part of these conversations. You guys seem to have gone a little more in the H8 direction that I remember.

Respectful debate is what I enjoy.

Noone has addressed my points yet. It is hard for me to see you all jumping on the Paul and Cruz bus when they are so wrong on so many fundamental issues. Here are a couple.

1) Gay Marriage
WHY DOES ANYONE CARE who marries who? How does it hurt anyone? Why would you want to get in between two people that love each other? Amazing.

2) Abortion
SMALL GOVERNMENT except for the most intimate decision a woman could make about HER body. You talk about intrusiveness? There is nothing more intrusive than making a woman have the baby of the man who RAPED her.

I just cant take these people serious on any point when they take this kind of stance on these issues. I mean denying science, and thinking that default would not tank the world economy is just plain ignorant in my honorable opinion.

1) I may be wrong but no one here has said they were against gay marriage.

2) I may be wrong but no one here has said they were against abortion in cases of rape.

I didn't see anyone deny science, as science is fact not theory.
Please prove the fact the world would have tanked if we went into default.
Please use the science you think we do not believe in.
Its hard to take people serious when they keep saying lies.

Actually I prefer it myself. But im bored so I play the game available. /shrug

Paul thinks those should be decided at the State level. Personally I dont care who marries who and have always leaned pro choice.

I just think that beside things like intentional wealth transfer, regressive taxation, and surveillance/police state.. those issues fade to literally nothingness in relative importance.

You say that you cannot take anyone serious who has certain stances on those issues. You, and, unfortunately a lot of people. Thats why they are called wedge issues, and are spotlighted so hard by the Karl Roves of the world. Because they place a wedge between otherwise reasonable people on meaningless issues that are intended to be a distraction away from important issues.

Its the most blatant, yet most effective political sleight of hand play.

No, he deflects this to the state level, knowing well that for places that are his natural base it is "the right way". It is not unlike if a liberal from New York stated that gun regulation should be decided at the municipal level.



Personally, I think that any candidate left of "legitimate rape" is fine, problem is that there are a lot of these rapists in the GOP. Any candidate that willing to uphold Roe vs. Wade is palatable to me.



I actually agree. Free abortions on each corner while living in a police oligarchy is less desirable than otherwise free society that does not allow abortions.

If these issues were the only thing, I'd be voting libertarians. At the same time I am nowhere near as liberal as Jet.

My personal reason for holding the nose and sticking with Democrats through ugly and Ugly and UGLY is following:

They are the party that is not hell-bent on dismantling social nets and programs that I see as crucial to functioning society. Free society is impossible when people are allowed to starve on the streets. Free is only possible when the basic needs are addressed - food, shelter, healthcare. I am willing to be pragmatic about it and realize that resources to help are limited, but I absolutely could not get behind someone that sees people in need as lazy parasites living off the dole.

Yes the State-level argument is something of a dodge. But it is at least a philosophically consistent dodge. I highly respect it, because the purpose is to focus on the important issues without getting mired in the wedge issues.

The thing is, none of the leading libertarian leaners like Rand Paul are intent on dismantling social nets. Hayekian-sphere full blown libertarians like myself dont even believe in such a thing. There are plenty of fringe elements of most political groupings. But among the politically "serious" libertarian leaners, most of the emphasis is on ending corporate welfare, not dismantling safety nets for individuals.

I have seen a lot more left leaning bloggers and pundits talk about the dangers of ring wingers - which to them includes libertarians - dismantling social safety nets than I have seen influential libertarian minded pols arguing or pushing for the elimination of social safety nets.

What bothers me is when it gets extreme, like that guy who was arguing for liberals to not join with libertarians to protest the NSA. Fearing, that if the coalition was successful.. somehow that would translate into the most fringe extremest Rothbardian libertarians gaining such popularity that they could and would actually dismantle said safety nets. Which is absolutely ludicrous from pretty much any angle. If anything, the longer the current string of abuses and scandals continue to grow.. I would think that would present a much greater threat of an explosion of extreme libertarianism, where more and more people come to see govt as nothing but an enemy. Reigning in govt abuses and corruption with any coalition should seem like a good idea to the serious liberal, because people who trust govt are far more likely to entrust it with more of their money.

Even among those who philosophically reject the concept of activist govt, most are willing to accept a reasonable level of govt provided it operates in an open, accountable and even-handed manner.

I happen to agree with "that guy", but mostly because I don't feel that libertarians sufficiently differentiate from the Tea Party. Government shutdown was missed opportunity, instead Libertarians chose to ride the short bus.

Not sure I understand what that has to do with protesting the NSA. I also admit to not understanding what the big deal was. The "shut down" was a non-event. Like 15% of the govt actually shut down... some people got a 2 week paid vacation. Sound and fury.

The shut down, and threats of default, was a clear sign of unwillingness or inability to govern. I'd actually take it step further and state that libertarians and the tea party are showed willing to sabotage the government. This is not how you govern.

Here is another recent example where libertarians are happy to wreck.

How do you figure?

Here is my issue Hele. Paul and Cruz are so far right on subjects like this, that I cant even hear anything else they say.

I am telling you, if a true centrist independent, dem, or repub , came along that all of us could tolerate, they would win the day.

I cant stand things like the overreaching NSA and most importantly the Citizens United corruption. I don't worship Obama, but I just cant palate the right wing christian borderline racist agenda you get from many. I am no saying that any of you are these things, but just like me, you have to look past the issues that concern you and choose between a douche and a turd sandwich (plagiarized from South Park).

Compromise and tolerance are how we have gotten this far, and the people in power are feeding off the radical left and right parts of this country, and in my opinion, leaving the majority of us behind.

Think of it this way. We have all been bitching at each other for years in this forum. If we had the power and all say in a room together, we could agree on a great many things and resolve some of the most challenging issues of our day with compromise and tolerance.

But that;s no fun, so back to bitching

Jet's appeals to reason assume that there is reason to be had anywhere on the right. I pointed out that Cruz 16 is a very real possibility, and except for Derid nobody even cringed. They are all death panels/birth certificate/shut the government down/agenda 21 kind of people. This is what passes for conservatism these days.

In other words, conservatism is dead. Derid, please turn the lights off on your way out.

What I still dont get is how not liking the way X would hypothetically govern if they somehow had full Congressional majorities / Presidency has anything to do with protesting NSA. (and other related issues)

Also Jet, Rand Paul isnt what your thinking apparently. His work with Pat Leahy (D-VT) on sentencing reform is anything but racist. As an eye surgeon by trade, I doubt he disbelieves in science.

It might also benefit some people to recall that just a few short years ago, the political world was convinced that Red America was the future. We all know how that ended up. Dont think for a second that after all the massive abuses, wealth transfer, and yes Obamacare.. that there isnt a big blowback coming down the pike.

The only blow-back is that US going to be 1-party system, completely unaccountable to anyone. Why? Because the opposition insists on staying irrelevant and non-viable by excursively appealing to crazy. I hope GOP will go through its "No Homers Club" moment sometime soon, but if '12 humiliation didn't do it, I don't know what will.

The fact that you believe this only proves you do not understand
or chose to ignore what conservatism is.
Well it proves how much you do not understand about anything.
Please keep cutting and pasting mind control articles.

Oh, I am a huge fan of conservatism. The problem is none of you practice it. It is like preaching chastity in a brothel.

Well, technically speaking Dems are the new conservatives as defenders of the status quo. Of course that status quo is wealth transfer, and falling standard of living but /shrug

As long as Dems "say" good things, who cares what they do right? Cutting food stamps wasnt on their agenda

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/ted-cruz-poll-2016-99552.html?hp=l5

Texan leading in Texas 2 years before campaign... go figure

You can start marinating your crow, it will go down easier this way in 16.

Actually considering hes the highest profile Texan.. the fact that hes only in 30's in Texas is pretty weak TBH.

I recommend yogurt and mustard marinade.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/how-republicans-lost-the-farm/283349/

Conceptually - I oppose farm subsidies and support food stamps. I am not entirely unsympathetic to TP stance here, but for TP it is clear case of shitting where you eat.

I only oppose farm subsidies in concept, but I do realize that they are absolutely necessary - there is no way for US farmers to compete internationally when labor costs, environmental regulation costs and so on so much higher in US.

At the same time I like my food non-toxic and sustainable, given a choice of expensive US food and cheap Chinese (I am aware China is net importer) food I'd always buy US.

Thing is, cheap and toxic is likely the only thing that will be available anywhere at any price if market is deregulated. As such farm subsidies are necessary.

Honestly this whole issue has become one big clusterfuck. It would take hours to even provide a high level overview of the screwed up food landscape.

Many, but not all farm subsidies are all kinds of fucked up.

Also, its unfortunate but the regulatory and taxation regime in the US (and in some cases this varies by area) favors megafarm producers in the US. While its still a better situation than China regarding food quality regulation, slowly but surely we are getting there.

Mitch McConel won primary nomination. I couldn't think of anyone more "establishment" that him.

You were saying?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-eric-cantor-loss-analysis-20140611,0,527880.story

http://davebratforcongress.com/issues/

A bit about the guy. Not going to be loved by the left, but seems like a decent enough fellow.

Certainly better than Eric Cantor, seeing him defeated is such a glorious thing.

I am not yet sure what will come out of this. Democrats now actually get a shot at capturing the seat.

Fist, Cantor's defeat isn't exactly achievement of 'institutionalized' Tea Party, none of the PAC/organization supported Brat before the upset.

Second, Cantor is far right and as obstructionist as it gets. Only Ted Cruz would be right of him. Just look at his voting record.

Third, if GOP decides that take-home is to turn even more right, then we will soon have one-party system, and that will be Very Bad.

What I hope take-home message going to be that shameless whoring to corporate interests and mindless populist obstructionism could get punished by voters. That this upset is anti-Congress vote and not yet another hard right shift.

What I intellectually know take home message going to be is fear that would result in more obstructionism, more grandstanding, and even less effective government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/us/politics/david-brat-waged-solo-fight-against-eric-cantor.html

"Institutionalized" Tea Party is a misnomer in the first place.

It doesnt exist as such. This guy is part of what I have claimed the Tea Party is, in many areas of the country. Not what you would have called the AstroTurf Tea Party.

The bottom line is a top 3 power figure of the pro-NSA War Party was primaried by a Austrian economist liberty candidate.

When similar pushback starts occurring with members of the other party who are selling the country down the creek like Cantor was, wake me up ok?

You should break out of the left-right dichotomy. Really. I'm being serious here.

Its kind of funny though seeing the MSM jumping all over this guy, been seeing lots of misrepresentations. But this is what happens when an outsider primaries a member of the Ultra Corrupt Political Class.

Just the other day you were agreeing that Cantor was one of the guys who should be impeached, particularly over the NSA issue. So an anti-NSA guy primaries him and you can just talk about it through prism of left-right "obstruction" politics?

Cmon man.

Also, this shows that money isnt everything.

Don't get me wrong, I am cheering for Cantor getting turfed. Couldn't have happened to more deserving guy.

What I am not cheering is inevitable knee-jerk reaction from the rest of Cantor-like politicians that will turn harder right instead of turning "pro-people". They will try to appeal to Crazy wing of TP instead of more reasonable Libertarian wing of TP.

More of obstruction politics is an unintended side effect of otherwise good thing.

I guess part of it is I dont like the term "obstruction" bandied about. Its not relevant in its own context. It all depends on what is being obstructed.

As far as how Cantors type reacts.. well... you might have a point. But nothing good can or should be expected from those types anyhow. They do what they do, and one can only hope they end up on the wrong side of their own primary at some point.

You really don't understand the Tea Party. It is not an institution. Many people from all over the country supported David Brat and made calls for him from their homes. That is what the Tea Party is.

Wow, you must swim in the kool-aid every day.

Your prognostication abilities have proven to be less than perfect so I won't hold my breath for your Democrat only system.

Once again you're proving that you really know nothing about the Tea Party. That's what they've been screaming from the rooftops, but all the media does is look for "broken snake" flags and nazi nut-bags to point at and say "see look, this is the Tea Party."

Our government would be pretty damn hard pressed to be less effective.

Postmortem

I might go into more depth later, but the quick answer is simple.

Look at what happened, and is still happening to Bernie.

First, he is gaslighted on the right as extremist Leninist, and the one somehow responsible for nazi-like levels of political correctness permeating some social demographics.

Then watch as Establishment figures on the left just smile and nod at the gaslighting, before starting their own false narrative about Berniebros, and trying to paint Bernie as the Trump of the Left.

Next we get the parade of often random hit pieces from the Establishment. Just look at how frequently Bernie is still getting hammered by certain elements of the press.

When someone threatens the Establishment's gravy train, the knives unceasingly fly out from all directions, until they find their mark.

In the Tea Party's case, its weakness was the fact that it wasn't an actual Party. Anyone could claim a TP mantle, which allowed the Establishment to light up the more idiotic specimens then spread the fire to the whole movement.

Then there was the "can't govern" angle, which also caught on. As if 40 or so House members were responsible for a body of 435 being unable to govern. Which is absurd, but somehow the narrative still stuck that it was 40 principled House members, and not corrupt and incompetent party leadership at fault for the House being unable to function.

I'd also add that the fact that no elements of the left were willing to work with the principled libertarian wing on the TP didn't help either. Wild-eyed gaslighting of Rothbardian straw men played a part in halting libertarian leaning TP momentum, which doubtless pleases many on the left.

Of course, the result of both the Establishment, and what passes for the 'principled' left pushing back against the libertarian strain of the TP has just created Trump. I have to wonder if that is what they were hoping for.

Seems about right to me.

I'm guessing "idiotic specimens" refers to what is now being called the "alt-right", which as best I can tell consists of racist mother fuckers prodded along by Russian interests, Alex Jones following nut jobs and the "make America great again" people. I thought we already had labels for these people. I've always just called them assholes, and morons. I guess that doesn't work well when the goal is to associate them with a particular political party.

Are there some ruby slippers we can use to get to someplace where we're not either fucked, or fucked by our presidential choices?

And "legitimate rape" types, "I'm not a witch" types, and such.

Anyone could take up a local populist issue and claim to be TP, and no one could definitively say they weren't.