I read a very interesting article in today's paper briefly describing how Newt Gingrich ruined Congress (my words), according to Congressman Jim Cooper, article by Joe Nocera.
The basic idea is that before Gingrich, the Speaker of the House tried to speak for the whole house! and not just his party. Some of the comments talk about the 24/7 media putting politicians in campaign mode all of the time, or risk saying stupid stuff.
There are some interesting comments and you can see which ones are popular at nytimes.
Just because the Dems no longer have the carte blanche they had does not mean things are broken in Congress, regardless of how many times the media tries to perpetuate that idea. Things are working just fine, actually, just the way it was designed to.
(Recommended by 5 readers)
I will never forget Newt's comment when the Republicans were pushing their Contract With America. Many of the things the democrats wanted for the country were echos of what the republicans wanted. Rather than being happy that both parties wanted to achieve some of the same ends Gingrich blurted out, "The democrats have stolen our agenda!" He showed then that who was in charge was much more important than what got done.
Jim Cooper is my representative in congress and is one of the few statesmen left in politics.
Recommended by 365 readers
That is representative of the Times' readers' opinions, but I must say as I read this article in hard copy during lunch today, I found myself agreeing--someone who is traditionally conservative leaning.
I just finished that article from the OP. At first it appeared like a bunch of leftist ranting, but it did make several interesting points, which if true, are totally disgusting. I would be interested to see a non leftist (middle or center-right) response from someone not crazy (someone aligned more like Huntsman--not Perry, at least as far as their beliefs on evolution and climate). Actually the Times article has a little to do with what the OP article talks about--the language and combativeness adapted by the right.
I'll always wonder myself why so many corporations are reporting record profits during this recession yet unemployment remains terrible. Maybe if a number of needed jobs weren't being performed in foreign lands for low wages (yet good in those poor countries), the mega rich corporations would have something to spend their giant coffers on, instead of hoarding their wealth.
It's terribly true that so many parts (but not all) of the right, politicians, corporations, by all means practice Old Testament beliefs instead of any of those in the New, such as the article refers to in the Sermon on the Mount. I have yet to see anyone refute that particular sermon as a bad thing, yet the religious right does an incredible job of pretending it doesn't exist. To put it into perspective, I'm Mormon and increasingly unlikely to vote for Romney, or any Republican except maybe Huntsman, the more I see of their fake pandering to the poor.
The article does itself a disservice though, by calling most of the Republican constituency "ignorant" or "uneducated," even though I understand why when you see Republican candidates talk about lowering the corporate tax rate (and this helps miss Olive Garden waitress??? etc. etc.).
My friend from Singapore briefly mentioned online how stupid our government was for the whole debt ceiling crisis. If countries about as far away as you can possibly get from the U.S. felt the economic fear of the debt ceiling issue and potential default, I really have to ask if the Republicans are insane.
I don't really buy that the Dems are afraid of them though, yet in the spirit of the notorious RedLetterMedia review of Star Wars, how easily can anyone think up any of the catchy talking points of the left? Hope? Change? Oh, I can remember some "bad" ones the right uses: "Socialist" "Communist," or as the article pointed out, "Entitlement." Even after reading that article, I simply cannot recall the name of the health care act, and even though I resent the name that stuck due to its utter disrespect, I cannot remember anything but "Obamacare."
On September 08 2011 10:25 xDaunt wrote: The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts.
Where do you think those tax dollars come from?
If government provides every American with Medicaid/care through tax dollars, every American is forced to spend money on a product the government "offers", whether they use it or not.
To spend is to tax. I support single-payer and I get this.
On September 08 2011 10:11 xDaunt wrote: Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
There's very little evidence one way or another for how the Supreme Court will decide other than that it will be a 5-4 vote.
There's actually quite a bit of evidence out there. Here's some:
1. Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy.
2. US v. Lopez
3. US v. Morrison
4. Gonzales v. Raich (this presents a unique case given that it deals with drug regulation)
On September 08 2011 10:11 xDaunt wrote: Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
As for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist.
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, it isn't because of how close or far it is to socialism. It's a question of whether the government can force an individual to purchase something from a private entity.
On the other hand, the Constitution easily allows the government to collect taxes and to provide services. (see: medicare, the military, social security) Single payer or even a British-style NHS are almost surely within the bounds of what the Constitution allows.
On September 08 2011 08:22 Bulldog654 wrote: I support the Republican party because it is being forced back to its original principles by an ever increasingly involved populace, demanding a return to limited government. The Federal Government has proven itself to be a poor custodian of my money, and now I and others like me are demanding to keep more of our money, and this includes rich people, who always seem to be demonized by those on the left.
In exchange for "taking care of us" by providing many social programs of questionable effectiveness at the cost of the productive, Democrats demand that i cede rights that I will not compromise on. Bottom line even though I'm apparently a fool for having religious beliefs and also lack a sliver of insight, I am tired of working and seeing all that money taken from my check and knowing its being wasted by an increasingly corrupt and fat federal government.
Let me state though, for the record I think it is absolutely foolish for anyone in this country to think things will get better for us if only <insert political party> were in power. I am currently supporting the Republican party under the admittedly very foolish hope that they will get the message I and the majority of my voting countrymen are trying to send them.
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months.
I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
I'll start with Michele Bachmann. Politifact.com is a great website if you are unfamiliar with it. In my opinion it's about as unbiased as you can get; they call out people in both parties on things they say all the time.
"When Standard & Poor's "dropped our credit rating, what they said is, we don't have an ability to repay our debt. ... I was proved right in my position" that the debt ceiling should not have been raised."
Not even close to true. I'll quote the website with: "To put it in simple terms, Standard & Poor's had two main reasons for the downgrade: First, that the size of the U.S. debt is very large and growing, and second, that politicians seem unable to agree on what steps to take to reduce it."
"President Barack Obama "has virtually no one in his cabinet with private-sector experience."
Also completely false. Here are some of his cabinet members with private-sector experience: Shaun Donovan, Steven Chu, Ken Salazar
"The president released all of the oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve."
In reality Obama released just over 4% of the holdings in the reserve. Pretty far from 100%.
"The top 1 percent of income-earners pay about 40 percent of all taxes into the federal government."
Totally off. When it comes to income taxes specifically that is true, but when it comes to total federal income tax (what she said) the top 1% only pay 28.1%
"Speaker Pelosi ... has been busy sticking the taxpayer with her $100,000 bar tab for alcohol on the military jets that she's flying."
The amount of money spent on alcohol actually equates to about $7,000. Now I'm not saying that I think it's okay for any taxpayer money to be spent on alcohol, but again Bachmann is totally off with her numbers.
I've seen a number of Michele Bachmann interviews and she never seems to answer any of the questions asked. Instead she'll just give the same rehearsed speech over and over, like in this one:
I know MSNBC is definitely a left leaning network but that interview speaks for itself.
"Democrats are poised now to cause this largest tax increase in U.S. history."
This was said right before the Bush tax cuts were extended. If tax cuts to the wealthy expired but the rest remained, the resulting tax increase for high earners would be 0.4% of the GDP. If none of the tax cuts were extended, the resulting increase would be 2.2% of the GDP. Obama wanted to extend the tax cuts to everyone except individuals making over $200,000/year and couples making over $250,000. Reagan signed a law that increased taxes by 1.23% of the GDP back in 1982, so Republicans who worship Reagan yet are completely against increased taxes of any sort need to rethink their views. The last time taxes were increased for more than 2.2% of the GDP was in 1942 (5.04%), so Palin is completely wrong when she says it's the largest increase in U.S. history. It's less than half of that, and less than a tenth of what Obama wanted. Sure, it's a lot more than anything recent, but we've also been through the worst recession since the Great Depression as a result the financial crisis caused by financial deregulation beginning in the Reagan era.
'Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."
The truth is that the health bill (the one that was drafted at the time) allows Medicare, for the first time, to pay for doctors' appointments for patients to discuss living wills and other end-of-life issues with their physicians. These types of appointments are completely optional, and AARP supports the measure. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's "level of productivity in society" to determine whether they are "worthy" of health care.
"Look at the debt that has been accumulated in the last two years. It's more debt under this president than all those other presidents combined."
Bad math. The day Obama took office the gross federal debt stood at $10.627 trillion. The week this was said the debt was $14.345 trillion.
She's also done a full flip on climate change because the political scene in the U.S. has changed since 2008:
Palin in 2008: "I believe that man’s activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only arctic state in our union, of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area with ice pack melting. Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change, whether it’s entirely, wholly caused by man’s activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet — the warming and the cooling trends — regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it and we have to make sure that we’re doing all we can to cut down on pollution."
Palin in 2010: “We knew the bottom line [of listing polar bears as endangered] was ultimately to shut down a lot of our development, and it didn’t make any sense because it was based on these global warming studies that now we’re seeing (is) a bunch of snake oil science.”
That's quite a flip.
'Vice President Joe Biden's meeting [regarding the stimulus in 09] "with the transparency and accountability board . . . was closed to the public."'
She's harping on Biden for a specific meeting with a single person on the transparency and accountability board, not the entire board. There were a number of open meetings and conferences Biden and others involved in the stimulus package attended, like the one on February 25th, 2009.
Rick Perry (he's just trying to keep up his public image for his career... and it's working)
"We don't get a lot of calls from this White House… I have, frankly, never had a call from them."
An earlier release, from July 6, 2009, says Perry was among five governors to participate in a conference call with Vice President Joe Biden. Of late, Lehrich said in an e-mail, Perry has been invited to be on a call with senior administration officials involved in the response to the oil spill every day since May 4. Perry "has participated on a number of those calls and has been represented by his staff on many more," Lehrich said.
'Scientists are "questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. … (It is) more and more being put into question."'
Completely wrong. There virtually no debate whatsoever about this in the scientific community, just oil companies spending millions upon millions of dollars trying to convince the public
"So we talked about the difference between 2003 and 2011," Perry said [in regards to Texas]. "And the percentage of the budget shortfall versus the budget is really not that much different than it was in 2003."
Reality: The current-spending shortfall is 40 percent larger than in 2003 while the shortfall to maintain current services is nearly 63 percent larger.
“From time to time there are going to be things that occur that are acts of God that cannot be prevented.”
This was said in regards to the BP oil spill...
"We are fed up with being overtaxed and overregulated. We are tired of being told how much salt we can put on our food"
Federal agencies have guidelines recommending that people eat less than 2,300 mg of sodium per day, but that is just a recommendation for people who want to be healthy. No one is trying to regulate how much salt you specifically can put on your food.
Rick Perry just relies on sensationalism and appealing to the public's emotions in order to get attention. Between the constant wearing of cowboy boots, remarks about Texas succeeding, calling himself a real Texan while George Bush was a fake Texan, and parading around with guns, he's just acting in order to appeal to his base.
On September 08 2011 10:25 xDaunt wrote: The difference may seem absurd, but it's very important. There's a big difference between the federal government providing a service with tax dollars and the federal government forcing you to buy a product. It's not all that different in the context of structuring health care, but it's crucial in other contexts.
Where do you think those tax dollars come from?
If government provides every American with Medicaid/care through tax dollars, every American is forced to spend money on a product the government "offers", whether they use it or not.
To spend is to tax. I support single-payer and I get this.
I think you delineated the difference quite clearly. Let me ask you this question: would you like it if the federal government passed a law that forces you to get a bestiality porn subscription every year?
I know that the example is absurd, but that's the point. The federal government shouldn't be able to compel anyone to purchase a product from anyone. That power simply doesn't exist under the federal constitution.
I read a very interesting article in today's paper briefly describing how Newt Gingrich ruined Congress (my words), according to Congressman Jim Cooper, article by Joe Nocera.
The basic idea is that before Gingrich, the Speaker of the House tried to speak for the whole house! and not just his party. Some of the comments talk about the 24/7 media putting politicians in campaign mode all of the time, or risk saying stupid stuff.
There are some interesting comments and you can see which ones are popular at nytimes.
Just because the Dems no longer have the carte blanche they had does not mean things are broken in Congress, regardless of how many times the media tries to perpetuate that idea. Things are working just fine, actually, just the way it was designed to.
(Recommended by 5 readers)
I will never forget Newt's comment when the Republicans were pushing their Contract With America. Many of the things the democrats wanted for the country were echos of what the republicans wanted. Rather than being happy that both parties wanted to achieve some of the same ends Gingrich blurted out, "The democrats have stolen our agenda!" He showed then that who was in charge was much more important than what got done.
Jim Cooper is my representative in congress and is one of the few statesmen left in politics.
Recommended by 365 readers
That is representative of the Times' readers' opinions, but I must say as I read this article in hard copy during lunch today, I found myself agreeing--someone who is traditionally conservative leaning.
I just finished that article from the OP. At first it appeared like a bunch of leftist ranting, but it did make several interesting points, which if true, are totally disgusting. I would be interested to see a non leftist (middle or center-right) response from someone not crazy (someone aligned more like Huntsman--not Perry, at least as far as their beliefs on evolution and climate). Actually the Times article has a little to do with what the OP article talks about--the language and combativeness adapted by the right.
I'll always wonder myself why so many corporations are reporting record profits during this recession yet unemployment remains terrible. Maybe if a number of needed jobs weren't being performed in foreign lands for low wages (yet good in those poor countries), the mega rich corporations would have something to spend their giant coffers on, instead of hoarding their wealth.
It's terribly true that so many parts (but not all) of the right, politicians, corporations, by all means practice Old Testament beliefs instead of any of those in the New, such as the article refers to in the Sermon on the Mount. I have yet to see anyone refute that particular sermon as a bad thing, yet the religious right does an incredible job of pretending it doesn't exist. To put it into perspective, I'm Mormon and increasingly unlikely to vote for Romney, or any Republican except maybe Huntsman, the more I see of their fake pandering to the poor.
The article does itself a disservice though, by calling most of the Republican constituency "ignorant" or "uneducated," even though I understand why when you see Republican candidates talk about lowering the corporate tax rate (and this helps miss Olive Garden waitress??? etc. etc.).
My friend from Singapore briefly mentioned online how stupid our government was for the whole debt ceiling crisis. If countries about as far away as you can possibly get from the U.S. felt the economic fear of the debt ceiling issue and potential default, I really have to ask if the Republicans are insane.
I don't really buy that the Dems are afraid of them though, yet in the spirit of the notorious RedLetterMedia review of Star Wars, how easily can anyone think up any of the catchy talking points of the left? Hope? Change? Oh, I can remember some "bad" ones the right uses: "Socialist" "Communist," or as the article pointed out, "Entitlement." Even after reading that article, I simply cannot recall the name of the health care act, and even though I resent the name that stuck due to its utter disrespect, I cannot remember anything but "Obamacare."
Interesting post. The profits from corporations are being driven by the expansion of "emerging market" growth. Places like Brazil, south east asia, and in some cases China. It is like hedging, play it safe in the big economies but put a small side bet on the little ones. Well that little bet is paying off now, which is why the growth in jobs is not happening in the established economies. There is simply more money to be made elsewhere.
As for the rest of your psot, I think the problem most people have with overtly religious candidates, is that they are very anti-intellectual. Policy should be based on rigorous analysis, and objective reasoning. If the candidate is oppposed to this, that is a very bad sign for the way they would govern. Sadly, objective rigorous reasoning does not often follow a staunchly religious candidate (Bush's position on stem cell research is a classic case).
4. Gonzales v. Raich (this presents a unique case given that it deals with drug regulation)
The first one is a name list.
The second two were...5-4 decisions set fifteen years ago. Renquist and Souter are gone.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the fourth point.
As for his first point - all but Kennedy are virtually guaranteed to vote PPACA unconstitutional if they can do so in any remotely defensibly manner. Kennedy has been trending towards a fairly Republican viewpoint on regulatory and business issues, so he probably leans a bit towards "Unconstitutional" going into the case.
On September 08 2011 10:34 xDaunt wrote: I think you delineated there difference quite clearly. Let me ask you this question: would you like it if the federal government passed the law that forces you to get a bestiality porn subscription every year?
I know that the example is absurd, but that's the point. The federal government shouldn't be able to compel anyone to purchase a product from anyone. That power simply doesn't exist under the federal constitution.
I know it's hard to get the point, but federal services are paid for by the people of this country. If you're going to offer Medicare to everyone, you're forcing spending on Medicare on the citizenry, regardless of if individuals take advantage of it. It'd be exactly like forcing a bestiality subscription on everyone, even if you threw the magazine away.
Saying that this is somehow less socialist than a tax on...not getting health care...is absurd.
On September 08 2011 10:41 Signet wrote: As for his first point - all but Kennedy are virtually guaranteed to vote PPACA unconstitutional if they can do so in any remotely defensibly manner. Kennedy has been trending towards a fairly Republican viewpoint on regulatory and business issues, so he probably leans a bit towards "Unconstitutional" going into the case.
Yeah, I'm perfectly aware that it's going to swing on Kennedy, that's why I said it would be 5-4 either way.
But Kennedy is really weird when it comes to SC decisions.
4. Gonzales v. Raich (this presents a unique case given that it deals with drug regulation)
The first one is a name list.
The second two were...5-4 decisions set fifteen years ago. Renquist and Souter are gone.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the fourth point.
There are five justices (I named them) who are likely to strike down the individual mandate based upon how they have ruled upon previous cases. The three cases that I have named show a renewed, demonstrable hostility towards federal government overreach. People who pay attention to the Supreme Court are betting that it's more likely than not the mandate will be stricken down given the current makeup of the court.
I think that the real question is whether the rest of Obamacare will be stricken down. My guess is that it probably won't be.
On September 08 2011 10:11 xDaunt wrote: Well, the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear over the past 16 years or so that it wants to revisit the scope of the commerce clause and that its ready to limit its New Deal jurisprudence. I don't think many people are expecting the individual mandate to survive. In fact, there was an interesting New Yorker article a week ago or so on Justice Thomas's influence on the Court and how the Obamacare case is looking to be his defining moment. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin
As for the "medicare for all with supplemental private insurance" idea, I agree that republicans are predisposed to oppose it. However, I believe that it's the type of idea that they might accept as a replacement for Obamacare, assuming that 1) the program is inexpensive enough, and 2) the benefits provided are relatively minimal.
Which in and of itself is patently absurd. Universal coverage of any type is far more socialist than an individual mandate. At least with the mandate you can choose which plan to purchase. Medicare for all is just a smaller version of a single payer system with supplemental insurance. If the Reps went for this, then they have no right calling Obama socialist.
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, it isn't because of how close or far it is to socialism. It's a question of whether the government can force an individual to purchase something from a private entity.
On the other hand, the Constitution easily allows the government to collect taxes and to provide services. (see: medicare, the military, social security) Single payer or even a British-style NHS are almost surely within the bounds of what the Constitution allows.
I understand the reasoning for the legal challenge. I am simply commenting on the fact that after all the hulla-baloo about how the US was headed for a socialist state with Obama as the dear-leader; that Obamacare was the thin edge of communism; it would be absurd for the Reps to choose anything that is more socialist than Obamacare.
On September 08 2011 10:43 xDaunt wrote: There are five justices (I named them) who are likely to strike down the individual mandate based upon how they have ruled upon previous cases. The three cases that I have named show a renewed, demonstrable hostility towards federal government overreach. People who pay attention to the Supreme Court are betting that it's more likely than not the mandate will be stricken down given the current makeup of the court.
Kennedy has an inconsistent voting record when it comes to party-line decisions.
Saying that the current Supreme Court has hostility towards all "government overreach" is absurd to the extreme; the two cases in between were done by a different Supreme Court than the one today.
On September 08 2011 08:38 Brainling wrote: [quote]
Unfortunately, that same party you support is also the party of extreme right wing, very vocal, ideology that promotes a single religion state, the repeal of women's rights and complete decimation of the middle class.
You can say "Well, that's not the republican credo!", and that may be true, but it IS the credo of the wing nuts driving the republican car right now.
People with extreme views fill in the corners of any political party, I see no movement in the Republican party to repeal women's right to vote, and if any bills have been put forth on the issue i'd appreciate a link, and i also haven't heard any calls from the republican party to reduce the middle class by ten percent as you claim. We live in an imperfect world, and if we are foolish idealists (such as myself) that believe there is still a chance to fix things, we have to pick the party that is closest to what we believe right? The fact that people with extreme views also might share some of our less extreme views doesn't mean anything at all and is unavoidable anyway.
Do you even pay attention to the stuff people like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry spout? THESE are the people driving the Republican car right now. Go look at some of the sound bites they've laid out in the last few months.
I'm not talking about people like Mitt Romney or even Ron Paul. I may disagree with their ideas, but I don't find them fundamentally dangerous to our society. The people I listed above on the other hand are fundamentally dangerous to our society. Go ahead and elect one of them, and then come back to this thread in 2013 and see how you feel about that blind republican vote.
Please, give specifics. What stuff have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry spouted that has you so angry? Have they called for the repeal of women's right to vote? (two of them women by the way(, have they called for the reduction of the middle class by ten percent? I have no interest in arguing with your feelings, if you can be specific then we can talk.
Oh you're a cutie. Shall we look at Bachmann's stance on women's rights?
She's stated numerous times that in a "good christian marriage", wives should be "submissive to their husbands in all things." In fact, her own law career AND political career were not her idea. She didn't want to be a tax lawyer, and claims she hated the idea. However her husband told her to go into tax law, and so she stayed home and prayed for two days, and then decided that because hubby said so, she should do it. Same for politics. Didn't want to, hubby said so, good little wife does what she's told.
Just last month at a tea party meeting, Bachmann said that the most important woman in the history of this nation is... Phyllis Shlafly. A woman who, (quite ironically I might add) made an entire career out of telling women they shouldn't have careers. A woman who claims that "working mothers" are a plight to society. A woman who claims that once you marry a man, you consent to anything he does to you, (including violence). A woman who has for the last 30 years written books and gone on campaigns to keep women in the house, with the children. And in Bachmann's mind, this is the most important/influential American woman in the last hundred years. Her heroine even. Sickening.
She's just... nuts. I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it.
Would you like more? Because I've got plenty more.
So you hate the woman for adhering to her beliefs? She is a Christian, and believes that God commands that she obey her husband, so she does, and you have a problem with that? Somehow that makes her nuts?
Also, regarding Phyllis Shlafly....so what? You do a good job of sounding indignant about the woman and her statements i'll give you that. Hey, should I bring up Obama's heroes, you know, just to see if they said anything really crazy?
There is nothing wrong with a woman obeying her husband, after all, its her choice to do so isn't it? And where exactly do you see her enforcing this on other women? This is her own personal choice and her own personal relationship with her husband and unless she starts trying to get laws passed saying everyone else has to do it too, then its not an issue.
Phyllis Shlafly has spent her *entire career* demonizing women for having the audacity to leave the kitchen. She absolutely tries to push her views on all women.
Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. But those *purely religious* views should absolutely not be put into law. The fact that we have someone with those beliefs in politics in 2011 is mind blowing. So yes, I have a problem with that.
Well, I agree Bachmann can believe whatever she wants. I also agree that those "purely religious views shouldn't be put into law, and Bachmann hasn't tried to get them put into law. The fact that we have someone in politics in 2011 with those views blows my mind as well, but for probably the exact opposite reason as you.
What interests me the most about Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, is how often i meet people that are capable of regurgitating funny SNL one liners but the number of people that can produce rational arguments against the views of those two women on matters of politics and government is very small.
Articulate your disagreement with them on taxes? Defense? health care? nah, just say they're dumb!
People who blindly criticize someone, (I've seen people attacking Bachmann for her looks, for example), are silly. I'm not defending that. However there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons to attack her, and if her political ideology isn't fair game, then I don't know what is.
First of all, it is silly to attack her for her looks, in my opinion she is a very fine looking woman, but that surely has no effect on me! >.>
Her political ideology is fair game, the points you brought up are her personal ideology.
You've obviously turned a blind eye to the faults of your candidates. That's too bad. You're a lost cause.
Her husband tells her what to do. That's your first warning bell. She hasn't been quiet about this either. When she's Commander-in-chief, you better hope her husband is half way around the world without satellite phone access.
She has stated that the U.S. was founded on Christian theocracy and should become one...again. Warning bells, ding ding ding.
In the Minnesota Senate, she proposed a constitutional amendment to the state's constitution to limit marriage to heterosexual couples.
Her excuse for dismissing climate change is laughable. I would respect her stance if she actually did a little sleuthing. As it turns out, she thinks "carbon dioxide is natural and thus can't be dangerous".
She's been recorded and heard numerous times making up stuff she thinks is in the Constitution. If she weren't a congresswoman, this wouldn't be a problem, but she is, and she wants the Presidency. I really want her to read past the first line. I'd understand if she messed something up, which she occasionally does and no foul against her, but she's fucking making shit up.
If you want to talk about her stance on the economy. Taxes are too damned high + gas prices below $2. That's the extent of her knowledge on the economy.
As for social policy. Creationism taught alongside Evolution, constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Teach Creationism in World Religion classes, not in Science classes, and banning gay marriages in the Constitution is against her beloved small government policy.
There are some good things you can find about her I'm sure, but on the supposedly important stuff, nope.
On September 08 2011 10:43 xDaunt wrote: There are five justices (I named them) who are likely to strike down the individual mandate based upon how they have ruled upon previous cases. The three cases that I have named show a renewed, demonstrable hostility towards federal government overreach. People who pay attention to the Supreme Court are betting that it's more likely than not the mandate will be stricken down given the current makeup of the court.
Kennedy has an inconsistent voting record when it comes to party-line decisions.
Saying that the current Supreme Court has hostility towards all government overreach is absurd to the extreme.
You're taking a rather simplistic view of Supreme Court and how it votes. None of the justices vote straight party line, despite what some might have you believe. The justices, including Kennedy, tend to be very consistent when you look at their reasoning and approaches to deciding cases over the course of their careers. For example, if they have a particular position or view on a subject such as the scope of the commerce clause, they tend to hold that view throughout their careers. Kennedy was part of the majorities in the Lopez and Morrison decisions, which strongly suggests that he has bought into the "new federalism" of the other conservative justices. This is why most legal scholars are betting that he'll be part of the majority that strikes down the individual mandate.
On September 08 2011 10:52 xDaunt wrote: You're taking a rather simplistic view of Supreme Court and how it votes. None of the justices vote straight party line, despite what some might have you believe. The justices, including Kennedy, tend to be very consistent when you look at their reasoning and approaches to deciding cases over the course of their careers. For example, if they have a particular position or view on a subject such as the scope of the commerce clause, they tend to hold that view throughout their careers. Kennedy was part of the majorities in the Lopez and Morrison decisions, which strongly suggests that he has bought into the "new federalism" of the other conservative justices. This is why most legal scholars are betting that he'll be part of the majority that strikes down the individual mandate.
Of course none of the justices vote strictly party-line, they just vote that way upwards of 80% of the time in the last two decades. Except, on the current SC, Kennedy, who has done so "only" around two-thirds of the time. Kennedy has voted against the Fed for the commerce clause twice, but has voted for the "necessary and proper" clause for the Fed twice. Normally, the two are linked in most rulings, but Kennedy doesn't seem to feel that way.
“When the inquiry is whether a federal law has sufficient links to an enumerated power to be within the scope of federal power, the analysis depends not on the number of links in the congressional-power chain but on the strength of the chain.”
Seems to be clearly ambiguous in terms of the both commerce and the necessary and proper clause in terms of the individual mandate.
I'd like a source for "most legal scholars", incidentally. "Most legal scholars" who write news articles seem to think that it'll be a coinflip for Kennedy, after the Vinson ruling.
EPT
