Total Pageviews

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

How Can the Anti-Government Govern?

In our form of representative government, we have to abide by the election results. We can simply wonder what would happen if we elected only those who are anti-government. We have a small group (we know who they are) who are now saying that the reason they won’t come to the table on immigration reform is that they don’t trust President Obama. Isn’t that their predicate for opposing all legislation? Those people don’t understand the “we the people” concept unless they are in charge.

A 51% threshold is all that’s required in the House of Representatives, so the majority (if they have enough votes) can run roughshod over the opposition, but it won’t get their legislation to the committee for reconciliation. That’s the beauty of our form of government. A small group can keep a bill from going forward on a partisan basis. However, that can be overridden on a bipartisan vote, and then it becomes a political decision for the GOP speaker. Point being, a small group cannot hold this country hostage, unless we allow them to.

Representative government keeps the Tea Party from sending themselves into oblivion because they want to impose austerity measures like we’ve never seen before and move this country further to the right socially. Oh sure, the Koch brothers would love to see the EPA, IRS, and the Dept. of Labor gutted but that’s not where the country is. It’s relatively easy to support an economic theory that has yet to be implemented. The Tea party is collectively opposed to Obamacare but just yesterday, New York became another state that is predicting lower health insurance rates because of the law. Sunday, David Gregory had to keep reminding Mitch McConnell that the Affordable Care Act is the law, not a bill. This is part of their strategy: keep calling it a bill, so people won’t know their new options.

I believe the Senate finally reached an impasse, so deal makers on both sides of the aisle went behind the minority leader's party’s back to try to reach an agreement and it enabled the president’s nominees to move forward in their nomination process, except for two; allowing the GOP to save face. This is the only way to break up status quo. Advice and consent does not mean “blanket filibuster” on the president’s nominees, and the majority party needs to respect the opposition right to voice their opinion. Joe Scarborough said it will hurt Democrats because they might lose the Senate next year; even thou the “nuclear option” was not imposed. I think that’s a lot of bull, because a Mitch McConnell led Senate won’t give a damn about the minority party. The president needs his nominees in place to implement his agenda to protect the rights of consumers, the environment and workers. The senate met in a closed-session in the old Senate Chamber where the participants had a unique friendly meeting and came out with a feeling of optimism. We’ll see how long it lasts.

I would be remiss if I didn’t answer the comments of a poster “When persons choose to start a fight or something, they should be aware that the person they are messing with might be armed, and they may die. This is not the fault of the person with the weapon. You make your own choices, and if you choose wrongly, then be prepared to suffer the consequence.That comment implies that the holder of the gun will always be innocent, and it gives credence to vigilante justice. We need to reinstitute the ideal thing to do is to call the police to resolve disputes, not  pull out a weapon because if we don’t, it takes us back to a 19th century mentality.


Edith Ann said...

This is part of their strategy: keep calling it a bill, so people won’t know their new options.

Exactly! We must change the language! For at least a year, folks who are charged with explaining the ACA have told us this!

And along the gun lines--that woman Joy who commented about the paper printing he 'get out of jail free' cartoon, saying that Treyvon Martin got what he deserved because he posted pictures of himself smoking pot, using obscene language and such---is she serious? OMG! I want to meet Joy! I have never met a perfect person before, but it is on my bucket list. I'd like to be able to scratch it off.

Mike said...

The GOP pays Frank Luntz good money to come up with word games to use during television interviews. They are now throwing out the “don’t trust Obama” line as an excuse for being obstructive. One congressman said that he didn’t trust Obama no more than he trusted Bill Clinton around his daughter…A class act!

The GOP House is going to pass their 38th version of either, repealing, defunding, or delaying the Affordable Care Act.

I missed that cartoon but I image it got as much bad publicity as Richard Cohan’s column in the Washington, Post saying that the hoodie caused the death of Trayvon Martin.

Reading some of the comments at the VA forum makes me feel like I watched a different trial. I remembered different versions of the events- which were not witnessed by anyone, so I can’t see how one can state what happened. The only certainty was that Trayvon Martin had a right to walk home, was not doing anything illegally and was not packing heat…Zimmerman told different versions of the event and then left it up to God’s will. according to him.

I’m glad the Atty. Gen is looking at Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws and so are some of the civil rights leaders.

Mike said...

I went back and reread the remarks of Joy, and it’s appalling how little life means to some people. Just the idea that smoking marijuana, cursing, handling a gun or imitating a gangsta lifestyle for a phone video is a reason to be killed. He was looking for it sounds familiar to what they used to say about girls wearing short skirts.

Mike said...

Says it all

"Defense of Zimmerman by FAR RIGHT is about much more than GZ—it’s about GUN rights and defense of stand-your-ground vigilante-style justice."

Captain Clarion ‏@citizensrock

Mike said...

It's funny how we fall for so-called facts....Chris Haynes just shot down the black-on black murder rates that the right seems to favor....Here's the stats: homicide rates from 1976 to 2005: white victims killed by white offenders ...86%
Black victims killed by black offenders .....94%
I would guess it's the same for Hispanics ...makes a lot sense.

MSNBC has done several stories about inner city killings ,so RW pundit Bill O'Reilly is wrong when he says liberals overlook those stories.