Pete Stark: The Federal Government Can Do Most Anything in This Country
A constituent argues to Democrat Congressman Pete Stark that, by declaring health care a right, he is essentially imposing a form of forced labor on others to provide for that right. She then asks him, if this is the case, what limitations are there on the federal government? His answer, delivered very calmly, is commonplace yet chilling:
I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life. Now, the basis for that would be, how does it affect other people. In other words . . . The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.
Watch it for yourself:
Thanks to A.W.
Stark is preternaturally calm in this clip, a stark contrast to his normal freakout demeanor in which he resembles the washing machine in the last few seconds of this clip:
(Via Ace.)
I think I liked Stark better when he was threatening to beat a Republican and calling him a “wimp” and a “fruitcake.” Or when he said that we were sending kids to Iraq “to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”
At least he provided entertainment with those ridiculous quotes, providing a sort of clownish buffoonery that we could all laugh at.
This, by contrast, is just creepy.
Pete Stark, and Nancy Pelosi, everything you have to know about politics in The Bay Area.
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 8:40 amTo me, he looked like a man that was almost enjoying the woman’s distress. In his mind was “Yes, cry my pet, cry so I may drink your tears.” He’s truly a disgusting individual.
Jim Rose (39d88d) — 8/3/2010 @ 10:51 amStark is preternaturally calm in this clip, a stark contrast to his normal freakout demeanor in which he resembles the washing machine in the last few seconds of this clip:
hahahahaha
Actually he looks drugged, or like he was VERY aware of the cameras in the room. So…cautious…in…his…answer. But he told the truth anyway.
Love the passive aggressive smiling jab at the end: “Well, I’m sure that you’re going to save it.”
Can’t wait for November.
no one you know (196ed7) — 8/3/2010 @ 11:08 amHe is right in this case.
Look up “Trail of Tears” and “Manzanar”
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 8/3/2010 @ 11:20 amI heard much the same thing from my congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA 29). I complained to Schiff about his support for the Obama bailouts, healthcare and other, in my opinion, unconstitutional actions.
Schiff wrote back to say the courts have held Federal power under the Commerce clause can be broadly exercised. If Schiff believes there is any limit to Federal power, I haven’t seen him vote that way.
Mike (e9afe0) — 8/3/2010 @ 11:36 amThey are Statists all.
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 12:01 pmPete Stark is mentally ill.
Kevin Stafford (ff3afb) — 8/3/2010 @ 12:25 pmSchiff wrote back to say the courts have held Federal power under the Commerce clause can be broadly exercised.
In other words, “we’ll do whatever the courts let us get away with”.
Subotai (1e50bb) — 8/3/2010 @ 12:39 pmYeah, just like the Founding Fathers were essentially imposing a form of forced labor on others when they included rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. Now we’re all forced to pay the tax-man for fire-fighters and policemen and whatnot – and what are they gonna do? Go out and save people whose houses catch on fire.
It’s outrageous. Socialists.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/3/2010 @ 3:59 pmYou are better than that, Leviticus.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 4:01 pmYou are better than that, Leviticus.
No he’s not.
Gerald A (2b94cf) — 8/3/2010 @ 4:12 pm“Now we’re all forced to pay the tax-man for fire-fighters and policemen”
Leviticus – I don’t pay the federal government for police and firefighters.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/3/2010 @ 4:18 pmOkay, ANOTHER great pete stark clip.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/03/more-pete-stark-refusing-to-hire-illegals-might-be-unconstitutional/
Pete stark apparently doesn’t know what e-verify is. And i am having trouble deciding which clip is scarier. the one where he says congress can do pretty much whatever the hell it wants in the first clip. or here claiming it is unconstitutional to tell an illegal immigrant they are not allowed to work for an american company.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (f97997) — 8/3/2010 @ 4:33 pmI would hope Leviticus is better than that. That was a hysterical rant with absolutely zero factual basis.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/3/2010 @ 4:41 pmWhy do Leftists have such mood swings?
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:01 pmStark was my rep for many years before I finally decided that the Peoples Socialist Republic of California was a lost cause and left.
Hi is an idiot. The clips you see are real. His arrogance is real. His Marxist beliefs are real. He is the Imperial ruling class in D.C.. It is the people who continue to re-elect him that are unreal.
xcalifornian (022d42) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:21 pm“Leviticus – I don’t pay the federal government for police and firefighters.”
– daleyrocks
You pay local government for it – what’s the difference? The lady’s point is that taxing her to pay for someone else’s healthcare is a form of forced labor for her, right? So why isn’t it a form of forced labor when she is taxed to pay for someone else’s firefighters, even if she herself never has need of them, cuz she can afford to put out her own fires? Or, if you want an explicitly federal analogy, why should she be forced to fund a military if other people receive all the concrete benefits from it? Is taxing someone to fund the military a form of “forced labor”? Because I know a bunch of annoying hippies around ABQ who argue that, and I disagree with it.
It’s a stupid line of reasoning on her part, and I’m calling it out as such.
“That was a hysterical rant with absolutely zero factual basis.”
– John Hitchcock
Then refute it.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:27 pmColonel know Fortney
ColonelHaiku (63753b) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:30 pmStark is drunken buffoon and
everyone know
Nope. I took from her speech, which seemed fraught with fraughtness to me, that Doctors are going to have the fruits of their labor taken from them.
Also, your analogies revolve around public services, while she is referring to a private interaction, either between the patient and doctor, or a choice of an individual as to whether or not they should purchase health insurance.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:36 pmso simple even
ColonelHaiku (63753b) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:39 pmColonel Haiku understand
JD explain well
A distinct difference:
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:55 pmNational Defense is an enumerated obligation of the Federal Government;
Health Care is not.
and…
Police and Fire Protection is part and parcel with the “police powers” that were reserved to the “several States”.
But, there are many areas that you can live in where you, as an individual, must contract for same; just as there are “volunteer” fire and police dept’s throughout America.
It’s called Federalism!
Amendment X:
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 5:59 pmThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Come on, Leviticus, you’re making obtuseness into an art form. First, the post is not so much about the lady’s question as it is about Stark’s ignorant reply. Do you believe that: “The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country”? Is that really what our limited form of constitutional government is about?
Walter Cronanty (7f2f64) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:07 pmThe secondary issue raised by Stark’s reply is a variation on the question I posed to you above. That issue is: “Is there any limit on the federal government’s power?” Apparently, Rep. Stark thinks not. That reply is certainly “a stupid line of reasoning on [his] part, and I’m calling it out as such.”
Your examples of firefighters, police officers and the military are taken from a high school junior’s debate club crib sheet. At the time of the revolution there were government supported police officers and military personnel. Indeed, the preamble to the constitution provides: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” To pretend that providing for the protection of US citizens is on the same constitutional footing as providing medical insurance is sheer sophistry.
“Also, your analogies revolve around public services, while she is referring to a private interaction…”
– JD
Not anymore, she isn’t. And if she’s arguing that it’s problematic that what was once a private service has now become a public one, then the same arguments hold.
They had private police once: they called it “The State of Nature”, and a guy named Locke wrote a whole book about why it was bad.
The lady in the video says (and I’m paraphrasing) that by changing healthcare from a privilege to a right, the government has forced others to provide it (i.e. doctors). She says that for the government to compel someone to provide a service to others violates the 13the Amendment. And I say: how is compelling police to protect a population (because they have a right to safety) any different than compelling a doctor to care for them (because they have a right to health)? And who’s to say that the provision of healthcare falls outside government purview? It’s not clear cut from the Constitution, that’s for sure – is it so hard to believe that “health” might fall under “life”, or “the pursuit of happiness”?
I know Stark’s response is creepy as hell, particularly as I’m increasingly wary of all things involving our governors, and I don’t like this healthcare bill at all, but her question was bullshit. She’s basically trying to say that taxing someone is the equivalent of forced labor. And it’s not. Because, well… no one’s forcing you to work.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:13 pmWalter,
If you can infer that “insure domestic Tranquility” means “have a federal police force” (U.S. Marshalls), then I can infer that “promote the general Welfare” means “offer a public health insurance plan”. And as far as the high school junior debate club cribbing goes… well, it’s an easy analogy to draw.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:18 pmActually, Leviticus, (and you can look it up) you do not have a Constitutional Right to police protection (ask Reginald Denny about it).
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:23 pmPlus, if you wish to understand what the Founders’ meant by “insure domestic Tranquility”, and “promote the general Welfare”, etc, you can pick up your handy copy of The Federalist Papers and see, in their own words, what they meant in their explanations to the public through those papers.
AD - RtR/OS! (37aceb) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:26 pmDenny worked at same
ColonelHaiku (63753b) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:28 pmplace as cousin’s husband he
never the same man
Therein lies the disconnect.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:29 pmNo, the word “promote” does not have the same meaning as the word “insure”. And the feds aren’t providing an “offer” of public health insurance, unless you mean the kind of “offer” you can’t refuse.
Walter Cronanty (7f2f64) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:30 pm“Actually, Leviticus, (and you can look it up) you do not have a Constitutional Right to police protection (ask Reginald Denny about it).”
– JD
What, not Amadou Diallo? Okay – they both work, I guess. But that’s not my point. My point is: compelling someone to provide a service deemed to be in the public interest isn’t slavery, whether it’s the federal, state, or local government doing the compelling.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:32 pmPromoting and forcing people to purchase a product from a private company are not really the same thing …
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:32 pmLeviticus, I’m looking forward to a real argument that compelling people to provide services is not a violation of the 13th Amendment.
To refresh your memory:
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:35 pmI did not type what you just attributed to me, Leviticus. And, I have acknowledged that her question was fraught with fraughtness. That does not make Stark’s comments any better, which is the point. You want to focus on the question, rather than the Dem view of what their role is.
JD (636015) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:36 pm“Plus, if you wish to understand what the Founders’ meant by “insure domestic Tranquility”, and “promote the general Welfare”, etc, you can pick up your handy copy of The Federalist Papers and see, in their own words, what they meant in their explanations to the public through those papers.”
– AD-RtR/OS!
Oh, good – which Federalist paper says that regulating air traffic falls under the umbrella “General Welfare Promotion” again? Was it… 39? 41?
I’ve read pretty big chunks of The Federalist, enough to realize that the Framers spent most of their time defending the structural formation of their proposed government, and the logic behind it. They knew that they couldn’t plan for every contingency – that’s why they dropped the 9th Amendment into the mix.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:42 pm“That does not make Stark’s comments any better, which is the point. You want to focus on the question, rather than the Dem view of what their role is.”
– JD
If you want to leave it at that, then I agree with you. I agreed that Stark’s response is creepy already, and I agree that it’s indicative of some larger sense of omnipotence in today’s politicians.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:45 pmFor what it’s worth, and totally off topic – except, perhaps, that it’s time for AG Holder to file suit against yet another state for there is nothing the Feds can’t do, Prop C in Missouri is passing with a little over 15% of the precints reporting:
Yes 123,076 74.4%
Walter Cronanty (7f2f64) — 8/3/2010 @ 6:46 pmNo 42,282 25.6%
Total Votes 165,358
“Trail of Tears” and “Manzanar”
Dems are the scum of the earth, always have been the scum of the earth, and give every indication that they’re going to continue to be the scum of the earth.
So, why should Stark be any different than the rest of the garbage?
Dave Surls (ecc925) — 8/3/2010 @ 7:22 pm“She’s basically trying to say that taxing someone is the equivalent of forced labor.”
Leviticus – I believe she is saying compelling doctors to provide care under a federal scheme of insurance is unconstitutional because it is a form of slavery. Your analogies to police and firemen are inapt because the people signed up for those jobs – they were not pressed into service. The budgets are reviewed and approved at a local level as provided in the Constitution. There is no place in the Constitution where it mandates citizens purchase a product. There are places which say the government shall provide for a common defense, etc. Separately, amendments to the Constitution have provided for an income tax and other revenue raising measures which allow the government to pay for various things it provides the country, but not typically a one for one measurement in terms of tracing dollars in and out. Your analogies fall way short, but the person in the video was not very articulate.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/3/2010 @ 7:28 pmForcing someone to PURCHASE a PRODUCT else pay a fine is not a tax. So, get that out of your straw-man, non-sequitur head, Leviticus.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/3/2010 @ 8:46 pmLeviticus: I’ll assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct, and the woman was talking about taxation being a form of slavery. My question to you, then, is this: at what level does taxation become slavery? What should the government not provide? Should we have Uncle Sam build everyone’s houses, deliver food to everyone’s doorstep, give everyone cars and all the gasoline they can use, give everyone long vacations at any resort they wish? And why are those services any different from health insurance? Seriously, what should be the limit of government largess?
Some chump (e84e27) — 8/3/2010 @ 8:49 pm“The lady’s point is that taxing her to pay for someone else’s healthcare is a form of forced labor…”
Yeah, it’s called slavery.
Not exactly somethig the Dems have ever been against. The idea and action of forcing people to serve against their will is one of the prime attributes of their party.
Always has been.
Dave Surls (70a0d6) — 8/3/2010 @ 9:18 pmYour analogies to police and firemen are inapt because the people signed up for those jobs – they were not pressed into service. The budgets are reviewed and approved at a local level as provided in the Constitution.
Minor details.
Gerald A (2b94cf) — 8/4/2010 @ 10:00 amWell, this post does it. I’m voting for the washing machine.
qdpsteve (5eb540) — 8/4/2010 @ 10:59 ambtw, did no one see that new video i posted about?
You really have to watch it, to see how f—ing clueless the guy is.
Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e) — 8/4/2010 @ 11:18 am“…which Federalist paper says that regulating air traffic falls under the umbrella “General Welfare Promotion…”
None, actually.
AD - RtR/OS! (88472e) — 8/4/2010 @ 11:57 amThat power falls under the Commerce Clause.
how is compelling police to protect a population (because they have a right to safety) any different than compelling a doctor to care for them (because they have a right to health)?
As daleyrocks pointed out, people are not compelled to be on the police force.
Of course, one could quibble about what is and is not “being compelled”. Would making it necessary for a doctor to participate in ObamaCare in order to have a legal license to practice be considered a reasonable requirement or an unlawful pressing into service?
But I’m not sure why we got off onto this. There is a huge gulf between thinking the Constitution makes a framework for limited government and the Constitution allows the feds to do whatever they want. It certainly explains a lot.
MD in Philly (5a98ff) — 8/4/2010 @ 12:37 pm“Your analogies to police and firemen are inapt because the people signed up for those jobs – they were not pressed into service.”
– daleyrocks
What doctor is “pressed into service”? They choose to become a doctor just like a policeman becomes a policeman. But once a policeman is a policeman, they don’t get to choose who they protect, because they are providing a public service; and now the same goes for doctors.
If the lady is arguing that it’s unconstitutional to be forced to purchase a product, then I would say I’m fairly close to agreeing with her – I’m fairly well outraged by the purchase mandate (which very few people wanted to begin with). But I don’t think that’s what she’s arguing.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/4/2010 @ 3:23 pmArguing about the intent of the question misses the broader point about how the Left views their role, and the role of the government.
JD (c13155) — 8/4/2010 @ 3:26 pmYeah, I’ve admitted as much – but if I don’t want to just not respond to these questions.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/4/2010 @ 4:37 pmI asked a very similar question to my congressman (Marshall, D-GA) at a town hall meeting last fall. Throughout the meeting the constitution was brought up over and over again regarding the consitutionality of the proposed HCR bill that had just been passed in the house. Marshall responded to those questions by saying he didn’t know if it was constitutional or not, that it wasn’t his job to know, and that the Supreme Court makes that determination. (A reply that drew many disavowals from the audience, which resulted in several people opening their comments with “we sent you to congress to protect and defend the consitution and here you are saying it’s not your job.”)
He also said it was kind of funny how the constitution means different things to different people and he was amused at the breadth of interpretations.
When I finally got a chance to speak I told him that I viewed the constitution as a limit on the power or authority of government so that we as a people can remain free, and then I asked him in light of all the recent federal government expansions and now this health care thing, is there anything in his opinion the government can’t do. He said “of course, there are many things the government can’t do.” I asked if he would give a few examples. He came back with “They can’t just mow you down in broad daylight. They can’t just bust into your home and kill you and take your possessions. Lots of things the government can’t do.”
I’d love to get rid of him this fall, but two reasons I may support him now. The GOP contender is a shyster, and Marshall is against Obamacare and actually has a more free-market approach to healthcare reforms than his party, as can be seen here: http://house.gov/marshall/07-15-10_nro.html
Chris (699c92) — 8/5/2010 @ 1:13 am#48:
A doctor chooses to become a doctor knowing that he or she will be self employed, a policeman becomes one knowing that he or she is subjugating themself to government service.
To change the rules that the doctor has to play by, even though they remain self employed is involuntary servitude. Slavery. And no two ways about it.
And if the policeman decides that they are unhappy with the conditions of their employment by the government that they are subject to, they can seek employment elsewhere. Even becoming a doctor if they so desire, so that they can become self employed.
Everyone has a right to health care. As much as they themselves can afford, and no more. And if they don’t have enough to offer a physician to interest that physician in providing the level of health care that they desire, stealing from the physician (his time or her skills) or from others (taxpayers) isn’t the way to solve that problem.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 8/5/2010 @ 5:53 am“To change the rules that the doctor has to play by, even though they remain self employed is involuntary servitude. Slavery. And no two ways about it.”
– EW1(SG)
I disagree. The rules of an industry are always in flux. So long as doctors aren’t pressed into service, are fairly compensated for their work, and are able to quit whenever they want to, I think calling this “involuntary servitude” or “slavery” (re: doctors, anyway) misses the mark by a wide margin.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/5/2010 @ 1:51 pmI don’t know if you saw my post at #47, Leviticus. Requiring that doctors take part in specific contractual obligations as a requirement of having a license to practice seems to me like being pressed into service. Even if this is not the state of the law currently, once receiving health care is seen as a right it is essentially a given that it must be “provided” (even if only in theory), which will mean somebody will be forced to do it no matter how bad the conditions are.
This has been a matter of discussion concerning abortion. The argument is if having an abortion is a woman’s right, then the procedure must be provided, even if by forced training in the procedure if an inadequate number of physicians voluntarily receive training.
Personally, I don’t see healthcare as a right, but I also think basing the behavior of a society exclusively on “rights” is a flawed concept. I do think it is a responsibility of the medical profession and of society to see to it that medical care is provided as needed by those who can not afford it- as I think it is the responsibility of the individual to devote what resources that they can to providing for their own needs before their wants. I do not know if there is any effective way for a government to monitor and enforce such behavior. Government can punish harming one’s neighbor, but it is an individual and cultural expectation that leads to loving one’s neighbor.
MD in Philly (5a98ff) — 8/5/2010 @ 2:19 pmSorry, MD – I kinda saw it earlier, but thought you were making the same points as daleyrocks, so I just responded to his questions.
I can’t see how requiring a doctor to treat patients with government-sponsored health insurance imposes involuntary servitude on those doctors – and is that even part of this bill? You’re speaking as though it’s a hypothetical thing, whereas everyone else is talking like it’s already in there.
I would add as a caveat that to require a doctor to perform specific procedures of any kind would seem to me a form of involuntary servitude if those procedures in some way violated the doctor’s conscience. Again, I haven’t kept up with the specifics of the bill – I got the impression it was more or less a purchase mandate designed to subsidize the insurance industry, so I shook my head in disgust and moved on with my life.
But a general trend towards the perception of doctors as public servants (such as policemen) doesn’t seem wrong to me.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 8/5/2010 @ 4:42 pmMarshall responded to those questions by saying he didn’t know if it was constitutional or not, that it wasn’t his job to know, and that the Supreme Court makes that determination
WTF?
I mean, sure, the Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination.
But Congressmen take the following oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
It seems to me that to not know whether something you are voting on is Constitutional, to not care and to insist that it isn’t your job to know, is an abrogation of that oath.
How can you bear true faith and allegiance to a Constitution without concerning yourself about whether the laws you are passing violate it?
How can you defend it against all enemies without showing the least bit of concern about whether your own actions violate it?
And how can you well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Representative if you are willing to pass laws without evincing concern about their constitutionality?
——
None of this is, coming from me, is a comment about the constitutionality of any particular proposal; it’s a complaint about attitude.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/5/2010 @ 4:47 pmI really, really, really cannot express how much that response (“he didn’t know if it was constitutional or not, that it wasn’t his job to know, and that the Supreme Court makes that determination”) offends me.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/5/2010 @ 5:11 pmAnd yet, you continue to prefer Democrats/Progressives to Republicans/Conservatives.
AD - RtR/OS! (f9156e) — 8/5/2010 @ 5:19 pmThere is a bright line, and that is at least part of it.
#53 Leviticus:
Bologna. There are physicians hired by public entities, just as firemen or police or other public servants are.
But that isn’t what’s happening: rules are being (have been for several decades now) imposed upon practitioners that already cause them to be unfairly compensated, that cause them to do work for the government that is uncompensated and unrelated to their profession, and the only alternative is to quit, which is not an option for a great many. So the state of involuntary servitude already exists and the current crop of socialist apparatchiks are only inclined to make the situation worse.
Which will only make health care even less available than it is now.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 8/5/2010 @ 5:27 pm“But a general trend towards the perception of doctors as public servants (such as policemen) doesn’t seem wrong to me.”
Policemen and firemen are generally employed by government entities, while doctors may not be. There are conscience exceptions for some medical procedures such as abortion and the morning after pill which the left continues to rail about – see Jane Hamsher calling Joe Lieberman “Rape Gurney Joe”. My interpretation of the woman’s question was about doctors being compelled to provide services – which they can also be subjected to liability over. You seem to differ over the intent of her question.
I also have questions about the constitutionality of the mandate.
daleyrocks (940075) — 8/5/2010 @ 5:33 pmAD – if the election were held today, I would be voting for: 4 Republicans (LT GOV/TREAS/CONTROLLER/AG); 2 DEM (SEN/SS); 2 LIB (CONGRESS, ASSEMBLY), and 1 i’m not sure of (GOV).
Granted that this is an unusual election in that the Democrats have nominated several people (Lt Gov/AG/Treas) whom I think are unfit for public office, but even so: I don’t think it’s fair to paint me in quite the partisan light you just did. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/5/2010 @ 5:34 pmAphrael, I don’t envy what I view to be your situation. You’re obviously a liberal and you’re obviously willing to debate honorably and you’re obviously concerned about the Constitution. But most of the Democrats in Congress and Democrat talking heads have little concern for the Constitution. If the roles were reversed, I would have a very difficult time.
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 8/5/2010 @ 5:55 pmJohn Hitchock: I find the Senate situation particularly obnoxious, because I don’t particularly like Sen. Boxer, but I cannot bring myself to vote for Mrs. Fiorina.
I contemplated reregistering as a Republican to vote for Mr. Campbell; the only reason that I didn’t is that changing party registration would have voided my application for the redistricting commission.
[I would note that my Congress and Assembly votes are basically protest votes: the local Democrat is guranteed re-election, both because of the partisan swing of the district and, in the case of the Congressional race, the incredible poor quality of the Republican candidate.]
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/5/2010 @ 6:00 pm