Tuesday, August 30, 2011


Oh, f'pity's sake...!

I stumbled into a multi-way argument in which one of the participants managed to conflate gun rights, his own personal religious beliefs and the huge argument over same-sex marriage.

Given that you can, with remarkably little effort, find plenty of people who confound the easy Left/Right alignments on those issues, pro or con on each of all three in every possible combination, just how darn hard would it be to admit that some issues cannot be resolved -- and resolve therefore when it comes to law to mind one's own business about 'em, leaving the tincture of time to muddle through the mess?

Rick Perry cannot, having recently signed on with the national ban people -- no, not the Brady bunch, the Fed'ral wedlock limitation -- and so he doesn't appear to trust the States individually, nor The People one-by-one. He wants the Feds to step in and instruct us ignernt masses. (Soooooo, what'll they do with all those same-sex married couples in New England and Iowa? Ship 'em to Leavenworth as Federal criminals? Just raise their insurance rates and estate taxes? Pretend they never happened? Too late!).

This action tells me something about candidate Perry, and not what you think. Sure, he may be a bit bigoted -- but pick your issue and you can find one anybody holds a strong opinion about; if a pol is upfront about his biases, I can weigh 'em against his other qualities. Sure, he may be an opportunist, a bit of a weathervane -- now name a politician that isn't; but some of 'em at least look to the law and Constitution to check if it's an ill wind or fair. Nope, not that; it tells me something more subtle, more fundamental: it tells me he won't leave well enough alone.

And for somebody asking for my vote to put him in as the el Supremo Cigarro of a Federal Republic of fifty grotty little experiments in democracy,* that's a career-limiting flaw. Hey, Rick? Just like your peer Barry O and all his predecessors, work on the whole knowing when to sit down and shut up thing. If more Presidents could master that art, we'd all be better off!
* Sadly, most of them aren't little enough, or, really, grotty enough, and they keep getting less experimental and not especially democratic nor respectin' of inalienable rights. Look, if they're not tryin' stuff in NH or VT, in ND or AK, how're the rest of us spozed to tell if it's worth tryin' where we live? --And vice versa, of course.


Bubblehead Les. said...

So it's going to be a Choice between the Anointed One and "Pick Me! Pick Me! I can Out-Stupid any of the Others!"

So Glad I can Vote Absentee.

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

Speaking of attacks of the stupids, Bachmann opened her mouth again. Apparently, the east-coast quake and Irene were warnings from God about the debt, or something.

Because that approach worked out so well for Pat Robertson.

Looks like between Perry and Bachmann, it's going to turn in to a "choice" between the God Squad and the Marxist Man.

Finagle help us all.

staghounds said...

My presidential candidate debate question- Name something that you would refuse to sign a law about.

karrde said...

Is it worth mentioning that this idea is phrased as a Constitutional Amendment?

Consitutional Amendments take time to pass House, Senate, and 3/4 of the State Legislatures.

Speaking of, how is that Balanced Budget Amendment doing? Or that Sanctity of Life Amendment that pro-life/anti-abort folks have talked about for decades? Or the Flag-Burning Amendment?

I don't speak this to defend Perry on this subject. Merely to note that Amending the Constitution to fix a contentious political issue hasn't been too successful.

The Jack said...

karrde, that just means that it's fantasy pandering.

And sure amending the Constitution does at least follow a prodecure to enact major change.
(Hint anti's that's what it'll really take to get your new prohibition and it'll work as well as the last ones).

But that shows that the idea of modifying the frikin' Constitution is panderable.

Screw voting for a candidate, I want to be able to vote against the biggest gommer, without having to vote for one of the smaller gommers.

We need negative voting.

Kristophr said...

Jake: listen to the original video of Bachmann.

She was making a joke at a religious gathering. She laughed, and her audience laughed at her statement. Yea, she's a believer. So are a lot of folks.

As an atheist, I find these unfounded attacks annoying. I'm sure you can find some real reasons to not vote for her. But making up stuff only makes the Dems look like overly partisan idjits.

Anonymous said...

I am reminded of a line from "The Hunt For Red October"

"Look, I'm a politician. That means I'm a liar and a cheat. And when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops. ..."

Just a reminder ...

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

Kristopher: Yeah, there was a little chuckle that went around, even from her. But she didn't seem to me to be really joking about it - at the most it was a "ha ha only serious" joke. And if she was deliberately joking and not being serious then it's just plain stupid considering a) that people are still bailing out their basements and rebuilding their homes from Irene, and b) that how hideously similar comments backfired on Pat Robertson shows how politically stupid it is. "Jokes" like that in the primaries, and these stupid marriage amendment pledges, are what lose voters in the general elections. It seems the stupid party still hasn't learned that.

Even if you feel you can write this one off as a poorly chosen joke, she also signed a pledge early on to put her religious views of marriage above the Constitution - including what sounds suspiciously like an unofficial religious test for appointments.

Like I said, it's looking more and more like a contest between the religious fascists and the Marxist fascists.

Angus McThag said...

The pro-gun = pro-life = anti-gay = christian thing depresses the snot out of me.

I'm only one of those things and I sick of being lumped in with the other three just to get the one.

Drang said...

What I find frustrating about this particular action by this particular poly-tick-ian is that Perry had previously stated that each state should be allowed to decide.
Keep in mind, too, that the media do in fact have a leftist bias (yes, I meant "leftist" as a synonym for "libtard") and that they ask the GOP candidates stuff they wouldn't dream of asking the jackasses. I.e., when was the last time any of the media clowns lining up on their knees in front of Obama asked him anything about HIS religious beliefs?

WV: diabl. Well, I'm not religious enough myself to believe it's all a diabolic plot, but if you insist...

Old NFO said...

Ohhh, THAT had to be 'fun'... Don't envy you trying to keep all those arguments separated, especially if the other parties convoluted them...

Kristophr said...

I'll go with writing her off for signing that pledge, as that is a good example of her poor judgement.

Experienced politicians never sign on to such crap from interest groups. The put out their own positions publicly, and said interest groups can support them or not, as they see fit.

LabRat said...

All this is done for me for Perry is confirm what was previously suspected, which is that for all his bluster on federalism, the tenth amendment, and the 50 laboratories, it all means precisely squadoo when any of those "principles" come up against either his own moral views or his political advantage. A federalist can make an argument that the gov should override the will of the states in cases of great harm, like Jim Crow laws, but the "great harm" case of same-sex marriage has... not exactly been demonstrated.

As for Bachmann, I'm with Kristopher. I think the natural-disaster thing was a joke, one religious person used to constant references to God speaking to a group of like-minded. I also think the ridiculous marriage pledge thing along with her past record of confusion on the subject of church and state and the appropriate places thereof are more than sufficient reason not to vote for her.

Don M said...

Perry used to be a Democrat, until a bit before GW Bush became president.

I sad to say, would vote for Mitt before him. And I don't like Mitt a bit.

Tam said...

"What I find frustrating about this particular action by this particular poly-tick-ian is that Perry had previously stated that each state should be allowed to decide."

Yup, it was the sudden U-turn that pissed me off, more than the topic involved.

If he'll crawfish on this, on what else will he flip-flop, should he see a political advantage in doing so?

WV: "angstram", as in "Perry just proved that there's not an angstram's difference between him and any other political animal."

Drang said...

All the Larue kool-ade drinkers will love him, tho'...

WV: knessued. There's an Israeli legislative joke in there somewhere, but I'm just not gettin' it.

Larry said...

There are some things I really like about the state of my birth, and one of them is over the whole gay marriage thing. Their SC basically said "There's nothing in the rule book that says an elephant can't play ball" or words to that effect, and that was that.
Too bad more politicos can't grok that simple idea.