Friday, January 7, 2011
Waiting For Godot/Topo Gigio/Sanity
I gotta be honest with you here. That whole thing about the Congress reading the U.S. Constitution...out loud, in what appeared to be an essentially empty chamber, and to the two dozen or so people tuning in to C-Span - wow, I think that we should probably just call it for what it is; a flat-out dog and pony show...............................................................................................First of all, folks, they didn't even read the entire text. Left out of the reading were all of those parts about slaves being 3/5 of a person, prohibition, etc., etc.. Second of all, the idiots didn't even stick around for it. As soon as they were done with their portions of the reading, Boehner, Pelosi, most of the rest of 'em - they were out giving frigging press conferences and shit. I mean, how frigging transparent is that? Of course, what is even more ridiculous than that is the fact that 90% of these numb-nuts don't even know what they're reading; the subtlety of the document, the ambiguity, the fact that, even in this great and reverent document, a certain degree of interpretation and detachment is necessary. And, damn it here/I'm sorry, but I just don't see folks like Michele Bachman as having a sufficient amount of any of these talents..................................................................................................Of course, what I really want to know here is what in the bluest blazes is next; Bunker Hill reenactments, Patrick Henry morphing into Howard Cosell imitations, open mike night? They might as well just go frigging all out, no?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The rebups , er tea party, want all spending bills to have a basis in the constituition...all part of the on going saga of govenment being too big, etc. In his column today, Charles Krauthammer waxed cynical, insinuating that libs would rely on the vagueness of the "general welfare" clause. Imagine that, the founding fathers were concerned about the general welfare. Should I be cynical too and point out there is no referance to capitalism in this document? As you say Will, this is nothing more than political theater in all its glory. Moreover, how does one balance the 18th century sensibilities our Founding Fathers with 21st century realities...Does Senator Bachman possess such acuity along Mr Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al?? It's like one of those really bad Freddie Krugger movies.
I agree.....I would, however, argue that both parties have been cynically putzing of late. The Dems, back when they were arguing for their health-care bill, kept on uttering that the mandate, " It's not a tax, it's not a tax." Now, though - now that it looks like the courts may in fact strike the mandate down as, you guessed it, unconstitutional - now they're saying that "Yes, yes, it is a tax (federal taxes being enumerated in the Constitution).".....I, personally, would like to basically wrap ALL of their knuckles.
The Democrats aren't "saying" it's a tax, it is a tax. That's the way the law is written. And it's the reason why the so-called mandate isn't unconsitutional.
You say they were insisting it wasn't a tax (prior to passage), but I don't recall that.
I don't know why you mention Pelosi skipping out of the rest of the reading -- it wasn't the Democrat's idea. Why should they have felt obligated to play along -- especially when the Republicans didn't?
It was the Republican's idea and, yes, it was a ridiculous/cynical one. But, AS USUAL, the gutless Democrats went along with it (you know, like a lot of them went along with the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, etc.).......Early on in the health-care debate, the Republicans were trying to say that the mandate was just another tax. The Democrats countered this by saying that it WASN'T a tax. Now, NOW, however, being that the mandate is currently being challenged in the courts, the Dems are saying, "Well, yeah, I guess that it really is a tax, after all (Federal taxes already having been ruled upon as Constitutional)/it really depends on what your definition of is IS."
It wasn't "gutless" of the Democrats to go along with the Republican's reading of the Constitution. The reading was silly and stupid, but harmless. I don't know why the Democrats should have opened themselves up to criticism (of hating the Constitution, perhaps) for something that was ultimatlely completely harmless.
Also, what criticism there was (for the woman who yelled out when the clause concerning presidential candidates having to be natural born, what was left out, pages sticking together, etc) was all directed at the Republicans. Why should the Democrats have tried to grab that spotlight? It would have been an idiotic move.
So, to correct my previous comment... you were right when you said the Democrats insisted the mandate wasn't a tax, and now (in order to defend it's constitutionality) they are.
The Obama Justice Department (citing Supreme Court precident) says even though "the law describes the levy on the uninsured as a penalty rather than a tax, the statutory label does not matter". Because "the constitutionality of a tax law depends on its practical operation, [and] not the precise form of words used to describe it".
Obama insisted it wasn't a tax because then he would have been breaking a campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class... BUT the best defense against having the mandate declared unConstitutional was for it to be a tax...
I don't believe that deception (if that's what you want to call it) was the plan all along... I think they're going with the best defense NOW, as they should. I want the Democrats to do what is necessary to prevail, which most of the time they don't. So they are doing that now (by defending the mandate as a tax), and I certainly wouldn't rap their knuckles for it. Especially given the fact that the Republican lie all the time in defense of their agenda.
It wasn't "gutless" of the Democrats to go along with the Republican's reading of the Constitution. The reading was silly and stupid, but harmless. I don't know why the Democrats should have opened themselves up to criticism (of hating the Constitution, perhaps) for something that was ultimatlely completely harmless.
Also, what criticism there was (for the woman who yelled out when the clause concerning presidential candidates having to be natural born, what was left out, pages sticking together, etc) was all directed at the Republicans. Why should the Democrats have tried to grab that spotlight? It would have been an idiotic move.
So, to correct my previous comment... you were right when you said the Democrats insisted the mandate wasn't a tax, and now (in order to defend it's constitutionality) they are.
The Obama Justice Department (citing Supreme Court precident) says even though "the law describes the levy on the uninsured as a penalty rather than a tax, the statutory label does not matter". Because "the constitutionality of a tax law depends on its practical operation, [and] not the precise form of words used to describe it".
Obama insisted it wasn't a tax because then he would have been breaking a campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class... BUT the best defense against having the mandate declared unConstitutional was for it to be a tax...
I don't believe that deception (if that's what you want to call it) was the plan all along... I think they're going with the best defense NOW, as they should. I want the Democrats to do what is necessary to prevail, which most of the time they don't. So they are doing that now (by defending the mandate as a tax), and I certainly wouldn't rap their knuckles for it. Especially given the fact that the Republican lie all the time in defense of their agenda.
It wasn't "gutless" of the Democrats to go along with the Republican's reading of the Constitution. The reading was silly and stupid, but harmless. I don't know why the Democrats should have opened themselves up to criticism (of hating the Constitution, perhaps) for something that was ultimatlely completely harmless.
Also, what criticism there was (for the woman who yelled out when the clause concerning presidential candidates having to be natural born, what was left out, pages sticking together, etc) was all directed at the Republicans. Why should the Democrats have tried to grab that spotlight? It would have been an idiotic move.
So, to correct my previous comment... you were right when you said the Democrats insisted the mandate wasn't a tax, and now (in order to defend it's constitutionality) they are.
The Obama Justice Department (citing Supreme Court precident) says even though "the law describes the levy on the uninsured as a penalty rather than a tax, the statutory label does not matter". Because "the constitutionality of a tax law depends on its practical operation, [and] not the precise form of words used to describe it".
Obama insisted it wasn't a tax because then he would have been breaking a campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class... BUT the best defense against having the mandate declared unConstitutional was for it to be a tax...
I don't believe that deception (if that's what you want to call it) was the plan all along... I think they're going with the best defense NOW, as they should. I want the Democrats to do what is necessary to prevail, which most of the time they don't. So they are doing that now (by defending the mandate as a tax), and I certainly wouldn't rap their knuckles for it. Especially given the fact that the Republican lie all the time in defense of their agenda.
It wasn't "gutless" of the Democrats to go along with the Republican's reading of the Constitution. The reading was silly and stupid, but harmless. I don't know why the Democrats should have opened themselves up to criticism (of hating the Constitution, perhaps) for something that was ultimatlely completely harmless.
Also, what criticism there was (for the woman who yelled out when the clause concerning presidential candidates having to be natural born, what was left out, pages sticking together, etc) was all directed at the Republicans. Why should the Democrats have tried to grab that spotlight? It would have been an idiotic move.
So, to correct my previous comment... you were right when you said the Democrats insisted the mandate wasn't a tax, and now (in order to defend it's constitutionality) they are.
The Obama Justice Department (citing Supreme Court precident) says even though "the law describes the levy on the uninsured as a penalty rather than a tax, the statutory label does not matter". Because "the constitutionality of a tax law depends on its practical operation, [and] not the precise form of words used to describe it".
Obama insisted it wasn't a tax because then he would have been breaking a campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class... BUT the best defense against having the mandate declared unConstitutional was for it to be a tax...
I don't believe that deception (if that's what you want to call it) was the plan all along... I think they're going with the best defense NOW, as they should. I want the Democrats to do what is necessary to prevail, which most of the time they don't. So they are doing that now (by defending the mandate as a tax), and I certainly wouldn't rap their knuckles for it. Especially given the fact that the Republican lie all the time in defense of their agenda.
It wasn't "gutless" of the Democrats to go along with the Republican's reading of the Constitution. The reading was silly and stupid, but harmless. I don't know why the Democrats should have opened themselves up to criticism (of hating the Constitution, perhaps) for something that was ultimatlely completely harmless.
Also, what criticism there was (for the woman who yelled out when the clause concerning presidential candidates having to be natural born, what was left out, pages sticking together, etc) was all directed at the Republicans. Why should the Democrats have tried to grab that spotlight? It would have been an idiotic move.
So, to correct my previous comment... you were right when you said the Democrats insisted the mandate wasn't a tax, and now (in order to defend it's constitutionality) they are.
The Obama Justice Department (citing Supreme Court precident) says even though "the law describes the levy on the uninsured as a penalty rather than a tax, the statutory label does not matter". Because "the constitutionality of a tax law depends on its practical operation, [and] not the precise form of words used to describe it".
Obama insisted it wasn't a tax because then he would have been breaking a campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class... BUT the best defense against having the mandate declared unConstitutional was for it to be a tax...
I don't believe that deception (if that's what you want to call it) was the plan all along... I think they're going with the best defense NOW, as they should. I want the Democrats to do what is necessary to prevail, which most of the time they don't. So they are doing that now (by defending the mandate as a tax), and I certainly wouldn't rap their knuckles for it. Especially given the fact that the Republican lie all the time in defense of their agenda.
It wasn't "gutless" of the Democrats to go along with the Republican's reading of the Constitution. The reading was silly and stupid, but harmless. I don't know why the Democrats should have opened themselves up to criticism (of hating the Constitution, perhaps) for something that was ultimatlely completely harmless.
Also, what criticism there was (for the woman who yelled out when the clause concerning presidential candidates having to be natural born, what was left out, pages sticking together, etc) was all directed at the Republicans. Why should the Democrats have tried to grab that spotlight? It would have been an idiotic move.
To correct my previous comment... you were right when you said the Democrats insisted the mandate wasn't a tax, and now (in order to defend it's constitutionality) they are.
The Obama Justice Department (citing Supreme Court precident) says even though "the law describes the levy on the uninsured as a penalty rather than a tax, the statutory label does not matter". Because "the constitutionality of a tax law depends on its practical operation, [and] not the precise form of words used to describe it".
Obama insisted it wasn't a tax because then he would have been breaking a campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class... BUT the best defense against having the mandate declared unConstitutional was for it to be a tax...
I don't believe that deception (if that's what you want to call it) was the plan all along... I think they're going with the best defense NOW, as they should. I want the Democrats to do what is necessary to prevail, which most of the time they don't. So they are doing that now (by defending the mandate as a tax), and I certainly wouldn't rap their knuckles for it. Especially given the fact that the Republican lie all the time in defense of their agenda.
Gutless perhaps was too strong of a word. Me, though, I would have told Mr. Boehner to piss off/that I wouldn't be a part and parcel to his dog and pony show.
Post a Comment