Do they VOTE? With passion and enthusiasm?

[Small Market Guy]

Ask this question today of Eric Cantor. I think he knows now.

Some might call it the tyranny of the minority. But it doesn't matter what percentage of the electorate votes. Just the percentage of those who vote in a particular election.

I wouldn't read too much into the Cantor loss. The tea party types think this is some huge victory, when in fact it was a bunch of Democrats voting in an open primary that defeated him. Their guy now gets to go up against a candidate with no money and no support from the national party.

 

[TheBigA]

I wouldn't read too much into the Cantor loss. The tea party types think this is some huge victory, when in fact it was a bunch of Democrats voting in an open primary that defeated him. Their guy now gets to go up against a candidate with no money and no support from the national party.

I really hope you don't say crap like this on the radio.

I once lived in Virginia. Primaries are "open" in name only. You must sign a party loyalty oath to vote. This actually was an idea pushed by Republicans to limit minority voting. This district is overwhelmingly Republican. If all the Democrats in the district voted for Brat, he would have lost. The real reason Cantor lost is his constituents felt he had become too big for his britches. He wasn't attending town meetings any more. He wasn't spending enough time with the voters.

Plus, Brat had the support of Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham backing his bid. What does that tell you?

 

[Avid Listener]

No. It's not possible.

Let's be fair. It is possible. It's just extremely improbable. It's possible to the same degree that winning two Power Ball Jackpots in a week is possible. It ain't gonna happen, but it's not impossible.

 

[Small Market Guy]

I really hope you don't say crap like this on the radio.

This happened 2000 miles away. Why would I talk about it? I don't do horse race nonsense. Even in my own districts. Talking about elections is boring. I'd rather talk about issues.

I once lived in Virginia. Primaries are "open" in name only. You must sign a party loyalty oath to vote.

But it's not checked?

This actually was an idea pushed by Republicans to limit minority voting.

Don't even try that nonsense with me.

This district is overwhelmingly Republican. If all the Democrats in the district voted for Brat, he would have lost. The real reason Cantor lost is his constituents felt he had become too big for his britches. He wasn't attending town meetings any more. He wasn't spending enough time with the voters.

Plus, Brat had the support of Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham backing his bid. What does that tell you?

I didn't say the only votes Brat got were Democrats. Just that there was likely some juicing of the numbers by them. It's obvious by the tea party crowd's reaction that they were fed up with Cantor. Brat may well have won on his own, but this was a landslide.

 

[TheBigA]

But it's not checked?

Didn't you read that this district is overwhelmingly Republican? This isn't Chicago or Cleveland. It's small town USA, where everyone knows everybody, they know how they vote, they know how they think, and if something was wrong, they would have screamed about it. No one is challenging this election. So don't make crap up when we know it's just crap. It makes you part of the problem.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Didn't you read that this district is overwhelmingly Republican? This isn't Chicago or Cleveland. It's small town USA, where everyone knows everybody, they know how they vote, they know how they think, and if something was wrong, they would have screamed about it. No one is challenging this election. So don't make crap up when we know it's just crap. It makes you part of the problem.

I am not QUESTIONING the results. I'm saying the tea party folks shouldn't be overconfident. If this isn't something that people are discussing, why did the Washington Post look into it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/11/did-democratic-votes-doom-eric-cantor/

They came to the same conclusion. That cross party voting didn't make the difference, but it likely happened to some extent.

So who is making stuff up now? Just because I didn't talk about this on my show doesn't mean I don't know what the hell is going on.

 

[TheBigA]

So who is making stuff up now?

You...because here is the conclusion in your linked Washington Post article:

"Little evidence for widespread Democratic cross over voting to oppose Cantor in GOP primary

Vote counts show turnout did not spike higher in more Democratic-voting counties, and Cantor lost most support in Republican strongholds."

And they have a graph supporting their conclusion. Maybe you should re-read what you posted before you tell what you said. Here it is again:

"....when in fact it was a bunch of Democrats voting in an open primary that defeated him."

It's not a fact, it's a lie, and you've now linked us a study that shows it's not true. Too bad you didn't do all that before your initial post.

 

[Small Market Guy]

You...because here is the conclusion in your linked Washington Post article:

"Little evidence for widespread Democratic cross over voting to oppose Cantor in GOP primary

Vote counts show turnout did not spike higher in more Democratic-voting counties, and Cantor lost most support in Republican strongholds."

And they have a graph supporting their conclusion. Maybe you should re-read what you posted before you tell what you said. Here it is again:

"....when in fact it was a bunch of Democrats voting in an open primary that defeated him."

It's not a fact, it's a lie, and you've now linked us a study that shows it's not true. Too bad you didn't do all that before your initial post.

I was wrong about the extent of the crossover. The point still stands that the tea party voters better not get too sure of themselves over this. The widespread glee on liberal websites over this result should be enough evidence of that. They smell blood, and rightfully so.

I'll even bold face the correction so you can apologize for calling me a liar.

 

[Avid Listener]

For the record, the REAL Tea Party Members opposes both liberal Democrats and RINOs. I'm not talking about extremists who self-identify with the Tea Party, embarrassing themselves and the rest of us. I'm talking about the bona-fide, rank-and-file conservatives who genuinely want a return to Constitutional government.

 

[TheBigA]

The widespread glee on liberal websites over this result should be enough evidence of that. They smell blood, and rightfully so.

There's a very simple and inherent contradiction between being a tea party states rights conservative who has a distrust and dislike of the federal government, and being a member of Congress. It's impossible to be both. Because in order to be good at your job as a member of Congress, you do things that contradict the tenants of being a states-rights tea party conservative. This is what Cantor was guilty of. He had become a member of the Washington establishment. That is a good thing for the citizens of his district and the state of Virginia, because he is in a leadership position in Congress, and can funnel money and power to his state. But it's that money and power that tea party conservatives want to eliminate. So in serving his party and his state, he is doing a disservice to his ideology. He had built up a level of seniority in Congress, which gave him a leadership position. That is good for his party and good for his state. But bad for his ideology, which is opposed to people becoming lifetime government employees. So by serving their ideology first, they do the country, the Congress, and their party harm. There's really no way around it. It's simply inconsistent to serve the country and this particular ideology at the same time. It's also difficult to uphold the 18th century principles of the founding fathers, who were mainly agrarian farmers and independent business men, and at the same time live in a 21st century industrialized country that is trying to be the leader of the free world. The goals of decentralizing the government, returning the power to the states, weakens the power and unity of the country and its standing in the world, and makes us susceptible to attack from other countries. Putin realizes this, and it's why he's making the changes he's making in Russia. While he's centralizing power in Moscow, we have a group who is hell bent on decentralizing power from Washington. That makes us vulnerable as a country.

So while you see "widespread glee" from liberal websites as a result, what you really should be thinking about is (1) The future of the Republican party when you have a group that doesn't believe in a centralized party; (2) The ability of tea party members to serve in national office when they're opposed to having a centralized government, legislating, governing, and actually performing their Constitutionally mandated duties, and (3) the future of this country to be able to defend itself against foreign powers in a world that is effectively centralizing and consolidating power into several large blocks (EU, Russia, China, Islam), while we have a group of people determined to divide us into a more decentralized, less powerful country.

No one should be happy or taking glee in this. It's not funny or entertaining. It's downright scary.

 

[TheBigA]

I'll even bold face the correction so you can apologize for calling me a liar.

I don't think I ever called you a liar, but I called what you posted "crap."

Then you posted a story that agreed with me.

And now you're saying your first post was an overstatement.

Nothing really for me to apologize for. I'm just thankful you got it right.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Because in order to be good at your job as a member of Congress, you do things that contradict the tenants of being a states-rights tea party conservative.

Wrong. There are several members of both the House and Senate that do a very good job of both.

So while you see "widespread glee" from liberal websites as a result, what you really should be thinking about is (1) The future of the Republican party when you have a group that doesn't believe in a centralized party;

Wrong. Constitutional conservatives DO believe in a role for the federal government. That's why the constitution was written in the first place. The Articles of Confederation laid out a federal government that was too WEAK. What they DON'T believe in is the bloated and corrupt federal government we have now. It could be scaled back by 2/3 and still be quite effective in doing its PROPER job.

(2) The ability of tea party members to serve in national office when they're opposed to having a centralized government, legislating, governing, and actually performing their Constitutionally mandated duties, and (3) the future of this country to be able to defend itself against foreign powers in a world that is effectively centralizing and consolidating power into several large blocks (EU, Russia, China, Islam), while we have a group of people determined to divide us into a more decentralized, less powerful country.

No one should be happy or taking glee in this. It's not funny or entertaining. It's downright scary.

You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the tea party. Seriously. You're describing hardcore libertarians. If we're overrun by foreign hordes, it won't be because of the tea party. It'll be because of the people they're trying to defeat.

By all accounts, it's the amnesty issue that defeated Cantor.

 

[Small Market Guy]

I don't think I ever called you a liar, but I called what you posted "crap."

No, you called it a lie.

it's a lie

 

[TheBigA]

Wrong. Constitutional conservatives DO believe in a role for the federal government. That's why the constitution was written in the first place. The Articles of Confederation laid out a federal government that was too WEAK. What they DON'T believe in is the bloated and corrupt federal government we have now. It could be scaled back by 2/3 and still be quite effective in doing its PROPER job.

But in scaling back the federal government, which is a fine goal to have, they are also harming the citizens of their states. Let's take the radio industry as an example. For many years, radio was a mostly decentralized industry. Then deregulation, which was a conservative proposal, made it possible for large corporations to buy up hundreds of stations. Their next step, in keeping with your conservative goal, was to cut the size of the workforce and bureaucracy. Are you still with me? Do you see the comparison to the federal government? So what we now have in radio is an industry with less employees providing less service for the people. Do you want the same thing to happen to government?

 

[TheBigA]

No, you called it a lie.

I did, and it was, but I didn't call you a liar. Big difference.

 

[TheBigA]

By all accounts, it's the amnesty issue that defeated Cantor.

Fox News is portraying it as a victory for conservative radio talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin. They say the two of them pounded Cantor in their shows and interviews, and while mentioning amnesty, mainly hit him on being part of the Washington power elite. Sounds to me like the people in Rochester who called for two local radio hosts to be fired. Is that kind of targeted attack scary when it hits your job, but not as scary when it's some politician in DC?

 

[Small Market Guy]

But in scaling back the federal government, which is a fine goal to have, they are also harming the citizens of their states. Let's take the radio industry as an example. For many years, radio was a mostly decentralized industry. Then deregulation, which was a conservative proposal, made it possible for large corporations to buy up hundreds of stations. Their next step, in keeping with your conservative goal, was to cut the size of the workforce and bureaucracy. Are you still with me? Do you see the comparison to the federal government? So what we now have in radio is an industry with less employees providing less service for the people. Do you want the same thing to happen to government?

Funny you should mention radio. Thousands of stations would be off the air right now if consolidation didn't happen. Radio isn't a jobs program. Radio may not be doing may not be what YOU like, but it is still there serving the public. Similarly, cutting the government isn't going to "hurt" people. Some people might lose some benefits or programs in the short run, but the alternative is EVERYONE losing EVERYTHING at some point. This isn't sustainable. $17 trillion and counting. Massive bureaucracies burdening industries with so many regulations that they can't operate. The IRS punishing enemies of the administration. The DOJ selling guns to Mexican drug cartels. The EPA trying to destroy the industry that provides 40 percent of ALL electricity in this country just because it's mined in red states. Are you telling me these are essential services?

I did, and it was, but I didn't call you a liar. Big difference.

Not really, but I'm done with that. I made my correction and admitted I overestimated. If you aren't man enough to step up, so be it. We'll move on.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Fox News is portraying it as a victory for conservative radio talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin. They say the two of them pounded Cantor in their shows and interviews, and while mentioning amnesty, mainly hit him on being part of the Washington power elite. Sounds to me like the people in Rochester who called for two local radio hosts to be fired. Is that kind of targeted attack scary when it hits your job, but not as scary when it's some politician in DC?

I don't like when hosts endorse candidates. I don't endorse candidates. But I'm also not an elected official. Elected officials sometimes lose. It's not even anywhere close to the Rochester deal.

 

[TheBigA]

Funny you should mention radio. Thousands of stations would be off the air right now if consolidation didn't happen.

I'm not disagreeing with any of it...just demonstrating parallels. There are those who complain that the FCC isn't doing enough to help save AM or cut HD Radio interference. The reason they don't is because their staffing was cut during the Reagan years. Less regulation is fine if you are OK with the results. Some people feel radio should go back to required news and public affairs. It's not going to happen under deregulation. Every administration has been cutting government. This isn't a new concept. Just yesterday you were talking about the unemployment problem in this country, and 12% is too much. If the government eliminates more employees, you'll see that number skyrocket. And it's not just in DC. The federal government has workers in every state. So while shutting down military bases in South Carolina is a smart thing to do for the federal budget, it's a terrible thing to do for a local economy. That's part of the inconsistency I was talking about earlier, and why quite often when these strict Constitutionalists are sitting in appropriations committee hearings, considering who to fund or defund, they have a choice to make: Serve their ideology or serve their constituents. And when the constituents are also more concerned about the ideology, that's when you lose an election. Everything is connected, and you can't be a strict ideologue when you're also responsible for millions of other people. If this Brat guy gets elected, he'll be faced with the same choices Cantor did. When you're appropriating money to an agency, there is no budget code for selling guns to Mexican drug cartels. That's not a decision someone in Congress makes. That's an agency decision. Same with the IRS or the FCC. There is no line item they can cut for eliminating behavior they don't agree with. Those decisions are made within the agency. So while it may seem very idealistic (and I heard a lot of this idealism in Brat's victory speech yesterday) that he can cut the size of government, a return that money to Virginia, it's quite another thing to actually DO it. And when you put handcuffs or budget cuts on agencies, it often leads to them doing things to raise the money they need in other ways to simply get their jobs done. Personally, I've seen the exact same thing happen in radio, when local stations are faced with corporate-mandated budget cuts.

 

[TheBigA]

It's not even anywhere close to the Rochester deal.

Sure but the end result is the same.