Saturday, August 18, 2007

Fred grabs his ankles for the Fundies.

A Constitutional amendment Fred?

Et tu?

Needless to say, I'm not with Fred. Playing with the Constitution to appease the whims of the moment is asinine.

16 comments:

pdb said...

Team Freddo is apparently backing the hell away from supporting an amendment, but seems somewhat fuzzy on that "full faith and credit" thing.

Sadly, politics remains the art of the possible, not the fulfillment of a wish list. Given the choice between Eva Peron^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Hillary and Freddo, I'd enthusiastically check "R".

Zendo Deb said...

On the one hand he is all in favor of Federalism, and then he goes and says something stupid like this.

If it comes down to Fred vs Shrillary I know who I would vote for, but then I don't really think Shrill is going to be nominated by the Dems.

Marko said...

I love the rapid back-pedalling, too.

"We support the Constitution, except when it comes to the Full Faith & Credit Clause if it requires God-fearing states to accept the validity of queer marriages."

Marko said...

Oh yeah, and the same crowd applauding Fred for his principled stand on "States' rights" as it relates to "not having another State's marriage law foisted upon them" also engages in long and loud bitching when the liberal shithole states refuse to even entertain CCW reciprocity.

Kevin said...

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics, where, as Mencken put it, "A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker.

The only question is, do they still give value for your money?

minuteman said...

Every four years we seem to go through the national psychosis I call "the Wizard President". As if the pres can just wave his magic wand and change the Constitution. The gay marriage issue is relatively new but the R v W debate has been going on for as long as I've been politically aware.
Amending the Constitution is hard for good reason. Any influence the President might have on the process is minuscule at best.

rickn8or said...

What Marko said.

Or as I said to a (then) S-I-L "Sure, we can have a country where there are no abortions; but you wouldn't want to live there."

'Course both problems go away if we're living under sharia law.

Who is..... Carteach0? said...

I'm of a mind the 'ol Freddo is the least offensive of the electable crowd running this silly season.

In other words, I would expect the least amount of damage to be done to our country if he was elected chief clown at the DC circus.

Then again, if they could just find a competent and honest whore and talk her into taking the job, we might all be better off in the long run.

The best bet seems to be when the two party system ties itself into such a mind boggling knot they forget about screwing us regular people for a while.

Matt G said...

Any amendment that takes rights from citizens is a Bad Thing. Our nation's finest amendments are the ones that GIVE the citizens rights. Next best (and only faintly second best) are those that may not give rights to citizens, but do obstruct government.

Pity, when I saw Tamara's post, I was praying that Fred was pushing for an amendment to disolve the Electoral College, and go to a straight popular vote.

(Because the people are smarter than the E.C.? No. It's just that we have the means these days to conduct a purely democratic election.)

Don Gwinn said...

. . . cue 57 posts in a row in all caps: "TEH CONSTITUTION DOES NOT 'GIVE' RIGHTS TO ANYBODY! TEH CONSTITUTION RECOGNIZES PRE-EXISTING RIGHTS! GODDAMN COPS!"


Uh, but seriously, Matt, do you want to live in a country that resembles Illinois on a larger scale? That's what a pure democracy will look like--whatever New York, Chicago, L.A., Miami and the other megalopolises agree upon is going to be rammed down our throats.

Matt G said...

Actually, Don, I don't think it will change the outcome very much, if any. It would only give citizens more of a reason to vote.

At present, if there is a non-Republican candidate running in Texas, there's not much of a point to my voting; all of Texas' electoral votes go to the Republican.

Yeah, I still vote.

But it seems slightly pointless, at times, for some.

(Yes, I do understand what a republic is.)

7.62x54r said...

As one that most would consider a "fundie", I know that abortion is wrong. As an anarchist I know that it isn't my place, or the place of gov't acting on my behalf, to prevent it. Besides, they'll have to answer to a much higher power eventually.

As mentioned, it doesn't really matter who's the ringmaster, it's still the same ol' circus. I don't even buy a ticket anymore, it just encourages them to keep up the same tired act.

ravenshrike said...

Well, at least we know that Fred can tap dance with the best of them.Not to mention that I'm pretty sure that Freddy boy knows he has a snowball's chance in hell of pushing an amendment through.

Akatsukami said...

"It's just that we have the means these days to conduct a purely democratic election."

And the means to challenge those democratic results, like in Florida in 2000. That's what a nationwide popular vote will mean.

Fortunately, there's not a two-thirds majority in the Congress (let alone a majority in three-quarters of the state legislatures) to replace the EC with any particular scheme.

minuteman said...

Akatsukami,
Precisely, without the E.C. we would have had President Gore.
/shutter/

Kristopher said...

I would like to see a return to Athenian Ostracism elections.

We can all vote for one person we would like to see exiled for ten years.

The winner has to leave or get executed.