1) How did those that vote for Obama justify voting for him based on his separate but equal vision of gay marriage in 2008 with his civil union speak?
Because while it's not good enough, it's certainly better than demonizing gays and trying to further curtail any rights they may have. I don't think that's a difficult position to understand.
I was a HRC fan, not Obama but in the end at least I knew Obama wasn't looking to take away the rights I do have. And I could at least hold out hope that he might make things better, not worse.
I don't have an issue with his resume. I think he's perfectly qualified.
I do however think the personhood bill is relevant though, even though it's just some kneejerk bullshit move done periodically while knowing the bill will die.
Often we hear people (both on this board and elsewhere in the general public) say that they wish that the party was not so beholden to social conservatives. The solution to that is to stop making excuses for politicians that do this sort of shit, and start taking them to task on it. Small government conservatives criticize the shit out of the constitutionality of Obama's health care legislation, but then they turn around and propose all sorts of abortion legislation using the same constitutional basis as Obama's health care plan.
The only reason social conservatives have a hold on the Republican party is because the Republican party is willing to go against their own principals and suggest to them and the country that the pro-life legislation (or DOMA or other pet legislation of the social conservatives) that they propose is both appropriate and constitutional. Sure, maybe this bill was written to die, but the fact is he was willing to betray his small government philosophy by signing on as co-sponsor (and presumably voting for it if it every got to that point). It would be easier to believe that people were truly passionate about wanting the GOP to stop caring so damn much about social issues, if the GOP's support of bullshit bills that they'd otherwise call unconstitutional, were met with slightly more anger and disgust than a "well it wasn't a real bill and he only was a co-sponsor, so NBD."
In essence, Ryan's support of that bill tells social conservatives that he believes their agenda is compatible with a conservative small government agenda. Make excuses all you want, but that's the position he has taken. GOP supporters can either accept the social conservative stranglehold (and stop arguing about how so many liberal bills are incompatible with the constitution), or they can stop making excuses for this bullshit.
This is an interesting argument, but I disagree.
I'm no lawyer, but I strongly doubt that personhood bills take their constitutional mandate from the commerce clause, which is where I had issues with the constitutionality of the health care bill. There's obviously other precedent for the federal government counting what does or does not count as a person within the constitution. So I don't think there's a small government reason to oppose these bills. The fact that I can stomach this probably also stems from my general respect for the pro-life position. It's not something I agree with, but I don't begrudge people advocating it.
Reading these very heated debates has made me realize just how jaded and apathetic I really am. I can't even get worked up over Romney/Ryan because they're the most stereotypical rich white republican team I can imagine. How anyone actually takes campaign talk seriously confounds me. I may need to sit out until Mid November....
I have all the books I could need, and what more could I need than books? I shall only engage in commerce if books are the coin. -- Catherynne M. Valente
Ok, given I am not sure what side of this debate I am on (because honestly I can't get worked up about any candidate...think I'm going sit beside Daria), I have a question:
Was there no other fiscal conservative that Romney could have selected that would at least match Ryan in his fiscal conservatism?
Was there no other fiscal conservative that Romney could have selected that would at least match Ryan in his fiscal conservatism?
Michele Bachmann?
I actually say that semi-seriously. By all objective metrics, Paul Ryan is the most extreme member of Congress to be on a presidential ticket in over 100 years. So probably not.
But, For the most part, Governor Romney has not outlined cuts in specific programs. But if policymakers exempted Social Security from the cuts, as Romney has suggested, and cut Medicare, Medicaid, and all other entitlement and discretionary programs by the same percentage — to meet Romney’s spending cap, defense spending target, and balanced budget requirement — then non-defense programs other than Social Security would have to be cut 29 percent in 2016 and 59 percent in 2022 (see Figure 1).
He has suggested it one place and not in another. THat is where my confusion came from as he has no public plan for not cutting, or cutting, SS. At least recently (your link was May2012)
Was there no other fiscal conservative that Romney could have selected that would at least match Ryan in his fiscal conservatism?
Michele Bachmann?
I actually say that semi-seriously. By all objective metrics, Paul Ryan is the most extreme member of Congress to be on a presidential ticket in over 100 years. So probably not.
Ok, given I am not sure what side of this debate I am on (because honestly I can't get worked up about any candidate...think I'm going sit beside Daria), I have a question:
Was there no other fiscal conservative that Romney could have selected that would at least match Ryan in his fiscal conservatism?
There may have been, but would they have been as socially conservative?
I think picking a social con was a deliberate, political pick to secure some R votes who were a little concerned about Romney being too "left" (Romneycare, previously pro-choice).
Was there no other fiscal conservative that Romney could have selected that would at least match Ryan in his fiscal conservatism?
Michele Bachmann?
I actually say that semi-seriously. By all objective metrics, Paul Ryan is the most extreme member of Congress to be on a presidential ticket in over 100 years. So probably not.
What objective metrics, specifically? I don't even need all of them. Also please clarify if you mean just the most extreme fiscal conservative, or the most extreme fiscal and social conservative?
Ok, given I am not sure what side of this debate I am on (because honestly I can't get worked up about any candidate...think I'm going sit beside Daria), I have a question:
Was there no other fiscal conservative that Romney could have selected that would at least match Ryan in his fiscal conservatism?
There may have been, but would they have been as socially conservative?
I think picking a social con was a deliberate, political pick to secure some R votes who were a little concerned about Romney being too "left" (Romneycare, previously pro-choice).
But that;s just it. If there wasn't someone as qualified as Ryan, then I can see why cons on this board would still want him over someone else (who wasn't socially con). KWIM?
I don't have an issue with his resume. I think he's perfectly qualified.
I do however think the personhood bill is relevant though, even though it's just some kneejerk bullshit move done periodically while knowing the bill will die.
Often we hear people (both on this board and elsewhere in the general public) say that they wish that the party was not so beholden to social conservatives. The solution to that is to stop making excuses for politicians that do this sort of shit, and start taking them to task on it. Small government conservatives criticize the shit out of the constitutionality of Obama's health care legislation, but then they turn around and propose all sorts of abortion legislation using the same constitutional basis as Obama's health care plan.
The only reason social conservatives have a hold on the Republican party is because the Republican party is willing to go against their own principals and suggest to them and the country that the pro-life legislation (or DOMA or other pet legislation of the social conservatives) that they propose is both appropriate and constitutional. Sure, maybe this bill was written to die, but the fact is he was willing to betray his small government philosophy by signing on as co-sponsor (and presumably voting for it if it every got to that point). It would be easier to believe that people were truly passionate about wanting the GOP to stop caring so damn much about social issues, if the GOP's support of bullshit bills that they'd otherwise call unconstitutional, were met with slightly more anger and disgust than a "well it wasn't a real bill and he only was a co-sponsor, so NBD."
In essence, Ryan's support of that bill tells social conservatives that he believes their agenda is compatible with a conservative small government agenda. Make excuses all you want, but that's the position he has taken. GOP supporters can either accept the social conservative stranglehold (and stop arguing about how so many liberal bills are incompatible with the constitution), or they can stop making excuses for this bullshit.
This is an interesting argument, but I disagree.
I'm no lawyer, but I strongly doubt that personhood bills take their constitutional mandate from the commerce clause, which is where I had issues with the constitutionality of the health care bill. There's obviously other precedent for the federal government counting what does or does not count as a person within the constitution. So I don't think there's a small government reason to oppose these bills. The fact that I can stomach this probably also stems from my general respect for the pro-life position. It's not something I agree with, but I don't begrudge people advocating it.
(again for people who missed it the first time around, the hyperlink probably won't work, but if you c&P the entire link into google, it'll come up)
This bill says in its text that it's power comes two places -- the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and from the enumerated powers of Article 1, section 8.
The only one that it could possibly be is the Commerce Clause.
I suppose that maybe a case could be made for the Equal Protection clause to apply (though I'd disagree). I mean there's no shortage of conservative politicians, judges and scholars that have argued that it shouldn't apply to non-race-based discrimination, such as gender or sexual orientation, so it's a little weird if that segment said it could apply to give equal rights to un-implanted fertilized eggs as is what actual post-birth living humans have. I just think the idea of it is less diametrically opposed to conservative thinking as it is rooting it in the Commerce Clause.
Most (all?) abortion legislation put forward by the right tends to be on Commerce Clause authority. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban was. Clarence Thomas said in his opinion upholding the ban that he probably would have gone the other way if the question of whether it was constitutional under the Commerce Clause had been an issue for SCOTUS to decide.
So, yes, the GOP uses the Commerce Clause to advance its social agenda, and simultaneously criticizes the Democrats for doing so.
There may have been, but would they have been as socially conservative?
I think picking a social con was a deliberate, political pick to secure some R votes who were a little concerned about Romney being too "left" (Romneycare, previously pro-choice).
But that;s just it. If there wasn't someone as qualified as Ryan, then I can see why cons on this board would still want him over someone else (who wasn't socially con). KWIM?
Valid point - I dont follow US politics quite enough to know if there was another good choice from a fiscal perspective.
But that;s just it. If there wasn't someone as qualified as Ryan, then I can see why cons on this board would still want him over someone else (who wasn't socially con). KWIM?
Valid point - I dont follow US politics quite enough to know if there was another good choice from a fiscal perspective.
I'll 'fess that I know virtually nada about the other short list possibilities for Veep - but as soon as I hear Paul Ryan, I think "yeah, that guy with the Medicare plan and he tweets a shit ton about the economy." ETA: /anecdote (sorry, forgot)
Thanks ESF. To the extent I've heard conservative constitutional scholars on this, it's always been in an equal protection context. I absolutely disagree with making abortion laws based on the commerce clause.
What does congress use to make laws about criminal acts?
I should put in a plug here for the enumerated powers act, which would force every bill to say what power it was based on. I freaking love that thing.
I actually say that semi-seriously. By all objective metrics, Paul Ryan is the most extreme member of Congress to be on a presidential ticket in over 100 years. So probably not.
What objective metrics, specifically? I don't even need all of them. Also please clarify if you mean just the most extreme fiscal conservative, or the most extreme fiscal and social conservative?
I know that groomy looked at some other evaluations of House members (because campaigns and elections are his thing) that were consistent with this, but I don't remember what they were at the moment.
Silver doesn't break down the ideology by fiscal vs. social, but based on what I know of Ryan's positions, I'm pretty sure he'd rank pretty far right on either one of those in isolation. Someone who signs onto a personhood amendment isn't likely to be ranked as liberal, and his fiscal proposals are really, really conservative.
Thanks ESF. To the extent I've heard conservative constitutional scholars on this, it's always been in an equal protection context. I absolutely disagree with making abortion laws based on the commerce clause.
What does congress use to make laws about criminal acts?
I should put in a plug here for the enumerated powers act, which would force every bill to say what power it was based on. I freaking love that thing.
Commerce Clause. I think about 95% of the laws that Congress passes are under the Commerce Clause.
I could get on board with an enumerated powers act.
Thanks ESF. To the extent I've heard conservative constitutional scholars on this, it's always been in an equal protection context. I absolutely disagree with making abortion laws based on the commerce clause.
But then that brings us back to the issue of whether the EP Clause applies to anything but non-race based classifications. Given that the GOP as a party says that it shouldn't apply to sexual orientation or gender, it is difficult to understand why it should apply to born-ness.
Wait - we are in luck because HR 212 does have an enumerated powers clause. It uses necessary and proper and the 14th amendment as a basis--no commerce clause mention.
In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States
What objective metrics, specifically? I don't even need all of them. Also please clarify if you mean just the most extreme fiscal conservative, or the most extreme fiscal and social conservative?
I know that groomy looked at some other evaluations of House members (because campaigns and elections are his thing) that were consistent with this, but I don't remember what they were at the moment.
Silver doesn't break down the ideology by fiscal vs. social, but based on what I know of Ryan's positions, I'm pretty sure he'd rank pretty far right on either one of those in isolation. Someone who signs onto a personhood amendment isn't likely to be ranked as liberal, and his fiscal proposals are really, really conservative.
Very interesting analysis, but I think making comparisons between the partisanship of nominees from different eras without somehow controlling for the overall level of partisanship in that era is problematic. It would be easy to do, and Nate Silver should know better, I would think.
Looking at his underlying data, there are 241 Republicans in the current house listed, and Ryan is number 178 out of 241 if you laid them out from least to most partisan. So he's not even in the top quarter of most partisan in the house today.
I wish there was a way to break social conservatism out on a scale like this--this scale treats them as equal which of course they are not for me.
I have to say hearing all this talk about Ryan being the end all be all standard bearer of the social conservative movement is fascinating, because he doesn't look any different to me on social issues than any other republican. He looks very different on fiscal issues, however, probably in ways that would make him score as a super fiscal con--but of course those are things I would generally support.
Wait - we are in luck because HR 212 does have an enumerated powers clause. It uses necessary and proper and the 14th amendment as a basis--no commerce clause mention.
In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States
My understanding is that the necessary and proper clause gives Congress the power to make laws that are "necessary and proper" to enforce carry out its enumerated powers, which are listed in Article 1, section 8. It can't be a general catch-all because then everything would be constitutional regardless. I think (and admittedly my memory is fuzzy), but the provision just applies to the things listed in Article 1, section 8. Otherwise, why would this be necessary and proper, but a law requiring insurance coverage of birth control not be?
You need to fit it into one of the enumerated powers first, before it can be necessary and proper to pass laws carrying those powers out. I think it's the reasoning used to take a more liberal, broad reading of the enumerated powers themselves, but I think that you still need to start with a power before you can invoke it.
Post by soontobeka on Aug 13, 2012 16:22:14 GMT -5
To be honest, I am not convinced that he is fiscally conservative. I think he jumped on the early tea party movement (read: not the "Hitler sign carrying, Obama is a socialist" TP), picked up on the short term memory of the public and has rebranded himself as a fiscal conservative.
I am definitely picking up what SBP is putting down in this thread...
I guess I could just take conservatives on this board at their word that they are in general socially liberal and fiscally conservative and that they will vote Republican because they care about the economy. Or I could assess what they are actually saying and how they are saying it about how exciting Paul Ryan is. Oh, and what that means for my civil rights.
Why is everyone SO convinced that because the #1 issue of this election is the economy that the #1 issue of next year's legislative sessions is going to be the economy? It didn't work that way in 2010. It didn't work that way in 2011. It won't work that way in 2012. But no, the Ryan supporters are just mind-readers who KNOOOOWWW that he won't focus on social issues. Essentially you are gambling with my civil rights but yet I am branded as a whiner who is not giving due respect to conservatives.
Oh, and here's a hint: just because social issues might not be what gets discussed during the campaign (and really, why would they have a front and center role when Romney is trying to downplay them due to his tumultuous political record?) doesn't mean they are not going to start in on that agenda once they are in office. Just as the inverse is true: just because they are talking about the economy now doesn't mean that the economy is going to be the main focus if Romney/Ryan win the election.
I am definitely picking up what SBP is putting down in this thread...
I guess I could just take conservatives on this board at their word that they are in general socially liberal and fiscally conservative and that they will vote Republican because they care about the economy. Or I could assess what they are actually saying and how they are saying it about how exciting Paul Ryan is. Oh, and what that means for my civil rights.
Why is everyone SO convinced that because the #1 issue of this election is the economy that the #1 issue of next year's legislative sessions is going to be the economy? It didn't work that way in 2010. It didn't work that way in 2011. It won't work that way in 2012. But no, the Ryan supporters are just mind-readers who KNOOOOWWW that he won't focus on social issues. Essentially you are gambling with my civil rights but yet I am branded as a whiner who is not giving due respect to conservatives.
Oh, and here's a hint: just because social issues might not be what gets discussed during the campaign (and really, why would they have a front and center role when Romney is trying to downplay them due to his tumultuous political record?) doesn't mean they are not going to start in on that agenda once they are in office. Just as the inverse is true: just because they are talking about the economy now doesn't mean that the economy is going to be the main focus if Romney/Ryan win the election.
People that have talked about Ryan get it. They're gross. He's gross. Got it.
I am definitely picking up what SBP is putting down in this thread...
I guess I could just take conservatives on this board at their word that they are in general socially liberal and fiscally conservative and that they will vote Republican because they care about the economy. Or I could assess what they are actually saying and how they are saying it about how exciting Paul Ryan is. Oh, and what that means for my civil rights.
Why is everyone SO convinced that because the #1 issue of this election is the economy that the #1 issue of next year's legislative sessions is going to be the economy? It didn't work that way in 2010. It didn't work that way in 2011. It won't work that way in 2012. But no, the Ryan supporters are just mind-readers who KNOOOOWWW that he won't focus on social issues. Essentially you are gambling with my civil rights but yet I am branded as a whiner who is not giving due respect to conservatives.
Oh, and here's a hint: just because social issues might not be what gets discussed during the campaign (and really, why would they have a front and center role when Romney is trying to downplay them due to his tumultuous political record?) doesn't mean they are not going to start in on that agenda once they are in office. Just as the inverse is true: just because they are talking about the economy now doesn't mean that the economy is going to be the main focus if Romney/Ryan win the election.
People that have talked about Ryan get it. They're gross. He's gross. Got it.
Post by cookiemdough on Aug 13, 2012 21:10:05 GMT -5
I am not voting for a Romney / Ryan ticket but given Romney's record as governor and Paul Ryan's fame due to his discussion of fiscal issues, I could see why one would not be worried that their primary focus would be social issues. It is not like Ryan is wearing it on his sleeve like Santorum was and Romney has shown (although he doesn't want to own it) that he doesn't govern like a social conservative.
Yeah... I refuse to feel gross. Refuse. I took a fine Saturday morning to haul my derriere to the GOP county assembly so I could voice my socially liberal stances via my little platform ballot - where I clearly marked that I did not, in fact, want the platform to be for legislating against gay marriage.
But I really hope llama voices yet again her sentiments on why her stance should trump any of mine. I'm only worried about my kids' futures and exactly when I should start them in Chinese language lessons, as well as how to accurately receive the token economy kicked can.