[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
politics and politicians Title: Let It Burn: The conservative choice I get that, because I'm frickin furious. I mean, I-better-not-have-a-drink-to-calm-down-because-I-might-never-stop-drinking livid. The damage done to our country in the past two decades but really in the past seven years is mind numbing. Not only has TFG thumbed his nose at the founding principles of this nation while doing an in-your-face touchdown dance at conservatives, but “our” party, the Grand Old Pussies, have continually rolled over before him while begging for scraps of his magnificence for their table. We've done our part as citizens. We gave the GOP a majority in the House in 2010 so they could stop him, and when that wasn't enough, we added the Senate in 2014. We've donated, politicked, canvassed and phone banked. We have made ourselves perfectly clear, chasing the dayglo Speaker of the House from his perch and electing patriots like Dave Brat in Virginia. And what has the response been? Disdain. Scorn. Anger. How dare we question our betters? From colluding with Democrats to prop up the brittle bones of the senile Thad Cochran in Mississippi, to passing the cromnibuss pork spending bill after Boo Hoo Boehner resigned to the repeated attempts, such as the Rubio/Schumer Gang of 8 bill, to shove nation-killing amnesty down our throats, we have been ignored, insulted and reviled. Even today the DC establishment is pulling out all the stops to get Rubio elected so that they can serve their Chamber of Commerce masters. Enough. If these people have forgotten that they work for us and are determined not to remember, then it is up to us to forcefully remind them. Let It Burn. That decision, it's easy. What's not so easy is, as Ghostbusters might put it, is choosing the form of the destructor. Let's survey the field. Kasich is a joke, a big government Republican pining for the days of Nelson Rockefeller. Ben Carson is a decent man who has been seduced into being a never ending, multimillion dollar bot compiling an email list for future fund-raising efforts. Jeb Bush is the last gasp of the Bush dynasty, running 10 years too late and Marco Rubio is the slickly packaged Madison Avenue pretty boy, America's last, best chance for amnesty. If Mexico is your vision of America's future, then Marco is your guy. That leaves Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Trump is sheer bravado, 1.21 jigawats of pure testosterone. If you want to stick your thumb in the eye of DC elites, well, Donald will stick his thumb, palm, wrist and forearm right into the skull of the Washington cartel. Balls to the wall, damn-the-torpedos, full speed ahead American arrogance, that's Donald Trump. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is the slow knife, the knife that takes its time, the knife that waits years without forgetting, that slips quietly between the bones. That's the knife that cuts deepest. He’s the smartest guy in any room, and his great sin is that he’s a class traitor. He went to Princeton and Harvard, checked all of the right boxes on his way up. The DC elite look at Ted Cruz and they see someone who is one of them, except he won’t play ball. He has principles. He takes the promises he made to the electorate seriously He actually seems to believe in that rah rah America crap the rubes in flyover country revere. Those are the choices. Visceral brutality or the elegant intellectual. How to choose? None of us really knows how either man would act as POTUS. Campaign promises are cheap and subject to change. Words are worthless next to deeds. I would like to look at this question through a different lens, one that I haven’t heard talked about much. Brand. Every corporation, every organization, even every individual is always concerned with their brand. This is a fundamental human concept, we’re all concerned to some degree with how others perceive us. Politicians are ACUTELY aware of this, and will do anything to preserve their brand. With that in mind, lets look at how each of these might behave as president. First of all Trump. What is his brand? Bold? Outspoken? Crude? All of those, certainly, but Trump’s brand is TRUMP. He’ll promise the moon, stars and planets, but when it comes down to decision time, he is always going to err on the side of glorifying Donald John Trump, it’s what he has done all his life. Trump Towers, Trump casinos, Trump golf courses, the list goes on. I’ll bet his seamstress rips the Fruit of the Loom tags out of his underwear and sews in Trump tags. This tendency worries me in a president. It’s certainly likely that he could tear great gaping holes in the Washington machine, but what will he replace it with? We’ve had 8 years of an administration treating the rule of law as toilet paper for their own ends, is continuing to rip it asunder for different ends really an improvement? He says now that he’ll build a wall, but do you really think he’ll do it if the effect is to deprive Trump properties of cheap labor(and thus damage the Trump brand)? I find that unlikely. Do you think he’ll negotiate hard against China if China grants preferential land rights to Trump casinos? I doubt it. Equally likely IMO is that Democrats in DC will figure out how to manipulate him via his enormous ego. Suppose a bill to “repeal” Obamacare comes across his desk, a bill that replaces it with full single payer called “Trumpcare”. Does ANYONE doubt that he’s sign that puppy in a second? Trump may very well do a great deal of damage to the establishment Washington, but I have no confidence that it will do anything but destroy the last vestiges of constitutional governance in this nation. We’ll still have elections, but they’ll be contests between Democrats and Republicans simply to put their guy or gal in charge so they can manipulate the raw levers of power for the benefit their donor groups. We citizens will simply be beasts of burden to fund the lavish lifestyles of the well connected. IOW, America will revert to the human norm, a vast underclass laboring to fund the lavish lifestyle of a small elite. Fine. What about Cruz? Cruz has built his entire public and political persona on fealty to the Constitution. That’s his identity. You can believe that his filibuster was a publicity stunt or a principled stand, but the fact is that fact is that he sold it as a principled stand, and for him to go back on that would do incalculable damage to his brand. Washington DC today operates far removed from the Constitution. Cruz has to attack that, and he has to attack it from the angle of returning to Constitutional governance. He HAS to. To do otherwise would do tremendous harm to his brand. Does he mean it? I tend to believe that he does, but it doesn’t really matter. That’s the box he has locked himself into. Moving outside that box would finish him as surely as “read-my-lips” George H.W. Bush was finished by raising taxes. So that’s the choice if you’re in the let it burn crowd. Raw destruction for destruction's sake, or surgical destruction in the name of restoration. I know which I prefer. We’re angry because greedy, corrupt politicians have betrayed our birthright. We’re angry. What should we do with that anger? Use it for short sighted revenge, or channel it in the direction that might start to recreate at least some of what we’ve lost? Choose wisely. Poster Comment: I liked how this piece outlined the anger at the GOPe and how many conservatives feel about Trump vs. Cruz vs. GOPe candidates in the primary. The writer leans Cruz but would take Trump over any other GOPe candidates if push came to shove. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
#11. To: TooConservative (#0)
Horse crap. Cruz is a shameless devotee for judicial activism, he promotes Mark Levin's dimwitted attacks on the Constitution in the heavily plagiarized Liberty Amendments, and he advocates a convention to rewrite the Constitution. Only the most dimwitted or ill-informed are taken in by his pretense of fealty to the Constitution.
An article 5 convention is to PROPOSE amendments . The amendment in the end would still need the same approval process as the other 27 amendments did . BTW amending the Constitution is a constitutional act. That's why the founders made provisions for it .
Con Con Is a Terrible Idea Article V requires Congress to call a new Constitutional Convention to consider "amendments" (note the plural) if two-thirds (34) of the states pass resolutions calling for it. There are no other rules in the Constitution or in federal law to list or limit a Con Con's purpose, procedure, agenda, or election of delegates. The whole process would be a prescription for political chaos, controversy, confrontation, litigation, and judicial activism. Just about the only thing we can predict with certainty is that it could not be secret from the media and the public, as was the original 1787 Constitutional Convention. Many prestigious constitutional authorities say it is impossible for Congress or anyone else to restrict what a Con Con does.
The runaway convention fear I believe is a myth perpetrated by those who don't want Congress to lose it's control of the process. But let's assume that it does propose Amendments outside of a narrow mandate ;a convention under Article V is limited to “proposing amendments” in the clear plain text I provided . The text and history of Article V indicate that Congress¹s role in calling a convention is merely ministerial. The original purpose of Article V was to give States the power to circumvent a recalcitrant or corrup t Congress. It thus makes little sense for it to give Congress broad power to control a convention. In light of the text of Article V and its purpose to empower States, States should have the power to limit the scope of a convention and to limit their applications¹ validity to only a certain topic. The original purpose of Article V also indicates that States’ applications should be grouped and counted by subject‐matter. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf
That's why we're still under the Articles of Confederation.
Before the Constitutional Convention there was the Annapolis Convention. . The delegates from the states participating concluded that a broader convention was needed to address the nation’s concerns. The States, not the Congress of the Articles of Confederation , called the Constitutional Convention in 1787. They told their delegates to render the Federal Constitution adequate for the exigencies (demands )of the Union. And that is exactly what they did. Only 2 states ,NY and Massachusetts, said that the purpose of the convention was “solely amend the Articles” . The delegates had the authority to write the Constitution ....AND most important ; it was not ratified until the states approved ....just as any amendment proposed by a convention of the states would need approval of the state legislatures to become an amendment .
Nice foot shot.
There are no replies to Comment # 29. End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|