R.A.C.E
Nov 2nd, 2009 by Frank Knotts
Okay , I am opening up this post to start a grass-roots movement. I have come up with the acronym of RACE as a name for this movement. Can anyone guess what it stands for? No ? Think back now to some of my recent posts.
Okay, here it comes. Republicans Against Castle’s Election. That’s right , it is time for Republicans to unite and to purge the GOP of these Republicans in name only, these Democrat boot lickers, these stealth liberals.
Until we clean our own house , how can we condemn the opposition? How can we criticize the Democrats that voted for Cap and Trade , and then tell GOP voters to vote for Mike Castle?
How can we stand up and tell the rest of the nation that the bail outs and stimulus plan will bankrupt us , and then tell GOP voters to vote for Mike Castle ?
How can we argue against man-made climate change, and then expect GOP voters to vote for Mike Castle ?
How can we argue the sanctity of life and then campaign for a man who called embryos , “just medical waste”.
Mike Castle is neither a fiscal or social conservative, Mike Castle is no kind of conservative.
Now the lock step GOPers will tell you he votes with us as much as , or more then he votes against us, but how come it seems like on the biggest issues he is always on the wrong side from conservatives ?
Oh he might vote for a tax cut here and there, but let that tax cut come up against his slobbering love for global warming and see which one wins.
If the GOP does not cleanse itself of these moderates , it will doom itself to history and will have no future. Currently there is a conservative movement among American voters. This is due in large part to the policies of Pres. Obama. People are recoiling from the radical liberal agenda being forced down their throats by the current administration.
So the question becomes , will the GOP get out in front of this movement and support more conservative candidates ,or will the GOP continue to back the likes of Mike Castle and always be behind the curve.
Mike Castle is a watered down candidate, he is a watered down conservative at best, and a watered down liberal at least. As we attempt to grow this move towards conservatism and to attract more people to the GOP, candidates like Mike Castle , with his voting history, will only raise the likelihood of third party conservative candidates such as we are seeing in New York right now. This can only help the Democrats.
If the GOP has any hope of winning back control it must, we must, demand candidates that represent the growing conservative views of the American voters. We must take advantage of the fact that many in this nation have realized that Pres. Obama and his lap dog congress are running this country into the ground. And to do this we must not send the likes of Mike Castle back to congress.
If you read this and you feel the urge to join the RACE leave a comment , tell us why you are against Mike Castle for any office. I may contact you by e-mail to try and organize the opposition of Mr. Castle receiving the GOP nomination to run for the U.S. Senate.
Well, my man came out of the box with a roar. Understand that we will welcome both sides in the coming primary debate unedited.
I have a high level of discomfort with Mr. Castle’s voting record for cap and tax but especially embryonic stem cell funding and life issues. I think raising these questions now is very positive. If the DE GOP wants a squishy record, it will have made that decision. If it does not, we have an alternative. Either way, we will be better for the debate. For the Congressman to become a Senator, he will have to address these and other issues early on. I think that is positive.
I can no longer accept ignoring these issues. If Frank has his way, no one will ignore them. I expect for now he will be ignored, but the feelings he expressed are echoed all over this state. Wisdom says they should not be ignored for long.
Personally, I am not a purge type of guy. Liberals yes, moderates are part of the coalition. I am in favor of conservative leadership. You have to have vision to earn my nod for leadership. Our country needs bold leadership right now that is willing to challenge the status quo.
I am quite sure that this traitor Castle is very nervous of late, what with that Scuzzyfuzzy debacle bringing attention to Democrats disguised as Republicans.
I’m in. What you want me to do? I’m a free woman. My days of voting for Castle are over.
I’m free, finally free, no more solemn pronouncements that we should vote for Castle “one more time”.
Everybody has a point. Every abused wife, even the meekest, has a point. I am at that point with RINOS and Castle is at the top of my list.
It’s good to finally be free.
David says that moderates are part of the coalition . Moderates are people who are neither conservative or liberal (though some of us believe that to be non-conservative is to be liberal), moderates spend their political lives zig zagging across the ocean of life like a rudderless ship , being cast about by the ever changing winds of the latest political fad.
Now moderate voters are one thing , they can be convinced that any issue is important and that any solution is the right one , because they have little if any base political principles and absolutely no ideology. So as voters they are the cash cow of voters . Everyone wants to convince the moderate voters that theirs is the best way.
But as a candidate a moderate is a very dangerous thing indeed. A moderate candidate cannot be trusted. What they say during an election may not be their opinion once they get to Washington or a state capital, and you can’t complain , you elected a moderate.
I believe most moderate candidates are nothing but political opportunist and or cowards. They have no guiding ideology , so they can never be said to being going “AGAINST ” anything.
I may not agree with those on the left , but I can respect them if they stand behind what they say and take responsibility for the things they do(doesn’t happen that often ). But I have no respect for anyone who has no convictions .
I agree that you are correct that moderates tend to be be poor political leaders. That is why I always try to vote for someone who has a guiding conservative vision.
Now moderate voters are one thing , they can be convinced that any issue is important and that any solution is the right one , because they have little if any base political principles and absolutely no ideology.
CrAP! I have deep-rooted ideology that happens to differ from yours. YOU, sir, just have ZERO tolerance for that difference.
Wee, DP, once a proud site, just became the BASTION OF INTOLERANCE!
No Thanks. I can count votes in the senate and I have no interest in Giving Obama Sen. Bo Biden.
I prefer 80% Mike to everyone else in the race.
This is good news. The GOP schism is accelerating and DelawarePolitics is now working even more energetically to get out its failing message. Is there anything I can do to help? I mean, besides voting against Castle of course.
Annon that is a valid issue. I challenge you to look up voting records in the national journal and elsewhere. By what standard does Mr. Castle reach 80% or even 60% from a conservative perspective. He has not done that since Newt left. Do you want to settle or want to go for victory? Either are valid choices. You have to decide what you want early next year you may have a clearer choice. Keep your powder dry.
If Mr. Castle is the GOP nominee, he has my full support. Right now, I am keeping my options open. I want to see if I have a viable choice. I am optimistic for reasons I can not reveal before Nov. 7.
I do agree with Smitty to a degree (not about intollerance). Some people do have a different ideology which is not liberal or traditionally conservative. They can bring something valuable to the table both as voters and in office.
Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.…
*…it is time for Republicans to unite and to purge the GOP of these Republicans in name only, these Democrat boot lickers, these stealth liberals.
*The Progessive Republicans like Mike Castle, Teddy Roosevelt, George W. Bush are what has hurt the party. Personally I wonder if the party is even relevant anymore. I think it’s more about principled candidates who represent the values people believe in. If the Delaware GOP continues to put up candidates like Castle it will continue to fail.
*Commie-Lib
*We do not want people to get along with these folks. We want people to fight them. If you do not meet that standard, you don’t qualify. If you are on their side 90% of the time, you are the same and need to be defeated.
*If the GOP does not cleanse itself of these moderates , it will doom itself to history and will have no future.
Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.
“…just sayin’ “
Typically the DL crowd slinks in and begins its attacks of DP for inviting conservative thought to the party. Frank is spot on in a lot of ways. The fact is that having a different political ideology doesn’t make you evil and it doesn’t make you stupid. It does in some cases make you wrong and in other cases just different.
If your ideology leads you to believe that global climate change is man made I need you to explain the millions of climate shifts over the hundreds of millions of years prior to human life being present on the planet. Until you can explain how those temperature shifts differ from what we experience now without question, your “theory” that global warming is man made is NOT fact. Therefore anyone that says it is fact, is wrong.
You’re not evil, you’re just wrong. And we can differ on how much the government ought to regulate things in our markets but the outright control is counter to the Constitution.
Here are the 20 Powers of Congress granted by the Constitution:
1.) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2.) To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
3.) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
4.) To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5.) To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
6.) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
7.) To establish post offices and post roads;
8.) To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
9.) To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
10.) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
11.) To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
12.) To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
13.) To provide and maintain a navy;
14.) To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
15.) To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
16.) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17.) To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles (16 km) square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.
18.) To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
19.) The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
20.) The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Here are the 6 Powers granted by the Constitution to the President:
1.) The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,
2.) and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
3.) He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate,
4.) and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
5.) The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
6.) He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
And here are the powers granted to the Judicial branch by the Constitution:
The judicial Power shall extend
1.) to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
2.) to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
3.) to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
4.) to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
5.) to Controversies between two or more States;
6.) between a State and Citizens of another State;
7.) between Citizens of different States;
8.) between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States,
9.) and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Someone point out the power that specifically enumerates the President to demand of the Congress that they make a law regarding the healthcare of most Americans (not all)….I’ll wait…really it’s ok…I’ll wait.
“If Mr. Castle is the GOP nominee, he has my full support. Right now, I am keeping my options open. I want to see if I have a viable choice. I am optimistic for reasons I can not reveal before Nov. 7.” – David
I’m sad to see this David as it appears you would sell out your principles for your political party. I believe that type of thinking is becoming the minority. As you’ve seen in the NY 23rd district the old ways of holding to the GOP no matter what is becoming political suicide. The party had better wake up and learn to change or it’s going to become marginalized.
That’s what the progressive liberals from DL have gotten right. The progressive Republican element in the GOP is a stepping stone but what the DL crowd fails to see is that the Conservatives in Delaware (even the Conservative dems) have awakened and they will step on the backs of the lockstep Republicans to support Conservative candidates.
Someone point out the power that specifically enumerates the President to demand of the Congress that they make a law regarding the healthcare of most Americans
First Amendment, freedom of speech.
Next question.
“First Amendment, freedom of speech.
Next question.” – noman
You’re ridiculous. Freedom of speech gives the Congress the power to implement Universal Healthcare?
First of all the Bill of Rights is for the CITIZENS not the government.
No, I would not be selling out my principles to support Mike Castle if he makes it to to November. I would be protecting my interests. I can not afford another far left democrat in the senate to continue where Biden and Kaufman left off. I take a progressive approach. I learned from the Communists that two steps forward and one step backwards gets you ahead one step.
NOW IF I have the opportunity to move ahead a mile and not a step, I will take it. Christine O’Donnell has a big moment November 7. If things come together the way I think, you will see an endorsement. I don’t think it is any secret that I support her candidacy, but realisticly it is not off the ground yet. She has to go all in before I do. There is something that is amazing in the works, but I don’t want to leak it. I see no reason to make public declarations before the candidate.
Even then I respect Mr. Castle and will treat him with such. He has done some good.
Evan, your powdered wig is too tight.
reedom of speech gives the Congress the power to implement Universal Healthcare?
No, freedom of speech gives the President the power to demand it of Congress, which was your question.
Congress can pass whatever the hell law it wants. It is debatable whether public health care is constitutional. That is why Congress has “debates.” If your Congressman thinks health care is unconstitutional he can bring it up in “debate.”
If the law gets passed and you still think it is unconstitutional, you can challenge it in the Supreme Court if you have standing.
The Court exists to resolve challenges to laws, the key word being “laws.” The Court does not insert itself into Congressional debates, and a good thing too.
One contributor (Frank) has expressed his opinion. That is his right.
One thing all must understand is that those of us who post for DP come from many different experiences and have many different views. Currently, I am keeping my powder dry.
Noman’s glee that DP is part of a Republican crack up (or in his words “schism) demonstrates that he is clueless about the Republican Party. If I assumed that the Democrat Party had a serious “schism” because of the constant crap dumped on Carper over at Delaware Liberal then I would celebrate too. But, I have the experience to know that both Republicans and Democrats come from a wide array of reasons for supporting any candidate. Individual posters express their own opinion. I express my own opinion.
To the credit of Dave Anderson, he disagrees with me on this blog but never once will he tell me or anyone else what to say beforehand. Nor will he fire me for not being a team player for disagreeing with him.
Conservatives welcome a free wheeling debate. The record of certain other blogs is not so welcoming to the 1st amendment.
Wow, I’m a DL crowd now, Evan? Yeah, I comment frequently there, but I am no DL’er. While I am right-of-center, I am also a free-thinker. It doesn’t change my beliefs, but allows for the fact that as the earth completes each spin, some dynamic has also changed. It means that I have to be flexible enough to know that while what I believe is what I’d like to see as “the way,” the application of those beliefs are altered just as frequently as the sun rises and sets. There is no room for free-thinkers here any longer or in some (not all) of the circles I left behind. Instead, it’s belief-by-script. No thanks.
For kicks-and-giggles to this cleansing approach, this “we’re right, everyone else can kiss my ass” attitude, let’s paraphrase Russell Kirk:
Obviously, there is more, but this narrowed, 1,2,3 or eff-you approach is just as wrong.
The Reagan coalition always was scotch-taped together.
To tie what TW said in #17 to what I say in #18, technically TW is right, that David does not direct what is / is not said, or I believe that, given I haven’t had a post since the end of June. HOWEVER, if I am a contributor to a site, I certainly would not be one to a site that is nothing but hostile to my views. With DB and ME more-or-less on the shelf and not knowing much of TW through the veil, I’d be the zebra (illustration of harmoniously-varied stripes on purpose) amongst a pack of hungry lions. No thanks. There are far better ways to be effective.
We have many opinons here. Frank replacing Maria is a tilt to the right, but it is still adding diversity which we were lacking. Now we have a 9/12er and and Frank the purist along with three party guys. I think that is representative of the conservative movement.
Rsmitty – Have a cow somewhere else. You can disagree with whatever you want but more often than not I see you attacking individuals without much substance. It’s the same thing the DL people do. It’s right out of the Liberal playbook.
Noman is 100% correct in point 20, now days we may need to upgrade to duct tape to make it through.
“No, freedom of speech gives the President the power to demand it of Congress, which was your question.” – noman
You miss the point of the “Bill of Rights”. It’s intended for the people since the President HAS a bully pulpit. That said, technicially the President does have the power to set an agenda so I’ll give you that.
“Congress can pass whatever the hell law it wants. It is debatable whether public health care is constitutional. That is why Congress has “debates.” If your Congressman thinks health care is unconstitutional he can bring it up in “debate.”” – noman
No, Congress CANNOT “pass whatever the hell law it wants”. The point of the post had you read it was that the Congress has clearly defined powers and it must only make laws within those defined powers. The Congress is SUPPOSED to debate but they do not instead Pelosi, Reid and the elites create bills and pass it in the dark of night without even allowing the congress or the people to read the bills. Congress has a DUTY to pass Constitutional laws whenever possible and NOT to overstep the 20 enumerated powers.
“If the law gets passed and you still think it is unconstitutional, you can challenge it in the Supreme Court if you have standing.” – noman
This is perhaps the one correct statement you’ll make this week. The fact is that the Supreme Court shouldn’t have to get involved in this because it is CLEARLY in violation of the Constitution.
“The Court exists to resolve challenges to laws, the key word being “laws.” The Court does not insert itself into Congressional debates, and a good thing too.” – noman
Roe v Wade wasn’t legislating from the judiciary bench?
“To tie what TW said in #17 to what I say in #18, technically TW is right, that David does not direct what is / is not said, or I believe that, given I haven’t had a post since the end of June. HOWEVER, if I am a contributor to a site, I certainly would not be one to a site that is nothing but hostile to my views. With DB and ME more-or-less on the shelf and not knowing much of TW through the veil, I’d be the zebra (illustration of harmoniously-varied stripes on purpose) amongst a pack of hungry lions. No thanks. There are far better ways to be effective.”
Whoa Smitty!!!! I never thought for a second that you wanted to look under MY veil!!!
Be careful of what you wish for!!
At any rate Rsmitty you are making a mistake in believing that your views would not have a major impact on this blog. There are many who feel as you do and MAYBE they need to post here instead of whining to me personally. (You all know who you are. Quit busting on me to get your message out. You all own keybioards!!)
Frank has begun a debate. Firing a first shot is by no means firing the last shot. Keep your eyes on this site as there are probably more surprises to come.
No, Congress CANNOT “pass whatever the hell law it wants”. .. Congress has a DUTY to pass Constitutional laws whenever possible
There is no requirement that Congress adopt your view of the Constitution. Before the bill is passed, Congress is the sole arbiter. If Congress doesn’t believe or doesn’t care the law is unconstitutional, it passes. Of course they can pass whatever they want. If your viewpoint loses the debate, too bad – maybe you were wrong anyway. The Court is the check and balance after the bill becomes law.
Roe v Wade was a challenge to state laws, not Federal laws.
TW, you have my blessing to get a guest post from one of those folks. As long as they address the issues and don’t make it a personal attack. Frank kept it to the issues. He was pointed but not personal.
Rsmitty – Have a cow somewhere else…
…I see you attacking individuals without much substance.
There is one person…ONE…whom I do go after and that has a lot of personal-distaste reasons behind it. Anyone else that I have “attacked” as you so portend has reasons behind it. “You” (generic-you) unprovokingly attack me, consider yourself attacked back. You unprovokingly attack my friends, such as a certain picnic in the 8th district BEFORE the facts were known, consider yourself attacked back. Such as entire party committees because you don’t like so-and-so or the fact they are open to varying opinions, consider yourself attacked back. I do not provoke attacks, I respond to them and respond to them I will.
Everything I responded with yesterday to David was in direct response to his statements made. I made them within context of each one he laid out. If the “big picture” of his thought was different from the individual comment, then he shouldn’t have stopped his comment prematurely. That’s PR-101.
You, sir, have had a history (calmed down in recent months) of using unbelievable adjectives in describing Liberals, simply because they are a liberal! So, when you say I see you attacking individuals without much substance, clean up your own house first, especially if you want cross-over votes in your political ambitions (campaign management 101).
“You unprovokingly attack my friends, such as a certain picnic in the 8th district BEFORE the facts were known, consider yourself attacked back.” – Smitty
Actually, the facts were known ahead of time and the goal sought was accomplished
“Such as entire party committees because you don’t like so-and-so or the fact they are open to varying opinions, consider yourself attacked back. I do not provoke attacks, I respond to them and respond to them I will.” – Smitty
I attack party committee individuals and parties that support individuals that LIE to their constituents and pretend to be something they are not. When the GOP gets some backbone and supports a candidate congruent with its founding principles I’ll stop my efforts to reform the party. Till then we’ll have to agree to disagree and may the best man win.
“You, sir, have had a history (calmed down in recent months) of using unbelievable adjectives in describing Liberals, simply because they are a liberal! So, when you say I see you attacking individuals without much substance, clean up your own house first, especially if you want cross-over votes in your political ambitions (campaign management 101).” rsmitty
I want people who identify with conservative values and principles to vote for me when/if I consider running for office so please, keep your advice to yourself. Your version of “campaign management” is a failed and dying concept.
Your version of “campaign management” is a failed and dying concept.
Really? The one thing I take from this is proof that you know less of me than I originally thought (although some things I still keep a wary eye on).
You will need cross-over votes to win, Evan. That is, unless your goal is to scorch the earth, which brings a different style. On that note, you’re right, I don’t understand that, because I don’t believe in the ‘nuke’ option if I don’t get my way.
Actually, the facts were known ahead of time and the goal sought was accomplished
See? I didn’t even say it was you directly (“generic you” at the beginning of my rant), but thanks for clarifying. What goal was that? Verbally damage an event whose purpose was to raise support and awareness for those with loved ones in the wars of the Middle East, and for what? So your event could outpromote that one? Awesome. “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!” All that says is, “Me first!”
Look, you want things your way, I get that. Most everyone wants that (er…their own way, not yours). Thing is, most people realize that compromise is required in the end to get resolution, lest you have a facist regime. You prefer facism, do ya?
In Evan’s America there will be tanks parked outside the Capitol to keep Congress from considering bills Evan thinks are unconstitutional.
No wait… in Rick’s America there will be tanks parked outside the Capitol to keep Congress from considering bills Evan thinks are unconstitutional. Sorry I got my extremists mixed up.
“TW, you have my blessing to get a guest post from one of those folks. As long as they address the issues and don’t make it a personal attack. Frank kept it to the issues. He was pointed but not personal.”
Thanks Dave,
In all candor, those who want me to say what they think I should say are welcome to comment. No one is stopping them. I will convey your genrerous offer. I am sure they will keep their comments civil if offered the opportunity. I hope they take you up on your offer.
It’s good to know that some things never change. I see most of the usual suspects showed up. I do apologize that it seems that most of the discussion took place during the afternoon when I was at work and have no access to a computer.
So now I have to catch up and try to respond to as many of your well thought out point as possible, okay some weren’t as well thought out as others , but you know who you are.
In post #5 RSmitty says that he as a moderate has some deep rooted ideologies, so RSmitty what would some of those be and why would I vote for someone who holds them?
annoni in #6 says he will settle for 80% Mike, meaning that having Mike Castle vote with the conservative view 80% of the time is good enough for him, well annoni , it is the 20% that is killing the party and the nation.
To noman in general, you are always so helpful in giving the GOP advise on what it is they need to do to win, whata guy. Personally I do not look to my opposition for advise on how to win, but thanks anyway.
To David’s point of supporting Mike Castle if he is the GOP candidate, well I am just not willing to do that again. It may be suicide but it is better than living in an abusive relationship.
And quickly back to RSmitty’s #9 “thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican” , sorry it doesn’t go for a RINO!!!
It is not 80% this is from the American Conservative Union. The first number is 2008 then 2007 then lifetime is last CASTLE 28 20 52.28
Biden 0 12.67
Carper 0 8 13.25
No wait… in Rick’s America there will be tanks parked outside the Capitol…
Wrong again. In Ricks’s America, Congress will be restricted to it’s Constitutional authority, i.e. Article I, Section 8., as expoused by Madison (the ‘father of the Constitution’) in the last four paragraph of his Federalist #41.
Of course, we need to remember that norman and the leftist radicals know more about the ‘intent’ of the Founders than Madison did.
So without tanks, how do you plan to stop Congress from passing laws that don’t pass your Constitutional review?
Currently we enforce the Constitutional limits on Congress by hearing challenges to laws in court. But the law has to be passed before it is challenged.
Well, now I’m stuck in committee
And I’ll sit here and wait
While a few key Congressmen discuss and debate
Whether they should let me be a law.
How I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Funny that none of the states have challenged any of the spending you say is illegal.
nomans says,”Funny that none of the states have challenged any of the spending you say is illegal.” noman the states are caught in a catch twenty two moment. The federal government is going to keep stealing from the people of the states through confiscatory taxing. The Senators and Representatives of those states actually feel that they are doing the right thing to bring that money back to the states. The state legislators feel that if they can get even a small portion of the money back they are also doing the right thing.
Rick is actually right when he says that to fix it we must respect the Constitution. The trouble is we currently have very few Senators and Representatives that understand that what they should be doing is to stop working to “BRING BACK” the money to their home states , but should be working to change the federal system so that the money never leaves the states.
Frank – money is flowing from the blue states to the red states (using the old, rapidly changing definitions). Republican governors and senators are propped up by tax money sent in by out of state liberals. Good luck getting your fiscal conservatives Republicans to explain to their people that they are on their own now.
Without Federal money flowing from the rich liberal Northeast and Northwest, the red states would revert to the dusty poverty-ridden hellholes God created them to be.
noman , the problem is that those “POOR” red states , to use your phrase are being taxed at the same rate as the “RICH” blue states, even though because of smaller populations they have lower needs for infrastructure.
Now imagine a world where the federal tax rates were reduced because the federal government was thrown out of the states. The states refused the federal highway money and all of the other enticements that the federal government uses to gain control of state governments. And don’t let the fact be lost on you that the federal government is using money it stole from state residents to extort cooperation from the state legislatures.
Now imagine all of that money being left in the pockets of those poor red staters. So now if the states have to raise the state tax rates it wouldn’t hurt so bad, plus if the legislators on a local level have to answer to the people for raising that tax rate you would see more resposible spending . And as for myself I would prefer to pay higher state taxes if the money is to be spent in my own state.
Federal dollars have become nothing but campaign funds for national candidates. Running for office ? Bring back some sand money for the beach !
It becomes a question of whether we are going to be a federalist nation or a socialist nation with all power being held in a central government , with all of the chips being thrown in the middle and having the individual states having no say in how they get shared out.