Tea Party Congressman faces a Republican challenge

California’s open primary system is providing openings for centrists. The New York Times has an article this morning about a Republican challenger to Tea Party favorite Tom McClintock in California’s 4th Congressional District. The challenger, Art Moore, is almost guaranteed a place on the fall ballot and a chance to put his credentials in front of a less furiously partisan audience.

The open primary system in California is effectively a single primary for all parties. The candidates with the two highest vote totals go on to compete against each other in the general election. So all the Democrats, Republicans and others are on the same primary ballot together. The general election functions more like a run-off.

This means that even in a district heavily leaning to one party or the other, voters in the minority party can have significant influence. This system has only been in operation since the 2012 primaries, but it is already credited with helping the state moderate its Democratic politics. Some even credit it as a factor in the budget deal that put California back in the black.

Combining open primaries with redistricting by non-partisan commissions, as California has done, may be the prescription for a more reasonable campaign environment. If it can tame the radical politics of the left coast, producing sensible budgets and compromise in one of the country’s most wacky political climates, then maybe it deserves a close look elsewhere.

 

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Republican Party, Tea Party
197 comments on “Tea Party Congressman faces a Republican challenge
  1. Tuttabella says:

    Mr. Lifer, please bring back the series on technology and its effects on society.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Better yet — I would love to read about the effects of social media on society. The more I read the comments on political blogs such as this one, the more I realize it’s not really about protecting freedom, or defending women, or otherwise making the world a better place. It’s about throwing insults at one another, being right, and having the last word. I honestly don’t see anything productive being accomplished here by any “side” — left, right, or middle.

      • Intrigued says:

        For me Tutt, it’s about learning and researching topics I might otherwise ignore or accept the public opinion. For a recent example, I would have dismissed the Hobby Lobby case as irrelevant if it didn’t keep coming up in discussion on this blog. I now know more about that case then I ever needed to know. In my line of work that knowledge may end up as valuable someday.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Are you having a split personality day Tutt? =) Tuttabella/ tuttabellamia?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Intrigued, I’ve also learned a lot here, not for my line of work, but just for my own personal edification. I really don’t like politics, but I do enjoy political philosophy and theory.

        I appreciate the opposing views, but they seem to be set in stone, and it gets repetitive after a while, and eventually this place devolves into the Jerry Springer Show. This place gives me a headache, literally.

        I’d like to just pack up my personal politics, take them “home” where they belong, and keep them to myself from now on — find a quiet spot somewhere offline, and get back to reading, watching foreign films, and brushing up on my languages.

    • way2gosassy says:

      As my old Granny used to say ” Well this went to hell in a hand basket”

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Sassy, I don’t know what the deal is, must have something to do with Word Press, but I can be on the same computer, and my posts just minutes apart, and I will show up with 2 different user names. Hey, at least the avatar is the same, so I’m still easily identified. We seem to respond to avatars around here anyway.

      I’ve noticed from the start that you’re now Way2GOSassy instead of Way2Sassy, but you will always be just Sassy to me. Whatever happened to the brownish avatar you had on the Chron?

      • way2gosassy says:

        Top of the morning to ya Tutt!

        For some reason Word Press wouldn’t let me use Way2Sassy, I believe they said it was already in use. So I added the “Go” after me widdle hubby came in and high 5’d me for something I did and said “way to go” then da da new name. As for the avatar, the picture was one that I took in Illinois on the Mississippi river when we were visiting my Aunt. I dubbed that photo “Double Eagle” it was a nesting pair that we were watching. I lost the photo when my hard drive in my laptop died.

    • Crogged says:

      And from whence the technology often comes……….(me beating what shouldn’t be a dead horse in bloody Houston, Texas btw)…….

      http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/apr/24/innovation-government-was-crucial-after-all/

  2. CaptSternn says:

    Wow! This entry has gone to the point of depravity.

    To the point of Texan challenging Kabuzz to meet at the Whataburger in Giddings, Texas.

    To John Galt calling women a bunch of sluts.

    To Intrigued calling for the outright destruction of the private sector and for socialism/communism.

    Way made some good points of doing away with gerrymandered districts, but was shown how that would not fly in states under the VRA. TThor basically agreed that it should be done that way, but also how it could be abused.

    And all of this based on the democrats and GOP establishment fearing and working together to defeat capitalists in one small district in California.

    Oh, and HT suggesting that laws against rape, murder, slavery and robbery are anti-choice.

    What a strange trip it has been.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Crazy I know. I have been an avid blog visitor for years but this is the first time someone was so immature that they start threatening bodily harm. Very funny.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      It’s funny, how the “S” word has sparked so much outrage and offense, yet, ironically, the word appears again and again on this thread, as people try to make a point, to “prove” who the true woman haters are.

      We’ve reached the stage where it doesn’t matter who used the S word first, who “started” it. At some point, if you repeat a word often enough, you own it.

      It’s time to bury the S word.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Repeating an ugly word, even if it’s only to prove a point, just perpetuates the ugliness.

  3. kabuzz61 says:

    I want to remind some here on this thread about precedence.

    Hillary will soon be running. Thanks to the left, it is perfectly expected to make fun of her looks, her being a woman, attacking Chelsea and any other family member that raises it’s head.

    Put on your pants suit and get ready.

    • texan5142 says:

      That started with repucks you nit wit, they set the precedent when they attacked Chelsea Clinton when she was just a child. Yep your party attack a child, you should be proud of yourself kabuz, idiot that you are.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The left attacked Palin and her children. Don’t even try to play “holier than thou”.

      • tired of it all says:

        When ANYONE attacks a politician’s children it is NEVER the correct thing to do Stern and Kabuzz so don’t even pretend that your political tit for tat is okay. Rush Limbaugh attacked Chelsea Clinton when she was 12 YEARS OLD. That was when President Clinton first took office a long time before Sarah Palin was even a blip on the political radar. If you are so bothered by what happened to Sarah Palin’s family then you should be just as angry at what your conservative “hero” ( and believe me Mr. Limbaugh is not a hero but a bully with a microphone ) did to Chelsea Clinton when she was a child. We should ALL leave a politician’s children and family out of the insults and personal attacks.

      • John Galt says:

        The Daily Show had an amusing collage of Fox (and other) mouthpieces atwitter about Hillary tearing up at something or showing anger. The common thread was that she was not in control of her emotions. They also took a few pot shots at her appearance and questioned whether her impending grandmotherhood would or should affect her decision to run, a question that has been asked of exactly zero male politicians. This was followed by a montage of the platoon of Romney grandkids, Boehner and McConnell bawling, John Edwards preening with a makeup mirror, and a variety of angry male clips. Sure, it’s the Daily Show and there was a certain bias in their choice of clips, but this is the not-so-subtle sexism that pervades our society.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Tired of it all, you seem to forget that when Rush did that, both sides came out against it and Rush had to apologize. NO SUCH THING HAPPENED concerning Sarah Palin’s family including her downs syndrome child. The depth’s of depravity that was shown by the dem’s was remarkable.

        So Hillary is too old, too inexperienced, to lost in emotion and having never served in the military and in fact wouldn’t allow the military to wear uniforms in the WH, she is a chicken hawk at best. Then add on to that she is white.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yes buzzy, Hillary is “too old but will be the same age as Ronald Reagan when he took office if she wins. She has no “military experience” but Reagan made propaganda videos stateside for his “military experience”.

        But I guess you were proven correct eh Kabuzz when Reagan killed 241 Marines and 63 American Embassy personnel in terrorist attacks in Lebanon and turned tail and just bailed out of there? Or how about his botched invasion of Grenada in “response” to the attacks in Lebanon?

        Ah it IS cute with your selective memory rearing its ugly head isn’t it buzzy?

        Buy a mirror for once in your life already.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      It’s cute Captain. I knew selective memory would rear it’s head. There is so much lacking from Texan’s revised look, but why waste the time on the YOUTUBE fanatic.

  4. way2gosassy says:

    Well I see the subject matter has devolved from the original post to something else altogether. Nice to see that those who are having their butts handed to them are the ones who usually start screaming about staying on topic. I am particularly impressed to know that some of you folks feel comfortable enough to tell others that they are not who they think they are or that one person should not defend another all the while they are doing just that themselves.

    For those that haven’t figured it out yet there are a couple of folks to whom I will not reply directly. ( Boy I sure miss that “ignore” button )

  5. Open primaries are one way to mitigate the effects of gerrymandering, but this solution comes at the cost of allowing party members to pick their own party’s candidate without interference.

    Being a Geographic Information System(s) (GIS) geek, I’d prefer to tackle the issue of gerrymandering directly through technology. GIS software already plays an inordinately large role in redistricting; partisan redistricting with GIS tends to make incumbents ever less assailable, as the creation of the most bizarre gerrymanders can readily be accomplished by marrying modern GIS tech with modern marketing analytics, voting data and census data.

    Gerrymandered districts tend to very complex shapes, yet they share a common property: The ratio of perimeter length to normalized area is very high. A law limiting the normalized perimeter:area (P:A) ratio would force district shapes to become simpler, ipso facto.

    For a given unit area, a circle has the lowest possible ratio of perimeter length to area at ~3.55. The P:A ratio for a unit square is 4, for a unit rectangle, ~4.24, and so on – the more complex the shape (i.e the more it deviates from a circle), the higher the normalized P:A ratio. (Note that P:A ratio is scale dependent; a larger area with the same shape as a smaller area has a lower P:A ratio than its smaller complement; hence the use of ‘normalized’ P:A ratio, where A = 1 by definition. There are other measures of shape complexity that are scale independent, but technically more complicated to explain.)

    At any rate, we use GIS technology to do more effective gerrymandering; there is no reason why we shouldn’t also use GIS technology to limit the extent gerrymandering.

    • way2gosassy says:

      I think that is exactly what they are attempting to do in Iowa. They use the Census to identify the number of voter eligible people and their location without past voting records or any other political identifiers. No demographics on race or income is included in the data and the geographical boundary of counties are to be kept whole. This is about as unbiased as I have seen and most folks are on board with it. The unintended consequence of the system is that not all incumbents are “protected” as the population of a particular district changes.

      Apparently geographic symmetry is not an issue all.

      • Sassy, my basic assumption is that incumbents in either party are corrupt, and that the level of corruption corresponds directly to time in office. So screw incumbents!

        Iowa counties follow the Jeffersonian land survey, are mostly rectangular in shape, and all more or less of the same size geographically. So unfortunately, the Iowa solution wouldn’t work well in many other states, including Texas and my home state of AZ. But I like the concept!

        I suppose as long a redistricting is a political process run by incumbent office holders, any process that endangers them is unlikely to see the light of day.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Tracy, Part of what they are also doing is disallowing anyone who has held or run for office for ten years. Now if my information is correct those that are chosen for that commission are chosen by lottery from a fairly large pool and from what I understand they are only allowed to serve once. The idea was to not protect incumbents as much as it was to create a level playing field for all involved. I’m not sure how they hold their primaries or if that has any effect on the redistricting or vice versa as far as I can tell the majority in Iowa are satisfied with the results.

        I know that Texas is a very well populated state with very uneven county lines and borders but I really don’t see that as an impediment as much as the political climate. If adopted this could be one of the issues that would help with removing us from the list of states within the VRA.

    • DanMan says:

      That makes perfect sense, which is why it won’t happen in the states listed under the VRA. The gerrymandering protects the perceived minority districts as the number one priority. Geometry won’t help that. Perhaps the recent SCOTUS decision to not make affirmative action quotas paramount will correct the gerrymandering deal too.

  6. DanMan says:

    http://erlc.com/article/feds-admit-abortion-mandate-in-hobby-lobby-case

    “Ultimately, what the government is doing here is forcing people to buy abortion products for other people,” said Bowman, whose organization has represented Conestoga Wood. “And that unprecedented mandate — given at the same time that the government is exempting a hundred million people from it for secular, political reasons — can’t be squared with the deference that we give in our country to religious freedom itself.”

    “We didn’t choose this fight,” Hahn said in a written statement after the arguments. The Hahns, Greens and others, he said, “would have been happy to just continue providing good jobs and generous healthcare benefits. But the government forced our hand. We hope and pray that the Supreme Court will uphold the religious freedom of all Americans who seek to glorify God even as they go about making a living.”

    This is the democrat party of today. Pick winners and make the losers pay for the winners. What happens when the tables turn? We’re going to find out.

    • Crogged says:

      “Ultimately, what the government is doing here is forcing businesses to provide basic insurance which recognizes the biological differences between male and female” said the anonymous person. “And that unprecedented, except for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and myriad other broad social insurance policies developed since the beginning of the prior century, does impact people who willingly conflate abortion with contraception, and pretend ‘Christian business owners’ are in any way a persecuted class of American citizens”

    • texan5142 says:

      DanMan says:
      April 22, 2014 at 9:53 am
      http://erlc.com/article/feds-admit-abortion-mandate-in-hobby-lobby-case

      “This is the democrat party of today. Pick winners and make the losers pay for the winners. What happens when the tables turn? We’re going to find out.”

      You are a funny little man. So if “democrats pick winners and losers” how do you explain the “sun tax” that just got passed by the republicans in OK.?

  7. Crogged says:

    The only thing the Tea Party knows about ‘fiscal responsibility’ is that it isn’t the B side to Olivia Newton John’s “Let’s Get Physical”.

  8. John Galt says:

    Caricature, Sternn, caricature. Nobody is buying your fake outrage.

    Hobby Lobby wants to be able to pick and choose what aspects of employment law they should follow. I am waiting for the religious objections to the minimum wage for if they are successful in one, why would they not be able to challenge others?

    • John Galt says:

      Sorry, posted this in the wrong place. A response to Sternn from the thread at the bottom.

    • CaptSternn says:

      The new law infringes on freedom of religion. If it stands, what other religious fredoms will fall?

      You still need to own your words.

    • John Galt says:

      A corporation has no freedom of religion. It has a set of laws passed by Congress (and states) that regulate the manner in which it treats its employees. This one is no different than any other, except to RWNJs.

      You want me to own my words? Here, I’ll copy-and-paste the comment that so offends you. Does it offend you because you actually believe it? One wonders. I own these words as a mocking derision of the bigoted neo-puritan misogynists who all-too-frequently speak for the GOP.

      “Traditional contraceptives, which may sometimes works post-conception, have never been thought of as abortifacents, at least until some fanatics upset at having to provide any sort of contraception to sluts who can’t keep their pants on (read: any sexually active woman) started stamping their feet. ”

      The intent of my statement is clear to anyone for whom it does not hit a little too close to home.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JG, you have gone for the vile. I know you go for the idiotic at times, but I wouldn’t have guessed you as vile. So be it.

        There is no Biblical reference that would make a church fight against the minimum wage. So your attempt at being ‘smart’ failed. There are however many, many verses concerning birth, conception and God’s plan. That is Hobby Lobby’s point, only you knew that, you just went for the vile. You can’t except them so deride them. Phony.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I think it’s safe to say that John Galt himself does not think that women are the S word, but he makes the mistake of saying that the “typical” social conservative response against birth control is to call women the S word. Some people do think that way, but that’s not the case for everyone who’s opposed to birth control, doesn’t want to force others to cover it, or have their taxes go toward it. For some people it’s simply about religious freedom, or financial reasons, and to say that people (men and women) need to take responsibility for their sexual activity and decisions is not the same as calling them the S word.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Just to be clear, since the conversation from “down below” has been brought up to the very top, I was referring to John Galt’s comment:

        “I was mocking the typical response from social conservatives to anything dealing with female sexuality.”
        ***************************
        My point is that there is no “typical” social conservative response. To focus only on that one is unfair.

      • DanMan says:

        from my previous link

        Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the Obama administration’s advocate, if he thought a for-profit corporation “could be forced in principle to pay for abortions.”

        At first, Verrilli seemed to deny it would, saying, “[T]he law now is to the contrary.”

        Kennedy countered: “But your reasoning would permit that.”

        Verrilli eventually said, “Well, I think that if it were for a for-profit corporation and if such a law like that were enacted, then you’re right, under our theory … the for-profit corporation wouldn’t have an ability to sue.”

        See that Cuffy? Kennedy and Verrilli are talking about the end game of the law. You’re not only an atheist. You’re an anarchist. You fit well in the democrat party of today.

      • texan5142 says:

        You want vile, I will give you vile, fuck religion it will be the downfall of this country. Christian fanatical republicans are the problem, not the answer.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Still getting it backwards, John. Go look up the U.S. Constitution and find the place where it says, Congress shall have the power to make laws regarding the establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof. If it isn’t there, congress doesn’t have that power.

      • John Galt says:

        Tutt – you’re the only reasonable one here and I didn’t mean to tar all social conservatives with this brush. Of course they don’t all believe this way and only a few are dumb enough to express it publicly. But you also have to admit that there are an unfortunate number that are condescendingly sexist. Bill O’Reilly, who is provocative but doesn’t often say things that are completely stupid, made an argument that insurance coverage for contraception was akin to paying for someone’s recreational activities. “You want me to give you my hard-earned money so that you can have sex, is that what you’re asking for? Good grief!” Later he tried to dispel the often cited (but wrong, at least today) claim that more insurance plans cover viagra than birth control by asserting that viagra treated a health problem. So apparently men wanting to have recreational sex should use all the tools at their disposal, covered by insurance. Women who want to do so under the same terms are selfishly asking us to pay for their play. Of course, Bill probably has a lot more interest in his insurance company covering one of these things than the other.

      • John Galt says:

        Kabuzz – why should Biblical principles, particularly those open to a certain degree of interpretation, have even the slightest little thing to do with a legal entity obeying the laws of the United States?

      • John Galt says:

        “You’re not only an atheist. You’re an anarchist. You fit well in the democrat party of today.”

        I thought the Democratic party of today was socialist and bent on controlling the everyday decisions of citizens, slowly stripping away their freedom? That’s the polar opposite of anarchy. So which is it Dan? Am I a socialist or an anarchist? Or are you just using pretty words whose meanings you have no clue?

      • DanMan says:

        poor attempt Cuffy

        Obama has changed his law nearly 30 times so far. He is the one who is not obeying the law and that is part of the anarchy we are seeing during his reign as king. He doesn’t enforce immigration laws. He allows his agencies to ship guns to Mexico to slaughter the citizens of that country. He encourages his IRS to target his enemies. And you approve of all of these tactics.

      • DanMan says:

        Looks like Texan is in that special bubba place doesn’t it?

      • Intrigued says:

        “Still getting it backwards, John. Go look up the U.S. Constitution and find the place where it says, Congress shall have the power to make laws regarding the establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof. If it isn’t there, congress doesn’t have that power.”

        Congress has the power to collect taxes. Employers and individuals have the choice to pay this tax instead of acquiring health insurance. It has nothing to do with religion.

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, I was not aware that te PPACA requires businesses to offer insurance policies that must cover Viagra and hand it out for free. Can ypu point out that section of the new law while you are looking for that clause in the constitution?

      • CaptSternn says:

        We are already passed that part, Intrigued. Yes, congress can now force us to buy anything it wants, that damage has been done and probably can’t be undone. How will future politicians abuse that power? Time will tell.

        Now we are talking about freedom of religion, requiring people to violate their religious beliefs. That is what will be going to te supreme court. Again, if that falls, what other laws requiring people tio violate their religious beliefs will congress create?

      • Crogged says:

        Here’s an old favorite, written back in 2010/11 or so. People don’t want evidence when they have ‘feelings’ or think choosing Dewhurst/Patrick is decision with a difference. Really, Hobby Lobby is the ultimate American Christian church, you even get a dividend in this world.

        http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2011/11/21/why-obama-still-matters/

      • Intrigued says:

        “Yes, congress can now force us to buy anything it wants” Congress isn’t forcing anyone to buy anything. If you do not want to buy healthcare, pay a tax. It’s your choice. Again it has nothing to do with religion.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The law requires the people to buy insurance, for employers to provide insurance, or else. Intrigued, you are basically saying it is fine to rob banks or people, then just pay a fine. What other laws do you think people should simply ignore? The new law also requires people to violate tehir religious beliefs. That means it is very much about freedom of religion.

      • CaptSternn says:

        That was a funny link, Crogged. One packed with all the lying talking points of the left. I am thinking it might have been satire.

      • Crogged says:

        We agree, ‘talking point’ is not synonymous with ‘fact’.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Aye, it was seriously lacking in facts.

      • Crogged says:

        Captain, the only place i go when I don’t need facts is you. The ‘talking points’ in the link are true, (at the time in 2011 when written).

      • CaptSternn says:

        Really, Crogged? The tax rates are the lowest since Truman? No, they were lower under Reagan. Obama creatted universal health care? No, while it is his goal to destroy the private health insurance and care sector, it hasn’t gotten there yet and can still be avoided. The rest of the article continues with other such non-truths, just lying talking points, even back in 2011.

      • Intrigued says:

        Stern, it might help to review the Supreme Court opinion of the ACA. They focused on the tax applied to those who opt out of purchasing insurance. Whether you like it or not, the tax provides an alternative to the insurance mandates. I predict they will follow suit in the Hobby Lobby case. Hobby Lobby has a choice whether or not to provide insurance to their employees.

      • Crogged says:

        Yes Captain, by just about any measure we have lower effective tax rates on both corporate and income taxes (certainly on the upper levels) now than in 1946. It’s a simple thing to find out-start with Wikipedia. The ‘created universal health care’ is a broad assertion, certainly untrue now because the US Supreme Court gave states an option on not expanding Medicaid, but that happened after the time of the link. If the Supreme Court had not reversed that–there would be universal health care of a sort.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Sure, Intrigued, just like you can choose to murder your neighbor or not.

        Crogged, the tax rates for the top earners was around 28% under Reagan. They are about 10% higher now. That is a fact, solid and true. No way around it, except for the delusional.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Texan, when all is said and done, religious freedom is just another form of freedom of expression, albeit a more exalted one. I wonder if it deserves a higher status than simple freedom of expression. Otherwise, it’s unfair for atheists not to have that additional form of freedom to exercise.

        I am thinking Hobby Lobby should be able to say they won’t allow their insurance to cover birth control for any reason, or for no reason at all. Simple as that. They shouldn’t have to fall back on the religious freedom thing.

      • Intrigued says:

        “Sure, Intrigued, just like you can choose to murder your neighbor or not.”

        Stern, I’ve seen you make some ridiculous metaphors before but this one really makes you look delusional.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Good point there, Tutt.

        Intrigued, you are the one suggesting people simply ignore and break laws. And no, those taxes do not go to any form of alternative insurance.

      • Intrigued says:

        Tutt, Insurance is a federally and state regulated product. Employers have never had the right to force insurance companies to provide them with a noncompliant policy for any reason. Why should they now?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        John Galt, I know that Rush Limbaugh also said some pretty vile things about Sandra Flucke, but keep in mind that he and Bill O’Reilly are just entertainers. They certainly don’t speak for all conservatives, and I find it hard to take either of them seriously, even though others might. I’ve also seen a lot of vile stuff on the Chron boards, but still, that’s just a vocal minority who seemingly have nothing better to do than whine about the same topics day in and day out.

        I agree their words are upsetting, but I wouldn’t let them influence your beliefs much.

      • Intrigued says:

        Stern, get insurance or pay the tax and you won’t violate the law. It’s really that simple.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The fine, or “tax”, is levied for breaking the law. Not real difficult to understand.

      • Intrigued says:

        No, the taxes are levied to pay for your future care when you get sick and end up begging for the law to allow you to enroll in the market place or end up on Medicaid/Medicare.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, Intrigued, that money just goes to the general fund. It isn;t set aside for anything.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Interesting take, Intrigued – protecting the rights of the insurance company not to be forced to do something.

      • Crogged says:

        Couple of things–here’s the top marginal tax rate history, the years the Cubs won the World Series weren’t included for your analysis of “Always Better Under Reagan”.

        http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates-2012-5?op=1

        Why are we assuming that any employer should be ‘choosing’ an employee’s insurance, it’s just an accident of history.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Crogged, most of that article has no relevance to this discussion. But it does include a chart showing that tax rates were much lower under Reagan than they are now. Reagan was president some years after Truman. You just can’t escape the actual facts, not even with your own links.

      • Crogged says:

        Captain, really? This article, which pointed out times when top marginal rates were far in excess of either Reagan or Obama, and when they were raised or cut in far greater amounts than under either man, means nothing with regards to the endless right wing wind bag ‘economix’ rap we have had to listen to since 2008? Today’s Miss Silk Purse Out of Sow’s Ear prize goes to Captain Stern! Put all the money you saved on your top marginal rate in the last few decades in it–oh wait, neither are real………….

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Intrigued, I know the law is the law, and I don’t advocate all-out civil disobedience and not doing something just because we don’t want to, but . . . (from a past post of mine):

        I feel that a company should not be obligated to provide heath care coverage for its employees to begin with. It should be part of a voluntary salary package, like an extra benefit. I see no correlation between one’s job and one’s health care coverage. It’s like demanding that your landlord include health care as part of your lease. The problem is that once it became common practice among employers, it became something that was expected, and now mandatory.

        That said, I do feel that if a company chooses to offer health care coverage, then it should be meted out fairly, with no discrimination toward any employees, under Equal Protection. And I do support regulation over things that can actively cause harm to individuals and the environment, safety standards and the like, but withohlding coverage of a certain medication does not cause direct harm, since the medication can be obtained by other means. The employee is not being prevented from getting the medication, just not from Hobby Lobby’s insurer.

      • Intrigued says:

        Stern, I’ll leave you with this link. You can either try to understand the Supreme Court’s decision or you can just continue to blindly argue against it.

        http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8332.pdf

      • CaptSternn says:

        Really, Crogged. The rates were lower under Reagan. So the claim that the rates are the lowest since Truman is false. As I said to begin with, just lying talking points of the left.

      • Crogged says:

        Captain, the assertion was about ALL tax rates, I used the top marginal income tax rate as a starting point. So lets look at the effective corporate tax rate, shall we.

      • Intrigued says:

        Tutt, I understand what you are saying but I really do think the only other alternative would be a single payer system. Either way businesses would be required to pay for a portion of the cost in the form of taxes. They still have a choice to pay their portion in taxes opposed to providing health insurance if they chose. With a single payer plan they wouldn’t have a choice.

        As for Hobby Lobby, I do not believe any company should have the power to change regulations for all on a product (insurance) they are simply a consumer of. They do have a choice to pay the taxes instead of purchasing the product.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Intrigued, the problem I have with a single-payer system is not so much a “government takeover,” but my fear that it would become the default system, with a loss of alternatives as a result. I think it’s important to have choice in health care.

        In our most recent system, we could choose to purchase insurance coverage, pay the provider directly, or go to a public facility.

      • Intrigued says:

        Tutt I agree with your first sentence.

        Unfortunately, our previous health insurance system was failing. This failure was largely due to the many uninsured who were either unable obtain coverage or unwilling to obtain coverage until they were sick. As a society, we have decided that it is wrong to refuse healthcare because of the inability to pay and now we must find a way to fund that decision.

      • Intrigued says:

        BTW Tutt, I do not think the ACA is the best solution for ensuring funding for healthcare but in the end it was the only solution on the table. I really like Switzerland’s healthcare system and
        I would have implemented their proven principles opposed to ACA.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/

      • CaptSternn says:

        Intrigued, we as a society decided no such thing. And you are here suggesting that people should ignore the laws and still do without health insurance.

        I see that you do openly support destroying the private sector in health insurance and care, pure socialism. At least you are honest about it. Socialist democrats tell the nation that people are too stupid to run their own lives, make their own choices and accept the consequences, either positive or negative, and you jump right and say, “Yes, I am too stupid to do those things. I must be controlled and told what to do.” You even seem to be proud of it. That’s why I will never understand the left or socialists or communists.

      • Intrigued says:

        Stern, your comments prove you lack the ability to comprehend anything other than your own delusional beliefs.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Intrigued, you speak of “We, as a society decided …”. Here are some things to consider when you speak of such things …

        We, as a society, decided to give republicans the power to stop the PPACA when republicans were given the ability to filibuster by electing a republican to the seat Ted Kennedy held for so long. Democrats found a way around it.

        We, as a society, got so fed up with democrats that we gave the house back to the republicans in a “schellacking” in 2010 to control spending and create real jobs legeislation. Senate democrats go against our will by refusing to even debate bills and shutting down the federal government over budgets.

        We, as a society, decided to keep republicans in charge of spending and jobs legislation and repealing the PPACA by giving more senate seats to republicans and keeping republicans in the majority in the house. Senate democrats refuse to negotiaste, cooperate or compromise.

        We, as a society, decided to give republicans the power ti filibuster appojntments of most judges. Democrats stamped their feet and did away with the filibuster.

        Now, if the republicans gain seats this November, will you agree that we, as a society, reject Obamacare, tax hikes and all those other items?

      • DanMan says:

        Intrigued doesn’t connect many dots…

        “Either way businesses would be required to pay for a portion of the cost in the form of taxes.” Uh, no. Their customers will pay the tax or the business will move from the taxing jurisdiction to avoid the surcharge if they compete against anyone who doesn’t pay the tax.

        “Unfortunately, our previous health insurance system was failing. This failure was largely due to the many uninsured who were either unable obtain coverage or unwilling to obtain coverage until they were sick.” wrong again. As you noted earlier insurance is very heavily regulated by the feds. Democrats not only want to over regulate insurance, they want to control it completely.

        Cap took care of the “we as a society” canard you tossed out very nicely. Care to answer his question?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Dan, that’s one thing the left keeps trying to throw out, what they howled about all along, our system is failing and in crisis. Only it wasn’t failing and there was no crisis.

        Their imagined crisis was the fact that people were free to spend what they wanted on products and services, not restricted by politicians and government. Their crisis was that we have the best health care system in the world. Their crisis was that people had to pay for services and products, even birth control, when they think everything should be free to them.

        They run from cirsis to crisis, even if they have to creat the crisis. After all, never let a good crisis go to waste. They can do things they could not otherwise do.

      • Intrigued says:

        “Uh, no. Their customers will pay the tax or the business will move from the taxing jurisdiction to avoid the surcharge if they compete against anyone who doesn’t pay the tax.”

        Likewise, if we apply your logic to ACA, businesses will pass down the cost to their customers, alleviating any burden on them. I’m glad you agree they don’t any reason to complain. As for the latter part of your comment, where outside of the US would they move that would have the resources and skills necessary to facilitate their business?

        “Unfortunately, our previous health insurance system was failing. This failure was largely due to the many uninsured who were either unable obtain coverage or unwilling to obtain coverage until they were sick.”wrong again. As you noted earlier insurance is very heavily regulated by the feds. Democrats not only want to over regulate insurance, they want to control it completely.

        What insurance regulations provided a means to pay for the cost of the unisured? Who do you think is paying for healthcare when freeloaders are too irresponsible to buy their own?

        “Cap took care of the “we as a society” canard you tossed out very nicely. Care to answer his question?”

        A good job, please! His typical distraction techniques don’t work on me. As for my statement, when was the last time you supported someone being left to die because they couldn’t pay for treatment?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Guess I did because you can’t respond.

        “As for my statement, when was the last time you supported someone being left to die because they couldn’t pay for treatment?”

        When are you going to sell all you own and live under a bridge to help a stranger? Or maybe you are just generous with other peoples money? You would step over a person and suggest the government should do something about that?

      • CaptSternn says:

        FYI, the vast majority of the uninsured knew how to pay the providers directly. Kind of like going to the grocery store and paying for your own groceries instead of paying somebody else to pay for your groceries. That whole concept of paying the provider directly escapes the left. I also wonder how they survive.

      • Intrigued says:

        Stern, I told you before I fully support an exemption to the invidual mandate if someone is willing to sign an advance directive stating they refuse medical treatment that exceeds their ability to pay. So if you think you are financially secure enough to risk signing away your life then you should have that choice. If not you have no argument against the individual mandate.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Intigued, where is the individual madate on buying x amount of food, or x amount of housing, or x amount of transportation? At best you are inconsistent. At worst, … well let us not go there because you would support killing innocent people for convenience, also known as abortion.

    • John Galt says:

      “Obama has changed his law nearly 30 times so far. He is the one who is not obeying the law and that is part of the anarchy we are seeing during his reign as king.”

      Do you actually read the words you write? Do they ever seem a trifle hysterical to you? The Obama administration is doing EXACTLY WHAT THE LAW ALLOWS, which is to allow the Secretary of HHS to define many of the details. You may not like that, but it is not imperial to do what the law requires.

      “He doesn’t enforce immigration laws.”

      Umm…yes, he does. Prioritizing resources available to Homeland Security on illegal immigrants who commit actual crimes beyond simply being undocumented is by far the most efficient and prudent enforcement strategy.

      “He allows his agencies to ship guns to Mexico to slaughter the citizens of that country. He encourages his IRS to target his enemies. And you approve of all of these tactics.”

      Yeah, that was stupid. I have absolutely no problem saying that. All presidents do some stupid things and this was one of them. Of course, the paper Houston Chronicle today had an article about the capture of gun mules who were buying guns from dealers or at guns shows and had made hundreds of cross border trips to deliver them to drug gangs in Mexico. I predict this will not change your view of gun laws in any way whatsoever.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Why would it change anybody’s views on gun laws? Straw purchases are already illegal, as is smuggling weapons to drug cartels in Mexico.

      • DanMan says:

        “The Obama administration is doing EXACTLY WHAT THE LAW ALLOWS”

        Under this standard, the next president can simply ignore it then. That’s fine by me.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Dan, that is what the left isn’t considering, the precidents being set by Obama and democrats. They aren’t looking down the road at the consequences. It’s all about instant gratification and sticking it to conservatives.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Captain, you’re doing a great job of holding down the fort and squelching attempts of the left to revise facts. Bravo!

        I very much agree with you on the left’s ignoring precedence. Wait until 2014 November when the GOP gets the senate and a simple majority is needed to do just about anything now.

        Watch the next GOP president exercise the Executive Order to curtail the DOJ to stay away from some investigation mandates. Oh! How they will scream but the cat is out of the bag. The toothpaste is out of the tube.

        And for the left, the government now says you have to buy broccoli. If you don’t, you will be fined. And for people and companies that have a food allergy to broccoli, too bad, you have to buy it anyway.

      • Turtles Run says:

        CaptSternn says:
        April 22, 2014 at 12:50 pm
        Dan, that is what the left isn’t considering, the precidents being set by Obama and democrats. They aren’t looking down the road at the consequences. It’s all about instant gratification and sticking it to conservatives.

        The precedents? The following of the law has been precedent for decades, nothing new here. What is setting precedent is the GOTP shutting down the federal government after it failed to honor the agreement they made with the Democrats.

      • DanMan says:

        nope. But it will be very interesting when a repub does what Obama does in picking which laws to enforce and which ones to openly violate.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Turtles, Obama isn’t following the law any longer. He isn’t even bothering with executive orders, just rule by decree and change legislation on a whime, bypassing congress. There is also the fact that the federal government can now force us to buy whatever it wants in whatever amounts of face unlimited fines, loss of property and maybe even prison. The democrats are attacking freedpom of religion and making laws concerning the establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof.

        Won’t be long before the republicans regain control and they will have that power. Better hope it is tea party backed conservatives that won;t abuse it.

        As for the shutdown, that was all on democrats. They refused to negotiate or compromise, then went out of tehir way to hurt people in the most public ways possible, even going after school childrebn after the sequester cuts Obama suggested.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Captain, remember Obama shut down the Veteran’s Memorial when he shut down the government? Shows his priorities.

  9. CaptSternn says:

    So anyway, back to the topic. Finally read the link from the New York Times. Seems there is more than Lifer put on the blog, but then he did post the link so it is only my fault for not having already opened it.

    Kabuzz, sorry bud, going to change my tune a bit here. Moore is running as DNC Lite and basically has the backing of the democrats. There are no democrats running for the seat of that district because of Moore. Probably, but not admitting to, working in collusion.

    The DNC and GOP establishment are working together to try and unseat a tea party backed incumbent. Moore is their “new democrat” or “neo-conservative”, favoring welfare and handouts for those that really don;t even need such things. McClintock voted against that.

    This race shows two things, how much the left, including the GOP establishment, fears the tea party movement and that the tea party movement is not dead. Granted, Moore would still be better than an all-out far left extremist democrat, so having Moore win would not be a total defeat. But it would still be a defeat and a victory for the left, especially in the minds of democrats.

    I do disagree with the lady that said a republican should not run against a republican. Anybody should run against anybody. Keep their feet to the fire.

    Then again, this is a minor race and issue. We will soon have the election in Texas between Dewhurst and Patrick. This will be people on gthe right voting, probably with some leftist infiltrators. We pretty much know the the primaries here are where the real elections happen. I am thinking Dewhurst will feel the pain of defeat again. This is a much larger tea party backed election and event.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      I do agree. Conservatives in California are very few and far between.

      I met Dewhurst two decades ago and it was obvious to me he was being groomed for higher office, except for one thing I noticed, he is dumber than a door knob ala Pelosi and SJL.

      The establishment is going down but going down hard.

  10. texan5142 says:

    You are being trolled by Sternn, it is best not to respond. You can not have a discussion with he blames all the problems in Texas on democrats when Texas is a republican controlled state. That should tell you right there what a partisan hack he is.

    • CaptSternn says:

      You’re funny. Texas has only been a republican controlled state for about 12 years. They have made some positive changes, a big one being able to sentence people to life wothout parole. That has cut down on death sentences.

      • DanMan says:

        And let’s face it, most dems that saw what was happening flipped to the repubs and are still siding with dems on many issues or support the senate rules that keep controversial legislation from making it to a vote. If Dan Patrick gets to Lt. Gov. things will get very interesting without the rosebush rule.

  11. Tuttabella says:

    I wonder what happened to people’s keyboards over the weekend. I notice entire words are missing from several posts.

    • way2gosassy says:

      It’s the chocolate high Tutt, hands not moving as fast the brain.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Funny you mention that, because I’m having lunch at my desk now, and I just had a piece of chocolate Easter bunny, courtesy of Cap’s mom.

  12. DanMan says:

    “This system has only been in operation since the 2012 primaries, but it is already credited with helping the state moderate its Democratic politics.”

    Ha! the only that moderated the dem politics in that state is three dem reps are currently indicted and a dem senator resigned to be a lobbyist for Chevron. They merely lost their supermajority status in both houses and have to publicly vote now.

  13. CaptSternn says:

    No such thing as a non-partisan commission since partisan politicians appoint the members. As for the race, win some, lose some. But almost any republican will still be better than a democrat. Looking forward to the mid-terms, maybe the republicans can regain the majority in the senate.

    • texan5142 says:

      CaptSternn says:
      April 21, 2014 at 8:19 am
      ” But almost any republican will still be better than a democrat. ”

      Why, just because you say so does not make it true. There are bad democrats and there are bad republicans. Why would you say that, never mind I know why, because you are partisan hack.

      • DanMan says:

        because are democrats run openly on lies is a pretty reason

      • DanMan says:

        good reason

      • CaptSternn says:

        There are left leaning republicans, but they are usually not the far left extremists the democrats have become.

      • John Galt says:

        So your point of view is that there is not one Democrat in Congress better than Paul Broun of Georgia, who believes that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang Theory (not the TV show) are lies from the pits of hell, or Louie Gohmert, who is convinced that the trans-Alaskan pipeline has improved the dating scene amongst caribou. Not one?

    • flypusher says:

      “No such thing as a non-partisan commission since partisan politicians appoint the members.”

      YES, such thing, if the commission has equal representation of the various partisans.

      As a bit left of center moderate, I’m absolutely following CA ‘s political experiment with great interest, and hoping it works in terms of rooting out the NJs.

      • John Galt says:

        I’m also very interested in this experiment. If it works to moderate political discourse, I hope that other states will not have to sink to Californian levels of dysfunction for it to be more widely adopted.

    • way2gosassy says:

      Actually Sternn there is a non-partisan commission, the state of Iowa has the only one that is nearly devoid of politics as it gets.

      “Redistricting in Iowa features a unique process relative to the other 49 states. Rather than a special commission or legislative committee, the nonpartisan Iowa Legislative Service Agency is responsible for drawing the lines. However, any plan introduced by the Agency must be approved by the Governor and the General Assembly.
      Process

      The Iowa Legislative Services Agency uses computer software to generate a proposed redistricting map, disregarding all factors except population.[1] Although the legislature must still approve the final maps, this process has not been contentious in the past.[2] According to Ed Cook, senior legal analyst with the Legislative Services Agency, “The thing that makes us unique to most states is basically we don’t take into account any political information.”[3]

      For congressional redistricting, the Iowa Code does not permit redistricting maps to split counties. For state-level redistricting, counties and cities should be split as little as possible. Greater leeway is given in splitting larger counties and cities. State law also mandates that all districts are drawn within one percent of their ideal population. Under the 2010 Census, ideal congressional districts for Iowa would contain 761,589 residents. Ideal State Senate districts would contain 60,927 residents, and ideal State House district would contain 30,464 residents.[4][5]

      In 2011, Iowa’s bipartisan Temporary Redistricting Commission unanimously selected Maggie Tinsman to oversee state and congressional redistricting.[6]”

      http://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_Iowa

      Just my opinion, but it seems to me that this method is about as non-partisan as it gets.

      • CaptSternn says:

        That would never fly in Texas, Way. It would too racist for the left. Just look at the map of districts in Iowa and you will understand why.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Racist? I wouldn’t think so. Their model takes out all racial, party affiliation and only uses the population eligible to vote and a very unbiased computer generates the results without splitting counties. I don’t know of anyone right or left that could find that racist. I do think a lot of people would call it fair and impartial.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Way, the districts in Iowa are faily rectangular and consistent. Now way Shelia Jackson Lee would win an election if that were the case here in Texas. A lot of other “minorities” would lose their seats as well. Some Texas districts have to be drawn specifucally for the purpose of keeping a white male from winning it, though sometimes that still doesn’t work. Eliminating those types of districts would be viewed as racist by the left.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Sternn, when the demographics and political affiliations are left out of the equation and the maps are created by a very unbiased computer with the exception of splitting counties, I do not see how you or anyone else could come to that conclusion. I think most people just want the redistricting to be applied fairly and equally. But you are right that it would never fly in Texas but not for the reasons you think. I don’t know of to many people right or left that could find serious fault with the Iowa solution. Texas is too committed to gerrymandering districts to protect it’s incumbents.

      • CaptSternn says:

        We have the democrats to thank for that, Way.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern is right…those darn democrats that have continually won statewide offices for the last decade are blocking the ability to have more rational district maps.

        Those darn Democrats.

      • flypusher says:

        “We have the democrats to thank for that, Way.”

        Right, because when the finally GOP got a majority, they vowed to be better and they did away with all that gerrymandering, didn’t they?
        /sarcasm off

        Actually they upped the ante with their midterm gerrymandering shenanigans.

        Even though this has the be about the 100th time this has been said, and I expect you righties to oh so conveniently forget it again, everyone here to the left of you would be quite delighted if SJL had a viable opponent and actually had to work for votes. We’d be even more delighted if a moderate GOPer actually unseated her.

        Iowa is setting an excellent example and TX would benefit from following said example.

      • DanMan says:

        Seems a couple of our liberal posters are totally unaware of the VRA and the attempts to bludgeon red states with it by Holder’s DOJ.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Democrats held congress from the end of Reconstruction until the end of 2002. Their actions during those years caused the federal government to step in. Texas had to have the new districts approved, even the one the republicans drew up after they won the majority. I would like to see the districts made more like those in Iowa, and if that happened, the democrats would run screaming to the courts and racism would be the focal point of their cries.

      • way2gosassy says:

        I think you are wrong so it’s a bet!

      • CaptSternn says:

        Too bad we will probably never find out, Way.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Way, no one is saying Iowa’s idea isn’t good. It just can’t work in Texas for the reasons Captain stated.

  14. kabuzz61 says:

    Chris, there is no difference between the two candidates. Both want limited spending, budget control, strong military, etc. To you on the left, the first two are the signs of the apocalypse.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      It just take sooooo much time to paint carefully. It is sooooo much easier just to use this big, broad brush. Sure, it is sloppy, wrong, and missing a few thousand details, but hey, it sure is easier when you are too lazy to do a real job.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      Mr. Moore is going to lose the election because it is really not easy to unseat an incumbent from the same party, but an open election makes it at least a slight possibility.

      Now Buzz…I seem to recall some difficulty finding a Tea Party darling that was not all up into the lady and gay business, and Mr. McClintock seems to fit that mold.

      So, you say there is no difference between the candidates, but I think at least a few folks might disagree.

      Moore opposes abortion but believes the decision should be between a woman and her doctor.

      He claims to be a libertarian on gay marriage and says Americans should be able to make their own choices.

      Brilliantly, his thoughts one gay marriage are, “It’s not an issue that I am going to spend a lot of time on,”, which probably should be the position of anyone who is not gay or anyone who does not want to get gay married.

      But yeah, other than some hugely fundamental issues that are kind of meaningful to lots of folks, they are peas in a pod.

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, you are making it sound like Moore is the tea party candidate, not McClintock.

      • John Galt says:

        It is an interesting bit of contradiction that the Tea Party – at least in Sternn’s rose-colored glasses – is fastidiously libertarian, in line with Moore’s positions here, while the actual Tea Party representatives are most certainly not socially libertarian. Wikipedia thinks that the Tea Party Caucus in Congress is defunct, but it lists as former members such notable social libertarians as Michele Bachmann, Paul Broun, Louie Gohmert, and Ted Poe.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…you would think…but that certainly doesn’t seem to be how the cookie crumbles for you Tea Party types. I realize you like the “No true Scotsman” viewpoint, but then there are very few Scotsmen left to fill the phone booth.

        McClintock’s claim to fame is contributing mightily to the gov’t shutdown, whereas Mr. Moore realizes the folly of that position.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Homer, I chuckle every time you use a democrat talking point. In this case regarding the government shutdown.

        TEA Party voters could care less how the candidate is on social issues as long as they curb spending, balance the budget and use our money like responsible grown ups.

        You see, you view these candidates as YOU want to see them.

        You and Chris have a huge, huge ignorance when it comes to TEA Party voters.

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, I haven’t looked into either candidate, but it sounds now like you are agreeing with Kabuzz.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…always happy to bring a smile to your face.

        However, I’m not sure exactly which Democrat talking point I used. My emails from Soros have been slow today, so I really don’t know what I’m supposed to talk about this week.

        I am curious though, is it your position that the gov’t shut down was a good thing?

        Your other point is a bit more interesting. I actually believe you that a fair number of Tea Party members (and I use “member” loosely since tehre is no oath or secret handshake) who do not care about abortion and gay marriage (you and Stern clearly are not part of that group).

        There is even polling to suggest that 50% of Tea Party supporters are pro-choice and against banning gay marriage.

        Assuming all that is true, do you think it is just a huge coincidence that the candidates supported by the Tea Party are almost universally anti-choice and anti-gay marriage?

        Is this just a happy random confluence of events?

      • flypusher says:

        Inquiring minds still want to know, Is there any candidate out there endorsed by/ declaring support for the Tea Party who is pro-choice and/or thinks gay marriage bans are an infringement of individual liberties? Or is even a “those are really minor issues and low on my priority list” sort of candidate? Anyone?

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, the democrats thought shutting down the government was such a good idea they went right ahead and did it. They prefered that over working with the republicans or any form of compromise. They probably still have nightmares over the time they did compromise and spending was slowed.

        You really don’t want to label yourself as pro-abortion and pro-death for innocents, do you?

      • DanMan says:

        I’m pro-choice and tea party. I choose not to have to pay for abortions since I find the practice abominable. I also choose to believe the gay marriage deal is a bennie grab with the added bonus to liberals of mocking religion.

        For both of these issues I just follow the dollars. Straight to democrat campaign coffers.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz and Stern…I will also add a bit of data from a more recent Tea Party survey:

        According to the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life:
        The public now narrowly approves of gay marriage, but Tea Party members disapprove by nearly two to one.
        The public is largely split on abortion, but 60 percent of tea partiers believe it should be illegal in all or most cases.
        Over 50% of Tea Party supporters now say that their religion is the most important factor in determining their opinions on issues.

        Sure, all polling is done by liberal, left-wing, pseudo-commie groups with the sole purpose of making the GOP/TP look bad, but even if all these data are false, it certainly still seems like those candidates endorsed by the Tea Party tend to be overwhelmingly on the socially conservative side.

        I guess there are two or three explanations for that.
        A) Purely random and soon we’ll see plenty of pro-choice gay Tea Partierss
        B) The Tea Party members are overwhelmingly socially conservative, and their candidates reflect that
        C) The TP is just simply part of the GOP, and the TP folks intimately have to follow what the GOP says.

        I’m guess a combination of B and C, but hey, maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised with the upcoming burst of pro-gay, pro-choice Tea Party candidates.

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, tea party types do tend to be more conservative than liberals. How is that making us look bad? The tea party movement is about fiscal responsibility and limited constitutional government. That’s it. Those of us that are part of that movement do have opinions on other things outside that scope, as we have explained a thousand times on this very blog. I am very strongly opposed to abortion on demand for just any reason under the sun, but Dan and TThor lean more pro-choice when it comes to the laws. Yet here we all are under the banner of the tea party movement.

      • DanMan says:

        “McClintock’s claim to fame is contributing mightily to the gov’t shutdown, whereas Mr. Moore realizes the folly of that position.”

        And Obama’s shiny new HHS director not only approved Obama’s lies during his campaign about Obamacare in her current position as director of the OMB* but she also suggested closing national parks and monuments to agitate the public at the expense of elderly WWII veterans and their families.

        * The OMB reviews presidential speech topics that deal with budget issues for accuracy prior to delivery.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I would say that candidates — Tea Party “favorites” — who stress the conservative social issues do so just to score political points, to get themselves on the political map, and to get media attention. Fiscal conservatism by itself is not a very exciting topic, unless you’re Ted Cruz.

        If what HT says is true — that 50% of Tea Party “members” are not socially conservative — then maybe the socially conservative half just happens to be louder.

        Cap is personally opposed to gay marriage, and he will engage in semantic arguments about marriage being a privilege and not a right, but he always ends up conceding that marriage is a contract between consenting adults that must be honored.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Wait Stern…just so that I understand from where you are coming…

        Left to their own devices, the Democrats would have shut down the gov’t on their own? It was a plucky band of GOP/TP partiers trying to keep the gov’t from shutting down?

        Is that how we are interpreting this?

        Unabashedly pro-choice. Heck, I’m so pro-choice that I don’t even want to stop infertile couples from mass-murdering a whole bunch of “persons” in trying to create a baby.

        Aside from that…what is your theory regarding how disconnected it seems that the Tea Party candidates seem to be so wildly divorced from the beliefs of the Tea Party members?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        It’s interesting to see the various arguments against same-sex marriage:

        1. It’s immoral.
        2. It’s unnecessary (Cap).
        3. It’s purely financial (Dan).

        I personally don’t have a problem with it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Are you so pro-choice taht you don’t think the lady that killed six of her own babies should be punshed? Do you think slavery should still be legal, or would you be anti-choice and expect to force your morals on others?

        As for your question about the candidates, they are generally the candidates that support fiscal responsibility and a constitutionally limited government.

      • John Galt says:

        If half of those who affiliate with the TP are socially libertarian, it is certainly a statistical quirk that 100% of those they elect are socially conservative.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Dang it Stern…you’ve figured me out because being in favor of in vitro fertilization means that someone is pro-slavery and endorses killing children. Congrats….you’ve broken the code.

        Do you all take classes on how not to have a conversation and how not to have an argument? Is the goal to not communicate and not discuss issues?

        I wish someone had worked with you when you were younger to turn you into an Olympic athlete. Your leaping ability is wasted on jumping to conclusions rather than becoming a Bob Beamon who shatters the long jumping record.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Did you expect a different response after throwing the “anti-choice” grenade?

      • DanMan says:

        quite the conundrum eh Cap? You are required to provide your take while defending against Homer’s interpretation of your take.

      • flypusher says:

        ” If half of those who affiliate with the TP are socially libertarian, it is certainly a statistical quirk that 100% of those they elect are socially conservative.”

        It would be the biggest coincidence I’ve ever seen……

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I wonder how many fiscally conservative social liberals would be willing to vote for social conservatives, all in the name of fiscal conservatism.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Tutt…I think it comes to which issues take priority for you and which issues do you think can be affected politically.

        Would I take slightly higher taxes to live in world where gay folks can get married and women have the right to choose? Yep.

        Would I take slightly higher inflation to live in world where gay folks can get married and women have the right to choose? Yep.

        So, there are priorities, but then there is effectiveness.

        Do I really think the GOP would do better with the economy? Not really. The recent evidence suggests they wouldn’t.

        Do I really think the GOP could slow down the opportunities for gays to get married? Absolutely.

        Do I really think the GOP infringe on a woman’s right to choose to end a pregnancy? Absolutely.

        So, even if I prioritized a better economy over gay marriage and a right to have an abortion, supporting the GOP would not necessarily make that a reality.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        HT, on the other hand, someone like Cap, who thinks same-sex marriage “unnecessary,” to expend time and effort on this issue might seem like a waste of time. Just an observation.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Would you give up free speech so gay people could have their same sex marriages recognized in every state and for women to kill their offspring, HT? Your right to vote? The right to keep and bear arms? Right to trial by jury?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        HT wrote: Heck, I’m so pro-choice that I don’t even want to stop infertile couples from mass-murdering a whole bunch of “persons” in trying to create a baby.
        *************************************
        Pardon me if I’m getting too personal, but I’m guessing that you and your wife are one of those infertile couples, based on some of your past posts and on having twins, and late in life. You refer to yourself as middle-aged, but I don’t agree because that would mean that I am middle-aged as well. 🙂

        As for being a mass murderer, I don’t quite see you that way, and I don’t think Cap does either. The more accurate term is probably “serial killer” anyway. Just kidding. Seriously, we wouldn’t be having these relatively courteous conversations with you, complete with smiley faces, if we saw you in that light, and you are actually one of the classiest people we’ve come across on social media.

        Do you sometimes wonder, though, about the fetuses that are disposed of during the quest for the perfect, viable baby?

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      I didn’t realize I had thrown a grenade.

      You are offended at “anti-choice”? I sincerely did not realize this was offensive to you all or a grenade.

      The terms “pro life” or “anti-abortion” seem a bit like silly descriptions, because almost everyone on the right and left are “anti-abortion” and “pro-life”.

      No snark here, but isn’t it really an issue of choice? One side is happy to provide the woman a choice, and another side would like that choice to not exist.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, it isn’t an issue of choice. The choice is made before a woman becomes pregnant. It is no more a choice than saying the abolitionists were simply anti-choice because they wanted to end slavery. I doubt your sudden claim that you didn’t think such a term would be offensive.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        It is not a sudden claim. I almost exclusively refer to it as anti-choice and pro-choice. You would be hard pressed to find a line with me saying “pro-life” in any context. It just is not an apt description of the debate.

        I realize that for you, the abortion=slavery argument resonates and rings bells like crazy, but it just does not do that for 90% of folks.

        It ignores the fact that there is an actual live woman involved.

        The “choice” positions are really the deciding factor for most people. Maybe not for you, but for most people.

        Folks on my side are thrilled that unintended pregnancy and abortion rates are down. Most folks on my side will happily talk about reasonable restrictions on abortion as the fetus becomes viable (and even earlier than that). Folks are rarely pro-abortion and anti-life, and your side likely could make more progress if you gave up those caricatures.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Not just a living woman, HT. There is another person involved, the one being killed. So what is the real difference between that and the lady who aborted her children herself and kept them in boxes in her home, other than the fact she kept them in boxes in her home. That was her choice, and you are pro-choice.

      • DanMan says:

        for Homer
        If we didn’t know you were aborting your babies then we wouldn’t even be able to care but you not only insist we pay for it, we must support such an arrangement or be considered out of touch. It sends you into a tizzy when we don’t agree with you and therefore our opinions either don’t matter to you or worse cause you anger. Pretty much the same thing with gay issues.

        Yet for some reason you believe we are not allowed to not care what you think. If we don’t project support for your social causes we are your enemy according to you and your party. News flash. You don’t have control over our opinions.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        My goodness Homer is being very smug today. More so than usual anyway.

        Homer votes for choice, for gay marriage. Two social issues. He is allowed to have a loud opinion of it. But is a TEA Party person or GOPer is against gay marriage and pro life, well, that is letting their views effect their stand. In my world, there is no difference but in Homer’s he can, we can’t. Nice.

        Just like the whack jobs that re-elect SHL, it all comes down to the community that lives where the candidate is running. It just isn’t our business. Except yours Homer.

        Homer, do you have a poll on how duplicitous liberals are?

      • John Galt says:

        Who is asking you to pay for someone else’s abortion? Federal money has been barred from this purpose for decades. Newsflash for you Dan, most women would prefer you not know about their reproductive system and would be very happy if there weren’t throngs of people hanging around with bullhorns outside their doctor’s office.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Who is asking you to pay for someone else’s abortion?”

        Democrats, especially Obama.

      • John Galt says:

        Ah, yes. Sternn brings us the abortion equivalent of Sophie’s Choice in which moral equivalence is made between an embryo and a four year old. Maybe we should celebrate our “Conception Day” rather than birthdays.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Changed your tune in a hurry there, John. FYI, federal money has been paying for abortions since places like Planned Parenthood started getting federal money. Now they want to force us to pay for it through insurance companies as well.

      • DanMan says:

        meh, when you can’t argue the point you change the subject, they must teach that at liberal school

      • John Galt says:

        First of all, I was responding to two different points, quite obviously. Second, the use of federal funds to pay for abortions (except in cases of rape, incest, or life-of-the-mother) has been banned by the Hyde Amendment since the mid-70s, an amendment that has been renewed by Democratic and Republican Congresses for nearly 40 years. An amendment to the PPACA (insisted upon by Democrats) was to extend this to this bill. For a variety of reasons this was eventually done by an executive order from Obama. Abortion rights activists are actually upset with this because it means that some insurance policies that covered this (I can’t imagine there are too many of these) may have to drop these provisions.

        You know all of this, and how PP has legally separate entities for federal funding versus abortion services, yet you bring it up with pretend indignation. It’s a tired complaint.

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, you can’t pour a glass of water into a bucket of water and then expect to extract only the water you put in by taking a glass out again. But you can take a glass of water out without lowering the level from what it was before it was added.

        Money works the same way. The leftists claimed that Governor Perry took federal money meant for education and spent it elsewhere. They said that because he put the fedewral funds into education then had congress take that same amount from Texas’ funds and spend it on other things. Planned Parenthood does that with funds for abortions.

        Obama cannot write and pass legislation. Only congress can do that. The president can agree to sign it, veto it or do nothing and allow it to become law. And no, he did not remove that part anyway or else the suit from Hobby Lobby and others would be thrown out because they wouldn’t be required to fund abortion or abotificants.

        You know all this, or you should know it if you stay informed of the matter at all. I very often wonder if the left pays any attention to what is going on, if they are really completely and deliberately ignorant of matters, or if they are in deny mode to confuse people?

      • DanMan says:

        yeahright Cuffy

      • DanMan says:

        you’re much more charitable than I Cap. They lie.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I try to be civil, Dan. I have had, do have and will have my moments, though.

        I still have doubts about HT not realizing he was being offensive. Does he think it should be legal to own blacks as slaves, or is he “anti-choice”? Does he think it should be legal for a husband to beat his wife, or is he “anti-choice”? Does he think it should be legal to rape others, or is he “anti-choice”? Does he think it should be legal to kill neigbors over loud music, or is he “anti-choice”? Does he think Megan Huntsman had the right to kill her newborn children, or is he “anti-choice” (this one is where he should say she did if he is really as “pro-choice” as he claims)? Does he think Clara Harris had the right to run over her cheating husband several times, or is he “anti-choice”?

        I could keep going for quite a while, but I think HT knew he was throwing a grenade, but he doesn’t want to be held accountable for turning the discussion. Maybe he does “take classes on how not to have a conversation and how not to have an argument.”

      • John Galt says:

        Planned Parenthood is one of the most scrutinized organizations in the country. An obvious way to shut them down would be to prove they had violated the Hyde Amendment. Nobody has ever been able to make evidence of that nature stick.

        And, once again, I seem to have to explain the way the executive branch works. It’s really not that hard. The PPACA, like virtually every law passed today, leaves the formulation of many of the details of their enactment to the executive branch. The applicability of an executive order to the PPACA is not tyranny, despotism, or socialism. It is the law as passed by Congress and Obama has not used executive orders any more than any other recent president.

        Traditional contraceptives, which may sometimes works post-conception, have never been thought of as abortifacents, at least until some fanatics upset at having to provide any sort of contraception to sluts who can’t keep their pants on (read: any sexually active woman) started stamping their feet. I’ll say again: if the GOP manages to restrict access to contraception of women’s choice, the party is toast as far as national electability goes.

        “I very often wonder if the left pays any attention to what is going on, if they are really completely and deliberately ignorant of matters, or if they are in deny mode to confuse people?”

        That’s funny. What kind of self-deception is required for you to write that? It’s like you live in bizarro world.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Well, John, now we kn ow what you think of women. A little TMI there. I wonder if women on the left like Way and GG will side with you and lay claim to the title you gave them? I know you wouldn’t have the nerve to say that about any lady in my life to my face because it would earn you a punch on the nose.

        Never before have private companies been required to offer health insurance by force of law. Never before have private compabnies been required to provide abortificants by force of law. Democrats changed that, they took away freedom, they are “anti-choice” as HT would say That is why this is now an issue.

        And nobody is talking about restricting access to birth control, nobody byut people like you anyway. That is a made-up fiction, and outright lie ctreated by people that thinj they should just be able to walk into as store and demand products and not have to pay for them.

      • DanMan says:

        PP received $540 million in federal dollars and performed over 330,000 abortions in 2013. That $540 million was 45% of their reported revenue. Of it’s $1.152 billion in expenses almost 12% ($135 million) was for ‘advocacy and outreach’. PP performs 25% of abortions nationally.

        It retained $87 million of excess revenue to add it’s current $1.33 billion in assets.

        And Cuffy says we don’t pay for abortions.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Sternn I will not speak for GG here, but two points I will take up with you. The first is that I am as centrist a person as you will find, I am an Independent, that I do not agree with those on the far right as you and some of your buddies here. Second, you still insist on reading what you want see in someones post that simply is not there. I can’t answer for JG but I assume he was referring to the comments made by many on the right who have made ugly remarks about women and the use of contraception.

      • John Galt says:

        “Well, John, now we know what you think of women.”

        Anyone who has read my many posts should have recognized that I was mocking the typical response from social conservatives to anything dealing with female sexuality. I’m sure you did too, but pretended not to in an attempt to make a petty and ultimately futile point. Or perhaps you are just not as astute as Sassy.

        “And nobody is talking about restricting access to birth control…”

        Why, yes, Hobby Lobby certainly wants to do that for its employees. A number of religious groups have issued statements of concern about the oral contraceptive pill as a potential abortifacent. It is just a matter of time before this movement collides with the high potential for conservative old male politicians for making stupid public statements about women, sex, and pregnancy.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Way, I know of only one person on the right that made such a derogatory comment. He got called out by everybody and he apologized. Let’s see if John is man enough to apologize.

      • John Galt says:

        Sure Dan, PP performed 330,000 abortions last year. That was 3% of their medical services. The other 97% were birth control, Pap and breast exams, STD screening and other things. This is what federal funds pay for. You appear convinced that they are illegally subsidizing abortion services. Fine. Why doesn’t someone actually try to prove it? You know, like with real data rather than nebulous feelings you have supported by equally vacant reinforcement from inside your bubble. Take them to court, have forensic accountants actually prove that they are doing something.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Own your words, John.

        Hobby Lobby has no power nor desire to restrict birth control, not even abortificants. They don;t want to be forced to pay for it.

      • DanMan says:

        Cuffy, Gosnel was able to practice for three decades as he did because of the firewall of protests that flowed from democrats when any restrictions are put in place that impede abortion on demand. I guess you missed that news since no legacy media would report on it.

        Women were maimed and killed as a result of the special attention he gave his patients. Demedia ignored all of it. Gosnel is not the only one. That’s your party and you advocate for this?

      • Tuttabella says:

        I think it’s safe to say that John Galt himself does not think that women are the S word, but he makes the mistake of saying that the “typical” social conservative response against birth control is to call women the S word. Some people do think that way, but that’s not the case for everyone who’s opposed to birth control, doesn’t want to force others to cover it, or have their taxes go toward it. For some people it’s simply about religious freedom, or financial reasons, and to say that people (men and women) need to take responsibility for their sexual activity and decisions is not the same as calling them the S word.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I believe JG in his heart of hearts does think active sexual women are sluts. Why else would he bring up such an obscure comment made by one person? Apparently it rang a bell with him.

        Way2, two things. You don’t need to defend JG, he’s a big boy. Second, you are on the far left even though you call yourself an independent as I do. Were you trying to say you were a moderate? God I hope not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 472 other followers

%d bloggers like this: