ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [215] -- Morning Phones A-Ringing

[ Posted Friday, June 22nd, 2012 – 17:44 PDT ]

For political wonks, this has been a week of waiting. Starting last weekend, we've all been waiting for Mitt Romney to address the issue of Barack Obama's new immigration policy. This waiting has been fruitless, and will continue for some time to come, apparently. Picture a phone ringing endlessly with nobody there to answer it... but we're getting ahead of ourselves.

The bigger waiting game this week has been at the Supreme Court, where two very important decisions are about to be handed down, on the Affordable Obamacare Act (so to speak), and on the Arizona immigration case. Both cases will impact the elections this year, but it is impossible to say how at this point. Either next Monday or next Thursday, however, we'll have at least a partial answer to this question.

In Congress, the Republicans are in the midst of the unprecedented move of holding the Attorney General in contempt of Congress... or the House, at least. They say they're tired of waiting for him to produce every single document they are demanding, and President Obama finally just threw in the towel and used the trump card of executive privilege to derail the fishing expedition.

The Senate actually voted on two bipartisan bills this week, one of which was noticed and one of which was not. The big one was a farm bill which will continue to ensure that Americans pay the highest price on the planet for a food item that they regularly crave -- sugar. The cynic in me hastens to point out that massive and expanding sugar subsidies from the federal government are very important in one particular state: Florida. What a surprise! One of the key states in the presidential election gets special treatment! Anyone wondering why both sugar and corn subsidies will never be realistically reined in need look no further than Florida and Iowa -- two states of monumental importance in the method we use to select our presidents.

Sigh. Maybe that was too cynical. Maybe I should be celebrating that anything got done in the Senate. There was one bill which made it through (with a 95-4 vote!) which did cheer me up, however -- a bill which would end the practice of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars being used to finance the national nominating conventions of the two major political parties in America. This year, roughly $35 million was slated to be spent on the Republican and Democratic national conventions, which is ridiculous when you consider that neither candidate is going to use the public financing system that such money is supposed to be a part of (both candidates are confident they'll raise way more money without the constraints public financing would place on them). Since, if the Senate bill passes the House, neither party can expect this convention money any more, my suggestion would be to spend the fund on smaller parties who could really use the help. Just an idea.

And finally, an item I didn't know where else to mention, Jon Soltz has a fantastic article everyone should read which does a masterful job of fighting back on the growing trend of states tightening up their voter laws. Soltz points out that one effect of these laws is going to be disenfranchising active-duty soldiers. You know, the ones out there fighting for their country? Why do Republicans want to deny these brave Americans their basic right to vote? As I said, it is a brilliant article, and an excellent point that needed to be raised, which is why I highly recommend it.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

We have two Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards to hand out this week, both to Michigan state legislators.

Michigan Republicans were pushing -- once again -- to shove the government between a woman and her doctor. This massive wave of Republican legislators (men, for the most part) attempting to practice medicine without a license continues apace. So much for "small government leaving people alone," eh? Government in the examination room is just fine, as long as the patient is a woman -- this seems to be the new stance the Republicans are taking in state after state.

Two female legislators in Michigan tried to fight back. For their efforts, they were silenced.

Representative Barb Byrum was silenced for speaking about vasectomies. Representative Lisa Brown was silenced for using the following language: "I'm flattered you're all so concerned about my vagina. But no means no."

After being barred from speaking in the statehouse after their statements, these two women brilliantly decided to use political theater to make their point instead. In a very literal meeting of politics and theater, they joined others (including the play's author) in performing The Vagina Monologues on the steps of the statehouse this past Monday.

Best protest sign quoted at the rally: "Vagina. Can't say it? Don't legislate it."

Democrats used to be the champions of this sort of street/political theater. A few years back, the Tea Party got way out in front of any Democratic demonstrating. Occupy Wall Street helped turn things back around, but we have to say the Michigan statehouse-steps production of The Vagina Monologues really takes things to another level.

For staging this event with class and aplomb, both Lisa Brown and Barb Byrum are awarded a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Well done, ladies!

[Congratulate Representative Lisa Brown on her official web page and Representative Barb Byrum on her official web page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

While we're not exactly fans of Eric Holder here, we also realize when there is simply not enough information about the tug-of-war between Holder and congressional Republicans to start handing out MDDOTW awards.

We will say that the White House hasn't really done a great job of making their own case, and telling their own side of this story.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has a long history of being accused of incompetence. It's certainly hard to see any sort of competence in the Fast and Furious program.

But the golden rule of political scandals is: "It's not the crime, it's the coverup." Republicans are mightily trying to prove some sort of coverup in this case, which they certainly escalated this week (and will escalate even further next week). The White House seems to be making the "it's all a political witch-hunt in an election year" argument, but so far this hasn't been noticeably effective. So while we do feel a blanket sense of disappointment in the White House's inability to effectively defend itself, we simply don't see that it has so far risen to the point where MDDOTW awards are appropriate. The jury's still out on this one, folks.

Instead, we're going to award the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week to Michele Leonhart, the chief administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, for her extremely disappointing testimony before Congress this week. Pressed on the issue of the harmfulness of marijuana and medical marijuana by Democratic Representatives Jared Polis and Steve Cohen, Leonhart stumbled through her answers attempting to defend what are, basically, indefensible policies.

For this performance, Michele Leonhart is our MDDOTW award winner. Now, to be fair, drug policy is set from the very top -- it wasn't Leonhart's fault that she was forced to defend policies which make no sense. So we're going to provide contact information for the White House today, so you can send your thoughts to the folks who really do decide these things.

[Contact President Obama on the White House contact page, to let him know what you think of his drug policies and Michele Leonhart's testimony.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 215 (6/22/12)

This week, rather than breaking things down into seven (sound)bite-sized chunks, we're going to indulge in a favorite exercise here: attempting to write our own political ad.

Mitt Romney is, as usual, trying to have everything both ways on the immigration issue. He even gave a speech to a group of Latino leaders, and pretty much refused to say what he'd do on his first day as president, on Obama's new policy for the DREAM Act kids.

Now, hitting Romney for his rightward swing on immigration during the Republican primaries is lots of fun to do, and will indeed reap benefits among certain demographics, but there's a much more core issue here that needs exploiting: Romney's leadership failure.

While Marco Rubio sulks about Obama co-opting his policy idea, Mitt Romney doesn't really have the luxury to do so. Romney's actually been more accessible this week to the press than most weeks, so he was given the chance to respond to Obama's new policy on multiple occasions, and he has so far steadfastly refused to say a word about what he'd do should he be elected to Obama's job.

So separate the policy issue from the leadership question. Because attacking Romney on leadership will bear a lot more fruit than just attacking him on the policy alone (or lack thereof, to be precise). Because leadership is a quality that all voters consider when making up their minds -- not just one or two demographics.

Romney has played the weasel on any number of important policy questions. He is running, to be blunt, as a pig in a poke. Elect him, and soon secret plans to make everything better will sprout in the Oval Office -- you've got to just trust him on that, because he's not saying what any of these magic plans actually are.

It's time to attack the weaseling, instead of each individual policy. Because it is a theme that could run throughout the entire campaign, if the Obama folks are as smart as they're made out to be.

Here is my concept of an ad to start this barrage. Maybe it's not the best, but it certainly makes a point worth making, I think. If you've got your own ad ideas, let me know (as always) in the comments.

 

It's morning in America... and the phone's ringing, Mitt

[VIDEO: Background black-and-white image of telephone next to a bed. Pan in slowly on phone.]

[VOICEOVER:]

Last election, a famous ad asked about a phone call at 3:00 A.M.

To be president, you sometimes have to act decisively, even in the middle of the night.

[VIDEO: Cut to footage of Obama at podium, from last Friday's announcement. Or, perhaps, image of Obama speaking in front of students from later in the week.]

[VOICEOVER:]

President Barack Obama announced a new policy on immigration last week.

[VIDEO: Cut to still image of Romney, with his mouth firmly closed and a grim look on his face, perhaps from one of the debates.]

[VOICEOVER:]

Mitt Romney has had a full week to respond.

He still hasn't.

[VIDEO: Superimpose a giant question mark over Romney's face.]

[VOICEOVER:]

Mitt won't say what he'd do should he be elected president. Will he continue Obama's policy? Will he overturn it?

He won't say.

Either Mitt Romney can't make up his mind -- in a full week -- or he does know what he'd do, and he just refuses to tell the American public what that is. Neither choice inspires much confidence.

[VIDEO: Cut to headline images of phrases such as "Romney Promises To Veto DREAM Act" and "Romney: Self-Deportation The Answer." Then cut to video of Romney speaking this week to Latino leaders, and use Mitt's own quote.]

[VOICEOVER:]

Romney has said before that he would veto the DREAM Act, and that his immigrant policy would be "self-deportation" -- but he won't say now what he'd do about Obama's new policy. Speaking to Latino leaders, Mitt said "when I make a promise to you, I'll keep it"... but then he refused to make any promises.

[VIDEO: Slow montage of President Obama with children, with soldiers, and with graduates.]

[VOICEOVER:]

President Obama showed leadership. Mitt Romney can't decide whether to follow that leadership. Romney certainly isn't showing any leadership of his own, that's for sure. He's been running for president for five or six years, and he still can't figure out his own position on immigrant children. Or he's hiding it.

[VIDEO: Tight focus on oddly-drawn black-and-white image of Mitt Romney. Camera slowly pans back to show red edge, as image starts to dissolve and fade. By the last line, image is completely gone and camera has panned back to reveal the image was on an Etch A Sketch. Fade to black.]

[VOICEOVER:]

How long are we supposed to wait, Mitt? How much time do you need to make a policy decision? Is this what Mitt Romney would be like as president, if the phone rang early some morning?

It's 3:00 A.M., Mitt -- do you know what your immigration policy is?

Because we don't.

["I'm a Super PAC with a bazillion dollars to spend, and I approved this ad."]

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress

 

57 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [215] -- Morning Phones A-Ringing”

  1. [1] 
    Kevin wrote:

    This has nothing to do with your usual excellent piece, but the heading "Morning Phones A-Ringing" reminded me of this rock classic...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQwJaAhtCi8

    If you hadn't heard it before, hope you and anyone else who checks it out like it.

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    if we're going to dip into the 3AM phone call shtick again, why not have one saying, "we found osama bin laden," with a voice over asking us to imagine what would have happened if the indecisive Mitt Romney had been president?

    followed of course by Carmen Sandiego escape music from Rockapella.

    http://youtu.be/ozYg8vDTmkc

  3. [3] 
    dsws wrote:

    my suggestion would be to spend the fund on smaller parties who could really use the help

    Wouldn't do much good, as long as we still have single-seat plurality elections for basically everything but some city councils.

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    us to imagine what would have happened if the indecisive Mitt Romney had been president?

    Romney has the best retort for this question..

    "Even Jimmy Carter would have approved the Osama hit..." :D

    That says it all... :D

    Michale.....

  5. [5] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    "we found osama bin laden," with a voice over asking us to imagine what would have happened if the indecisive Mitt Romney had been president?

    I don't think that would work, since it took Obama 18 hours of indecisive hand-wringing before giving the "go."

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Poll: Former Supreme Court clerks think the mandate is done for
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/poll-former-supreme-court-clerks-think-the-mandate-is-done-for/2012/06/21/gJQAYn8ZtV_blog.html

    Got yer T-Shirt, David??? :D

    Seroiusly, I intend to be very adult and mature about the whole thing..

    Very minimal gloating.. :D

    Now AZ v Holder on the other hand.... Ya'all will have to drag me back down to Earth.. :D

    Michale.....

  7. [7] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Seroiusly, I intend to be very adult and mature about the whole thing..
    Very minimal gloating.. :D

    Not me. I'm planning on nah-nah-nee-nah-nah-ing all over this board. And don't even get me started on the hell I'll be releasing over at the HuffPo.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, whatcha'all think about the Secret Service confiscating everyone's fork before Obama speaks???

    Pretty ridiculous, if you ask me. These are the people that Obama want's to VOTE for him???

    And he doesn't even trust them with forks in his presence???

    SERIOUSLY!??

    Like I said, KING BARACK THE FIRST...

    All Hail King Barack....

    First he wants people to put a political donation on their GIFT REGISTRY...

    Then he is taking people's salad forks away from them before he will put in an appearence...

    Gimme a frak'in break....

    I saids it befores and I'll says it again...

    2013 simply cannot come soon enough...

    Michale.....

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    Not me. I'm planning on nah-nah-nee-nah-nah-ing all over this board. And don't even get me started on the hell I'll be releasing over at the HuffPo.

    I'll gloat vicariously through you, CB... :D

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, if I may for a second, step away from politics... I am just curious about the general idea from Weigantians...

    ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER is out... I have seen some critics pan it, but most say that the acting is pretty good.. It's just the premise that is ridiculous..

    Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I am NOT a discerning movie goer...

    If the acting is decent, I'll accept practically ANY scenario or possibility... Mindless entertainment is STILL entertainment..

    And, I have to admit.. With all the reboots and sequels and re-releases, it's actually refreshing to see a somewhat novel idea.. Historical characters outside of the lives that we know they lived...

    It's kinda kewl, in a way...

    But I have a feeling it will confuse the younger people..

    If this subject continues, I'll tell ya'all about my "adventures" with ROBIN HOOD IN SPACE... :D

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB,

    Not me. I'm planning on nah-nah-nee-nah-nah-ing all over this board. And don't even get me started on the hell I'll be releasing over at the HuffPo.

    The ONE person I would like to get up in their face is Nancy Pelosi..

    Just a week or so ago she said that she is certain that CrapCare will pass muster because she "knows the US Constitution"...

    I would LOVE to get up into her face and say, "Apparently, you don't know SHIT, lady!" :D

    Ahhhhh What a pleasant fantasy THAT is.. :D

    Michale....

  12. [12] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Got yer T-Shirt, David??? :D

    Heheheheh. Not yet, but I am preparing as I've thought it more and more likely.

    Oh well. It's no skin off my back. I was never a big fan of the mandate anyways and hopefully this will return the debate to "How do we fix the problem?"

    The article you posted had a link to a good article on what might happen if the individual mandate is overturned:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-happens-if-the-individual-mandate-falls/2012/04/04/gIQAVnoivS_blog.html

    It will also take away a big campaign card for the Romney campaign.

    I await the decision!

    -David

  13. [13] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    nypoet: ...why not have one saying, "we found osama bin laden," with a voice over asking us to imagine what would have happened if the indecisive Mitt Romney had been president?

    Except that it took indecisive Obama 18 hours of hand-wringing before making a no-brainer decision that anybody in the Oval Office would have said yes to.

  14. [14] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michale: The ONE person I would like to get up in their face is Nancy Pelosi..

    Why bother. She's looked so ridiculous throughout this entire thing and will only look doubly silly after the Supremes shoot down the mandate — or, hopefully, the entire law, which I'm praying for, although I have no idea what they're gonna do with the rest of this CrapCare mess.

  15. [15] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    nypoet22: if we're going to dip into the 3AM phone call shtick again, why not have one saying, "we found osama bin laden," with a voice over asking us to imagine what would have happened if the indecisive Mitt Romney had been president?

    Except that it took Obama 18 hours of handwringing before coming to a decision, which anyone in the Oval Office would have said "yes" to.

    ***NOTE TO CHRIS: This is the third time I'm trying to respond to nypoet's comment. My first two responses didn't go through, and neither had any links or anything that would hold them up.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    David

    I await the decision!

    I had actually considered wearing my shirt as well... Partially as a show of solidarity with a fellow Weigantian, partially because I just like to shake up people locally...

    But then I thought it would be unfair.. This will be your day... :D I wouldn't want to take anything away from ya... :D

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/22/decisions-decisions-how-high-court-could-rule-on-health/

    What's your thoughts on the 4 possibilities???

    As far as your article goes... It doesn't mention the ONE thing that would have had a HUGE positive impact on Healthcare Reform..

    Tort reform... The ONE thing, above ALL ELSE, that the GOP wanted in CrapCare.... Democrats response????

    "Oh, we'll bat the idea around and see."

    That's it.. That's the ONLY thing the GOP got out of Crap Care...

    And that idea wasn't batted around ONE IOTA...

    Ya know why???

    Because trial lawyers OWN the Democratic Party...

    You want private influence OUT of politics??

    Start there....

    CB

    Why bother. She's looked so ridiculous throughout this entire thing and will only look doubly silly after the Supremes shoot down the mandate — or, hopefully, the entire law, which I'm praying for, although I have no idea what they're gonna do with the rest of this CrapCare mess.

    Yea, it's going to be a mess all right... It will be quite the pleasure watching Pelosi eat more crow than she did after the Great Dem Shellacking Of 2010

    You going to be around this week for the big show down?? I have posted the SCOTUS LIVE BLOG link a couple times.. It's starts around 0900 and by 1040 hours, it's usually done..

    We get to play with TS DEBBY all week, so it's gonna be fun all the way around.. :D

    Michale.....

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    What strikes me as glaring over the whole CrapCare debacle is the supreme arrogance and lack of a foundation in reality that this entire episode demonstrates...

    I mean, you can't blame it on "hindsight being 20/20"... Right from the get go, Obama and the Democrats were told, "YOU CAN'T FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY A PRODUCT SIMPLY BASED ON THE CONCEPT THAT THEY EXIST"...

    "oh no, yes we can.. It's all Constitutional.. It will pass SCOTUS rulings" blaa blaaa blaaa blaaa...

    This whole episode indicates a profound lack of judgement on the part of Obama and is the best indicator (of MANY indicators) to date that Obama is simply unfit to lead.

    Because, if Obama thinks that he could get away with THIS, what else might be lurking in that mind of his??? What other government overreach does Obama have in mind...

    On the other hand, this SCOTUS smackdown just might be what Obama needs. Obama needs to be humbled and have that "I AM GOD HEAR ME ROAR" attitude slapped out of him....

    Perhaps the ruling will do just that...

    Michale.....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/us/past-denials-of-vulnerability-raise-health-act-what-ifs.html?_r=2&hp

    There's a real good article that outlines perfectly the problem when you surround yourself with people who agree with you..

    It creates the ECHO CHAMBER effect... People just telling you want you want to hear and you don't want to go outside that chamber because you are not prepared for opposition..

    Many Banter Line blogs have that EXACT same problem.

    Thank the gods, that's not a problem here in Weigantia... :D

    Michale.....

  19. [19] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    "...Opponents of the health plan were indeed serious, and so was the Supreme Court, which devoted more time to hearing the case than to any other in decades. A White House that had assumed any challenge would fail now fears that a centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s presidency may be partly or completely overturned on a theory that it gave little credence. The miscalculation left the administration on the defensive as its legal strategy evolved over the last two years...."

    Miscalculation? More like the height of arrogance.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    CB

    Yea, that's the attitude that really bugs me..

    Not so much that the Obama Administration couldn't see the forest for the trees..

    No, what really rubbed me the wrong way was that the Obama Administration refused to even acknowledged that the forest existed..

    Despite overwhelming facts and evidence to the contrary...

    But, on the other hand, it will make their fall from grace a LOT sweeter for those of us who knows that the forest did, in fact, exist.. :D

    Personally, I can't understand how Obama, Reid and Pelosi will even be able to function in the aftermath....

    I mean, they have been telling us for two years that water is dry and the sky is green. And they have been adamant and almost hysterical in that belief..

    It would seem to me that it would be a HUGE shot in the credibility department when the SCOTUS rules, "Sorry, kids.. Water is wet and the sky is blue.. You blew it.."

    I really hope a reporter will have the cajones to go up to Pelosi and say, "So.... Let's discuss what you said last week, shall we??"

    THAT would be awesome...

    Michale....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Live SCOTUS Blog is up...

    http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    The MT campaign finance case is summarily reversed.

    The Court holds that the Eighth Amendment forbids a scheme of life in prison without possibility of parole for juveniles.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Montana case was an attempt to invalidate the Citizens United ruling in Montana..

    The SCOTUS apparently doesn't like lower courts second guessing them. :D

    Michale.....

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf

    That's the ruling if anyone wants to read it and weep...

    Michale....

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Arizona v. US has been decided. The Ninth Circuit is reversed in part and affirmed in part.

    Not sure which is which yet...

    Michale....

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regarding AZ v US

    Amy Howe:
    The Court rules that Section 3, 5, and 6 are preempted.

    Most of the key provisions of SB1070 (3 of 4) are invalidated. One provision is held not to be proved preempted; it must be construed.

    It was improper for the lower courts to enjoin Section 2(B), which requires police officers to check the legal status of anyone arrested for any crime before they can be released.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:
  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because the SCOTUS released AZ v US, it's unlikely we will see the CrapCare ruling until Thursday...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Confirmed. No CrapCare today....

    Michale.....

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Court ruled largely in favor of the U.S. government, striking down three parts of the Arizona immigration law, but the Court did uphold one the most notorious provisions: A requirement that local police officers check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.

    Michale.....

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    CrapCare is slated for Thursday....

    Michale.....

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Arizona v. US has been decided. The Ninth Circuit is reversed in part and affirmed in part.

    It'll be interesting to see how the Obama Administration spins this..

    While it's true the majority of the law was struck down, the ONE aspect of the law ("papers check") the Obama Administration hated the most was upheld...

    My guess is they will spin it as a "win" and completely ignore the fact that the one part of the law they campaigned against the most is the ONE part that was upheld..

    They'll paint it as a "win" because they so DESPERATELY need a win right now...

    Michale.....

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's also interesting to note that the requirement that police check immigration status was upheld by the SCOTUS....

    Unanimously...

    Says a lot about what the SCOTUS was thinking...

    Michale.....

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    What did I tell ya'all!??

    We're already seeing how Obama lied...

    Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/

    Obama's statement said they would deport any illegal who has a criminal record..

    NOW they are saying, it's only a FELONY record that will matter...

    Pretty soon, rapists and murders and drunk drivers will get amnesty....

    Michale.....

  35. [35] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The other interesting decision was that the court declared montana's law against unlimited financing unconstitutional.

    This is interesting because it means they're only for states rights in the case of certain things.

    This is no big surprise in the wake of citizens united, but sad nonetheless. This court is rapidly making it's case for the most unpopular court ever - producing ruling after ruling favoring money & property over people.

    - David

  36. [36] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Btw- am on a plane somewhere over Nevada so please forgive any inaccuracies due to limited Internet access

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is interesting because it means they're only for states rights in the case of certain things.

    Is that unusual??

    No one has ever advocated State Rights uber alles...

    This is no big surprise in the wake of citizens united, but sad nonetheless. This court is rapidly making it's case for the most unpopular court ever - producing ruling after ruling favoring money & property over people.

    I see it as the court re-affirming that America and Americans matter first and foremost..

    Btw- am on a plane somewhere over Nevada so please forgive any inaccuracies due to limited Internet access

    Fly safe... :D Where ya gonna be Thursday at 1000hrs??? :D

    Michale.....

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I see it as the court re-affirming that America and Americans matter first and foremost.

    If, by Americans, you mean "Americans with the means to buy elections."

    While it's true the majority of the law was struck down, the ONE aspect of the law ("papers check") the Obama Administration hated the most was upheld.

    Of course they will ... just as Republicans will claim it's a win even though they lost the majority of the decision. Politicians ... n'est-ce pas?

    You really need to stop your Obama hatred from ruling your life :)

    -David

  39. [39] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- Scalia is sounding more and more like a FoxNews commentator. He can't seem to stop himself from going off on an anti-Obama rant about subjects that seem a little off topic.

    This guy is on the Supreme Court?

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/arizona-dissent-scalia-blasts-obamas-deportation-stay-immigration/story?id=16645656

    Has he lost it?

    -David

  40. [40] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Michael: But, on the other hand, it will make their fall from grace a LOT sweeter for those of us who knows that the forest did, in fact, exist.. :D

    Including those folks in the tricorne hats, who took all that crap from know-it-all liberals — including former Speaker "astro turf" Pelosi. Keyword: former.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course they will ... just as Republicans will claim it's a win even though they lost the majority of the decision. Politicians ... n'est-ce pas?

    True.... But it sure kills the idea that Obama is above that sort of thing, doesn't it?? :D

    Has he lost it?

    Scalia?? No, perhaps he is now simply seeing Obama for what Obama really is...

    A screw-up that's actually a detriment to this country...

    We'll know on Thursday... :D

    Michale.....

  42. [42] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Scalia?? No, perhaps he is now simply seeing Obama for what Obama really is.

    Ummm ... shouldn't a Supreme Court justice be more concerned with the law than ranting against any one person?

    I don't want someone who sounds like a crazy old man - you kids ... get off my lawn w/ your illegal immigrants!!!

    Heheh. I suppose it would be funny if the guy weren't on the Supreme Court.

    -David

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    While I would wager that most Americans feel the same way about Obama that Scalia does, I can guarantee that the majority of Independents and NPAs do...

    Having said that, yes, I would agree with you.. Such an attitude is not befitting a Supreme Court Justice...

    On the other hand, they are human too... If someone as learned and intelligent as Scalia feels that way about Obama, maybe there is something to it??

    Ya know, it's entirely POSSIBLE that everything I have said about Obama IS true.... :D

    Michale....

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now THIS is hilarious.. :D

    Attorney General Eric Holder, noting that the Supreme Court ruling today did not give “a license to engage in racial profiling,” warned Arizona law enforcement officials that the Justice Department will “closely monitor” their efforts to check the immigration status of state residents.
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/holder-will-closely-monitor-arizona-law-enforcement-for-racial-profiling/article/2500555

    Holder ain't gonna have time to monitor jack sheet...

    He is going to be too busy being in Contempt Of Congress and being the catalyst for the biggest scandal in an Administration since Watergate...

    :D

    Michale....

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's actually rather hilarious, in a sad and pathetic sort of way...

    Obama's DOJ says that cops must not inquire as to the immigration status of ANY person the cops come into contact with, so as not to make any illegal immigrant feel persecuted or picked on...

    Obama's State Dept says that cops MUST inquire as to the immigration status of ANY person the cops come into contact with, so as to insure that said contactee will have full contact with their embassy...

    You see the connection???

    American cops must bend over backwards to make sure foreigners are free to victimize American citizens..

    What a country we've become, eh???

    Michale.....

  46. [46] 
    akadjian wrote:

    American cops must bend over backwards to make sure foreigners are free to victimize American citizens.

    Now you're starting to sound like a crazy old man too ...

    The world is goin' to hell and it's the fault of the immigrants ... and the coloreds ... and the Jews ... and the queers ... and the Communists ... and those damn kids who are on my lawn ... rant, rant, rant

    :)

    -David

  47. [47] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I also wonder what Mitt Romney had to say on the subject ...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/25/romney-campaign-arizona-immigration-law?newsfeed=true

    Hmmm ... Romney appears to hold all opinions on immigration.

    -David

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    The world is goin' to hell and it's the fault of the immigrants ... and the coloreds ... and the Jews ... and the queers ... and the Communists ... and those damn kids who are on my lawn ... rant, rant, rant

    No matter how many times ya'all try, it's just NOT going to work...

    This isn't about IMMIGRANTS....

    This is all about ***ILLEGAL*** Immigrants...

    Michale.....

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thursday is going to be a REAL fun day for Obama..

    His signature legislation, the one he banked ALL his political clout on, is going down in flames..

    And his Attorney General will gain the distinction of being the first Attorney General ever to be held in Contempt Of Congress...

    Yea, Thursday is the day Obama would likely just want to stay in bed... :D

    Michale.....

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here ya go, David..


    Supreme Court give states a green light to follow Arizona's lead on immigration

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/25/supreme-court-give-states-green-light-to-follow-arizona-lead-on-immigration/

    Real concerns from REAL Americans about REAL problems..

    Again, I have to ask the question, since no one seems able to answer it..

    Why is it so evil to look after Americans first and the rest of the world second???

    Michale.....

  51. [51] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Correction ...

    The world is goin' to hell and it's the fault of the illegal immigrants ... and the coloreds ... and the Jews ... and the queers ... and the Communists ... and those damn kids who are on my lawn ... rant, rant, rant ...

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    The world is goin' to hell and it's the fault of the illegal immigrants ... and the coloreds ... and the Jews ... and the queers ... and the Communists ... and those damn kids who are on my lawn ... rant, rant, rant ...

    Thank you..

    And, with regards to ILLEGAL immigrants, your statement is dead on ballz accurate..

    I mean, look at it LOGICALLY...

    We agree that it's the Federal Government's responsibility to enforce immigration...

    Right?? That's NOT a point of contention...

    So, what happens if the Government has abdicated that responsibility?? What happens with the Government says, "we're not going to enforce parts of the immigration laws if it will negatively impact our chances for re-election"???

    You can bet that if illegal immigrants were a huge voting bloc for the GOP, Obama would have that border sewn up tighter than virgin in a chastity belt..

    We BOTH know that to be true...

    So, what can states do?? The states, AND THEIR PEOPLE.. THEIR AMERICAN PEOPLE, are the ones who are victimized by the Federal Government's abdication of their responsibility..

    In S. Carolina, a woman's son was killed by a drunk driver. You guessed it. An illegal immigrant..

    And, to add insult to injury, the grieving mother was SENT A BILL for the clean-up of her son's blood off the streets...

    Who knows? That illegal immigrant MIGHT have been deported before she killed an American citizen, IF Obama was doing his job!

    What the Obama Administration is saying is, "We're not going to enforce immigration laws and we are refusing the states to save themselves..."

    I can understand a Federal Government abdicating it's responsibilities for greater, higher purposes...

    But to win a frak'in election!!???

    "? ????? ???????? ??????? ? ????? ???????????; ??????? ???????? ???? ????????"
    -Harrison Ford, AIR FORCE ONE

    The states will remember....

    Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, Arizona....

    They'll remember this at the voting booth...

    Michale.....

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    "? ????? ???????? ??????? ? ????? ???????????; ??????? ???????? ???? ????????"
    -Harrison Ford, AIR FORCE ONE

    Well, that kinda loses it's impact, eh?? :D

    "The dead remember our indifference; the dead remember our silence"
    -Harrison Ford, AIR FORCE ONE

    Michale.....

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/06/26/condi-rice-there-is-no-way-i-will-be-romneys-running-mate/

    It's not quite a Sherman, but close enough to be disappointing...

    Michale.....

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay CW....

    I have your christmas present lined up?? :D

    http://tinyurl.com/8xme5dx

    Michale.....

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the White House is in hot water above and beyond the Fast/Furious scandal..

    White House Warned Not To Delete Emails Related To Leaks
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/white-house-leaks-emails-warning_n_1625473.html

    Looks like the Ides Of March have come in June this year....

    I honestly cannot see a way out for Obama...

    Granted I am not looking very hard, but this is some really serious stuff...

    Michale.....

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jimmy Carter Accuses U.S. of 'Widespread Abuse of Human Rights'
    http://news.yahoo.com/jimmy-carter-accuses-u-widespread-abuse-human-rights-154057442--abc-news-politics.html

    Gotta love Jimmy Carter... With Former Presidents like him, who needs Iran, North Korea or Russia???

    Michale....

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]