SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
April 7, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

The Uncompromising Right

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Congressman McKeon just announced that he’ll hold a press conference with 25th District reporters tomorrow as the federal government stumbles and wheezes toward a possible full shutdown at midnight on Friday:

Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-Santa Clarita) is set to hold a telephone press conference call tomorrow, Friday, April 8 at 2:00 pm ET/ 11:00 am PT to discuss the potential of a government shutdown and Republican efforts to keep the government operating and troops funded until the end of the year.  As Senator Mitch McConnell said regarding House-passed legislation to keep the government open and troops funded, “This bill does everything Democrats have previously said they want. It cuts Washington spending by an amount that Democrat leaders believe is reasonable. The policy prescriptions it contains have been previously agreed to by Democrat leaders and signed by the President. And, most importantly, this is the only proposal out there that keeps the government open.”

I may not be the biggest fan of McKeon or the Republicans in general but I have to give them credit for doing what their voters want them to do: don’t compromise with the President or the Democrats in the Senate even if it means charging full speed ahead into another government shutdown. Two respected polls show the GOP Leadership, including Buck Mckeon, doing exactly what their voters sent them to Washington to do:

Image not recoveredwsjpoll.jpg

Image not recovered6a00d83451c45669e2014e606d96ed970c-550wi.png

Now today a news source reported that McKeon doesn’t want to see the government shut down, so he deserves even more praise for carrying out the wishes of his constituents against his own better judgment.

It’s clear that the majority of Republicans and conservatives  have rigid ideologies and don’t value compromise with the other 2/3rds of the elected government. It’s their way or the highway, and the two poll results above couldn’t be more lopsided.

I have to say its somewhat refreshing to see the GOP representatives reflect that vision, even if it means our government will shut down as a result. They are doing what they were hired to do: make government not work.

Comments (68)

  1. kkorenthalApril 7, 2011 at 12:53 pm
    You are so off the mark here Jeff. It is not the position of any in the Republican leadership that compromise is out. But so far, Democrats in Congress have made no indications that THEY are willing to make any significant cuts in spending. The cuts that have been proposed (such as cutting heating oil assistance) are designed specifically to show how ‘hurtful’ spending cuts are. Democrats, RINO Republicans and activists of the “America owes me” caucus of America have been loading more and more debt upon this generation of taxpayers and the next. Our entire national welfare safety net is going bankrupt and foreign countries are not only kicking our asses in nearly every way (manufacturing, education, etc.) but many of them are profiting by buying and charging interest on America’s debt. You and your ilk Jeff can continue whistling past the graveyard and claiming that the debt and the insolvency is not a problem but that will not make it so.
  2. JeffApril 7, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    So wait, the Republicans in the House are willing to compromise with Dems over the budget? Wouldn’t that mean they’re going against the clear wishes of their constituents?
  3. kkorenthalApril 7, 2011 at 2:20 pm
    Boehner et al have approved a temporary spending bill that extends talks for a week and fully funds the military through the end of the year. Reid has said that the Senate will not take up a similar reprieve and Obama says he would veto it anyway. The reality of the situation is that Republicans stand to get seriously wounded if the government shuts down whereas Democrats feel that a shut-down is politically helpful to them. So rather than keeping talks going and insuring our troops get paid, Democrats are choosing a government shut down.
  4. JeffApril 7, 2011 at 4:23 pm
    The Republicans initially wanted $33 billion in cuts way back in February. Obama more or less agreed to that. What happened to that deal?
  5. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotApril 7, 2011 at 1:43 pm
    The U.S. is currently $14,465,317,000,000 in debt and we are arguing over 30 billion in cuts? Are you freaking kidding me? As a debt ratio – this arguement is the same as your family being $14,465 in debt and the wife is yelling at you because you want to trim $30 off the family budget next year and we want to cut this $14,465 debt our family has by half in 10 years. So the republicans are being called “mean” or “irresponsible” or, as the democrat talking points dictate, call ‘em “extreme”- yea that’ll work Mr. Shumer. This is an “extreme” national crisis that few people are willing to say even exists and yet many members from both parties want to have their pet projects funded. The Tea Party has call B.S. to that and God willing, the republicans will listen. http://www.usdebtclock.org/
  6. NateApril 7, 2011 at 2:40 pm
    Yes and if it took you 30 years to compile $13,000 of that amount you wouldn’t expect to pay it all back in one year now would you? Republicans don’t want to touch 70% of the budget they want to gut the other 30%. So life as we know it in this country would go to hell. WE ARE NOT BROKE, We Are Still The Riches Country In The World. We need to go on a budget diet… which includes all aspects of the budget which means the Pentagon, Medicare and Social Security.
  7. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotApril 7, 2011 at 2:54 pm
    I don’t think we compiled this debt in 30 years. This has taken no more than 10 years to dig this huge hole. The republicans want to cut this debt not overnight, but by 45% in 10 years. I agree Nate that we need to cut all areas of the budget – nothing is sacred.
  8. kkorenthalApril 7, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    We are more than broke Nate. We are broke and we are in debt. Just because Geitner and friends keep printing money… At any rate, the continuing decline in the value of the dollar is really the best indication that inflation is running rampant as a result of the liberal money polices of the Democrats.
  9. NateApril 7, 2011 at 3:47 pm
    We were under 1 Trillion when Reagan took office. Carter compiled about 200 billion. Reagan compiled 2 Trillion of that 14. Bush Sr. did about 1.8 Trillion, Clinton did about 1.8, Bush Jr. did about 4.8 and Obama has done about 3.6. If you are keeping score that is Republican Presidents – 8.4 Trillion Democrat Presidents – 5.6 Trillion Not exact numbers but they are a pretty close. Korenthal – They have been printing money since Nixon. Try being honest and think in terms of what is best for the country instead of how you can jab at your opponents.
  10. spineflower2April 7, 2011 at 4:36 pm
    You can pin it on the Prez this way, but it’s also Congress that determines this.
  11. PoliticoApril 7, 2011 at 2:07 pm
    Kevnin, you are nothing but a prisoner of your own ideology, nothing more. the parties have essentially agreed on the numbers, but now differ on the riders the Republicans want to stuff down the throats of the rest of the country. A “True Republican” would see that govt. is about protecting our borders and providing for the safety of the populace. It’s not about ideology, it’s about numbers. Just about numbers!!!!! That’s all!!! I know you see yourself as a “pure” Republican, but your’e not. You are as off the mark as anyone else.
  12. kkorenthalApril 7, 2011 at 2:23 pm
    Politico, I won’t dispute your contention that every move by the government stands outside the principles set forth in the constitution. I don’t (as you incorrectly suggest) see myself as a Republican, tried and true. At least I haven’t for the last 2 years. But the more we see of Democrats and their ALL POLITICS ALL THE TIME attitude, I am reminded why it was the Grand Old Party that fought a war to end slavery and produced more votes for the Civil Rights Act and helped Clinton balance the budget 3 years in a row and… I can go on. No, I may not be “on the mark” but I closer to it than any Democrat that has weighed in.
  13. NateApril 7, 2011 at 2:41 pm
    You are such a talking head. You sound like Sarah Palin reading off her hand.
  14. kkorenthalApril 7, 2011 at 3:01 pm
    I’ve been called worse by people that like me more.
  15. kkorenthalApril 7, 2011 at 2:32 pm
    From the Los Angeles Times House passes measure to keep government open another week President Obama has threatened to veto the measure, which funds the Department of Defense through September and pays for an additional week of government operation — with $12 billion in cuts. Democrats seek a one-week extension at existing spending levels. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-spending-resolution-20110408,0,2265172.story
  16. NateApril 7, 2011 at 2:45 pm
    Good for him. Uncompromising right back. The Government shuts down, the country will hold Republicans responsible in 2012. Even McKeon knows that… Why should he compromise? Tea party isn’t a threat to him. Tea party is only a threat to Republicans. The Tea party helped the Democrats keep the Senate.
  17. kkorenthalApril 7, 2011 at 3:01 pm
    Yeah Nate, let’s just keep passing off these problems to the next generation. Democrats and Obama don’t give a fu** about this country, it is all about winning political points. And you sir are a coward for suggesting that a shut-down of the government is a price worth paying to keep the status quo.
  18. NateApril 7, 2011 at 3:48 pm
    Obama cares about this country as much as Bush did.
  19. NateApril 7, 2011 at 3:55 pm
    P.S. Why are you resorting to name calling? Name calling that doesn’t even apply? I like seeing Obama push these idiot idealistic Republicans to their limit. He is like Ali running the rope-a-dope right now. Obama finally showing some balls he should push even harder and demand military spending cuts along with Medicare and Social Security Cuts/Reform. Cutting birth control subsidies which is one of the sticking points, so we have more poor people/Future democrat voters is just stupid on the Republican’s part.
  20. ScooterApril 7, 2011 at 4:09 pm
    I say let the government shut down. Obviously the 2 sides of this are not going to compromise. Sometimes you have to walk away from the table to get your point across. What’s the worst that could happen? If the government shut down for a week or even a month, how would this affect our life here in Santa Clarita? Primarily the only people that would feel the pinch are the non-essential federal employees. The military and essential agencies like social security, border patrol, medicare, air traffic control, etc would continue to operate. Don’t buy into all this BS Jeff, kkorenthal is right when he says it’s all about winning political points. Of course he is only directing this towards the left, but both sides have political points at stake. This is just a big scare tactic coming from both sides to get the votes in 2012.
  21. JeffApril 7, 2011 at 4:15 pm
    “Obviously the 2 sides of this are not going to compromise” Blaming both sides and damning the system is intellectually lazy, especially when good, empirical evidence (see the two polls above) exists that show 1 out of every 2 Republicans don’t want to compromise. Ask the same question to liberals and nearly 3/4 of them say, “Compromise.” Don’t be intellectually lazy Scooter.
  22. Phil EllisApril 7, 2011 at 7:14 pm
    Nate, you called him a name first so don’t suggest that he started the name calling. BTW, why aren’t the Democrats compromising? You seem to think that unless the Republicans knuckle under to the Democrats views that they refuse to compromise. What fantastic logic.
  23. Phil EllisApril 7, 2011 at 7:16 pm
    Perhaps, Jeff, but as I suggested to Nate, when a Democrat says compromise he means that Republicans are bending over. It’s all how you define the words. How about asking the Democrats how many are willing to give in to the Republican points?
  24. ScooterApril 7, 2011 at 8:51 pm
    That’s right i’m intellectually lazy for actually listening to both sides of a debate and making a logical assessment. Both sides are at fault here, your numbers are a generalization on what people think our representatives should do. Are the dems willing to compromise on planned parenthood? Will they budge on th EPA or Obamacare? Of course not.
  25. spineflower2April 8, 2011 at 8:15 am
    What has PP got to do with a budget crisis and the deficit? The ‘Pubs are being driven by the teabaggers to throw a radical conservative social agenda into the budget talks, and the country loses out. Gee, why don’t the Dems throw out a radical liberal idea like banning home schooling, corporate funding of elections, or tax breaks for churches? Then they can say the “compromise? by letting go of efforts that have zero chance of happening in the first place.
  26. Mr PerezApril 7, 2011 at 4:48 pm
    Sorry Scooter but the military will not be paid per the Pentagon. Bottom line, you can push for the shut down since it doesnt affect 99.9% of you but who gets caught in the middle and screwed over? Myself and all the others in the military and our families. And I still have to report to work no differently so I cannot get a temporary job on the side to buy food and pay the bills. I find BOTH sides unflexible and it is either their way or no way. We in the military are taking note of who is in power right now and when re-election comes around those individuals will be voted out if this is allowed to occur.
  27. ScooterApril 7, 2011 at 4:56 pm
    I would hope that at the very least the government could pass a bill to pay the military in the event of a shutdown. The military deserves better than this. You don’t deserve to be put in the middle of a pissing contest bewteen politicians that are detached from reality. Would you at least receive back pay once the budget is resolved? That being said, if the government were to shut down, maybe something positive could come out of this.
  28. Mr PerezApril 7, 2011 at 5:35 pm
    I believe Senator McCain introduced a bill into the Senate, and Congresswoman Hutchinson in the House as well, that would make sure the military was still paid regardless. We would get back pay whenever they resolved the budget fight but in the meantime you have issues that don’t stop because of it, i.e. bills, food, etc. I may have some savings that could buffer me temporarily but it’s the deployed troops and younger families that I worry about.
  29. IHeartSCVApril 7, 2011 at 4:49 pm
    So if 68% of Dems want to compromise (i.e., make concessions to Repubs–that’s whay compromise is) and 56% of Repubs want no compromise (i.e., no concessions to Dems), then it would seem you’re right, Jefff–the Dems just aren’t listening to the people. The majority of both sides either support the Republican plan or want concessions made to that party. Thus, that’s the plan to support.
  30. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotApril 7, 2011 at 7:32 pm
    The Republicans are borrowing a page from the Dems in the art of compromise. Think back several months ago when the Democrats had large majorities in both houses and the ran roughshod over the Republicans to get Obama’s health care passed. No one read the the bill before it was signed into law. That promise from Obama to post the bill on the internet for 72 hours prior to the healthcare vote – hahaha, pleeease. Obama passed his healthcare bill essentially without GOP input. The Dems could not have been more arrogant with their power. It is quite charming to see the democrats suddenly have the spirit of cooperation now that they don’t have control of the house.
  31. JeffApril 7, 2011 at 8:06 pm
    What are you talking about? The Democrats quickly sacrificed every single item its progressive wing wanted. They sacrificed a single payer system first. Then they killed off the public option. Then Lieberman and some Senate Dems killed medicare for those under 65. The Dems even inked a deal with big pharma. Everything the liberals wanted got killed or dropped and by the end we had a health care package that forces 30 million Americans to buy insurance from private sector profit machines like Cigna, Aetna, and Blue Cross. The end plan is a virtual carbon copy of Romney’s Massachusetts bill, except it’s applied nationally. And even after all that, even after the Dems crapped all over their progressive supporters, even after the President endorsed the market-friendly individual mandate, still we got Zero Republican votes. Give me a break.
  32. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotApril 7, 2011 at 8:53 pm
    @Jeff. ALL the things you ticked off that the Dems “sacrificed” were not a result of compromising with the other side. They were the direct result of unfavorable polling for the upcoming Nov 10 mid terms. Most Democratic Congressmen were running scared at the huge negatives in their district polling over the health care bill and they knew that the voters would hold them accountable in the elections in following year. Remember the town hall meetings? The Democrats (including the President) did not give a damn what the Republican side had to say, in fact they were shut out of negotiations. Period. If it’s your belief that the Dems allowed ANY Republican input to this process, you are mistaken, Sir. The end result of the health care bill had NOTHING to do with compromising or negotiating with the Republicans. In the end, the bill that passed was a Democratic over-reach according to polling. The public had their say in Nov ’10 by tossing the Dems out of power in the house. The public option will put the private insc industry out of business and lead to a single payer. It’s a part of the strategy. Give me a break. http://www.conservativerefocus.com/blog5.php/2010/10/02/cnn-situation-room-secret-healthcare-negotiations-meant-to-shut-out-republicans-and-the-american-people http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/08/video-proof-obama-wants-single-payer-system
  33. JeffApril 8, 2011 at 7:59 am
    “The public option will put the private insc industry out of business and lead to a single payer. It’s a part of the strategy.” Again, what are you talking about? Libs wanted a public option. It got killed. The health care bill delivers 30 million new paying customers to private insurers. The federal government manages exchanges and subsidizes those individuals who can’t afford to purchase health insurance.
  34. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotApril 8, 2011 at 9:11 pm
    @Jeff. I appologize for my post stating that there was a public option in the health care bill. I was obviously confused and was wrong for thinking there was such a thing.
  35. JeffApril 7, 2011 at 8:08 pm
    Clever but no dice. Concessions does not equal compromise unless both sides are making concessions. You both give a little and get a little. Negotiating 101. What does abortion and the EPA have to do with a budget fight? The latest reporting says the Dems and GOP aren’t far off on the numbers…so why the hell are we talking about abortion?
  36. IHeartSCVApril 7, 2011 at 9:40 pm
    Planned Parenthood is not an essential entity, so they want to cut funding for it. Makes sense to me.
  37. spineflower2April 7, 2011 at 10:20 pm
    Sorry, but If you believe the ‘Pubs are cutting PP for budgetary reasons then you are either delusional or daft.
  38. IHeartSCVApril 7, 2011 at 10:34 pm
    Spineflower, if you believe people must do things for only one reason you are either delusional or daft. Aborting funds for PP addresses both fiscal and social concerns for Repubs.
  39. JayceApril 8, 2011 at 7:30 am
    But closing the tax loopholes for billion dollar corporations like GE isn’t.
  40. MikeApril 8, 2011 at 3:29 pm
    You must be joking. Just like you do when you talk about City Council meetings, right?
  41. IHeartSCVApril 8, 2011 at 3:38 pm
    Not sure that I follow…
  42. ScooterApril 8, 2011 at 7:16 am
    Jeff: Funding for Planned Parenthood has everything to do with this budget fight. The left is calling it an attack on abortion. But this is still a budget battle, not a bill challenging abortion. This is not chump change we’re talking about, the federal government gives approx $300 million to Planned Parenthood annually and by law these funds are not used for abortions anyways. You and Harry Reid are throwing the A word out there to get women and the left fired up. As you said, you have to give the right some credit for doing what their voters elected them to do, cut spending. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/08/congress.budget/index.html?hpt=T1
  43. JeffApril 8, 2011 at 7:32 am
    $300 million is chump change. The Pentagon spends that on like 5 or 6 fighter jets. The Federal Budget last year was $3.9 trillion. So planned parenthood makes up less than 1% of the budget. Do you know what other issues the GOP is attaching to this bill? They’re trying to limit/kill the EPA’s ability to manage carbon emissions because they don’t believe in global warming. They’re trying to handicap the new Consumer Protection Bureau before its even gotten off the ground just two years after Wall Street took the economy off a cliff. You can pretend those issues are all about the budget, but don’t expect me to believe it because 1) it is chump change and 2) if they really cared about the budget they’d look at all that PLUS defense spending which is north of $600 billion a year.
  44. ScooterApril 8, 2011 at 8:06 am
    Have you looked at Paul Ryan’s proposal? It’s definitely not the answer to all of our issues but the Tea Party is serious about cutting spending in all segments of government. He has proposed savings of $78 billion in defense spending, identified by Robert Gates. $300 million annualy is not chump change, in ten years that’s $3 billion. Yes, it is very small percentage of the budget, but don’t pretend $300 million is not a significant amount of money. Every little bit counts.
  45. 4eyedsueApril 8, 2011 at 2:08 pm
    and every penny of that $300 million “saved” will go right back out in the form of social services to pay for children women didn’t want and couldn’t afford, and treatment costs for diseases that could have been detected earlier or prevented through routine exams and paps at PP. It’s politics, not money.
  46. ScooterApril 8, 2011 at 3:23 pm
    Do you agree with Ryan that there are redundancies in government? Why are there routine exams like paps at PP? Once Obamacare is in full stride, won’t all of us be required to purchase healthcare insurance? Why would we need PP if everyone in the country has insurance? I’m definitely no expert in women’s health, I just think we need to look at the big picture.
  47. 4eyedsueApril 8, 2011 at 4:54 pm
    silly me…I thought the Tea Party-ers were gonna repeal Obamacare
  48. Capt. GeneApril 9, 2011 at 4:33 am
    Jeff says: “$300 million is chump change” You know, 300 here, 300 million there, pretty soon we’re talking about some real money. And you wonder why the message of the Tea Party resonates with voters.
  49. Capt. GeneApril 9, 2011 at 4:35 am
    That was meant to read “You know, 300 million here, 300 million there, pretty soon we’re talking about some real money”
  50. 4eyedsueApril 9, 2011 at 7:14 am
    Which tea party message are we talking about? The one that wants a smaller federal government, or the one that wants a Christian federal government?
  51. Capt. GeneApril 9, 2011 at 10:27 am
    I know, it’s hard to keep track, although I haven’t heard of the one that wants a “Christian federal government”, where are they?
  52. 4eyedsueApril 9, 2011 at 12:12 pm
    Here’s one~ Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), tea party darling a.k.a. Sarah Palin’s replacement, plans to hold classes on the Constitution for new members of Congress – and she wants them taught by David Barton, a notorious Religious Right historical revisionist. http://minnesotaindependent.com/73958/meet-david-barton-bachmanns-constitution-class-teacher
  53. MikeApril 9, 2011 at 8:14 am
    If the discussion were truly about many instances of $300 million, then that would be true. But the House Republicans nearly brought this to a halt over something that is literally less than a thousandth of a percent of the federal budget. The concern, on the part of many Republicans in congress, wasn’t that were are giving too much to PP, but that we are giving them money at all. It was a philosophical objection.
  54. Capt. GeneApril 9, 2011 at 10:30 am
    So if it’s such chump change, why are the dems fighting it so hard? I mean, it’s nothing, right? And after all, they are the ones that are supposedly so willing to compromise. Looks to me like the dems philosophical objection is equally strong, don’t you agree?
  55. MikeApril 9, 2011 at 10:37 am
    Yes, I would agree. It’s a two-way philosophical disagreement.
  56. Capt. GeneApril 9, 2011 at 3:02 pm
    “Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), tea party darling a.k.a. Sarah Palin’s replacement, plans to hold classes on the Constitution for new members of Congress – and she wants them taught by David Barton, a notorious Religious Right historical revisionist.” According to the article you’re not really being honest. The article you posted says: “She’s already announced several people she wants to teach the classes, including David Barton” “including”, as in there will be others teaching as well. I know it doesn’t fit into your rant, but at least try and be accurate.
  57. 4eyedsueApril 9, 2011 at 7:53 pm
    Capt.- teeheehee…that was a rant? Anyways- yes, please pardon my misleading choice of words… accidental. Glad to see you took a look at the article. Others Buchmann wants to include as instructors to our Congress on the constitution include Justice Scalia (women and homosexuals are not constitutionally protected from discrimination), Judge Andrew Napolitano ( 9/11 “truther” conspiracist), and/ or Fox News’ Sean Hannity (High school education). Excellent line up! Anyway- Buchmann (founder and leader of the House Tea Party Caucus) sure has a cozy relationship with Barton.
  58. MikeApril 10, 2011 at 7:05 am
    I think anyone signing up for a class on the Constitution curated by Michelle Bachman will get what they deserve.
  59. Mr PerezApril 8, 2011 at 4:32 pm
    Unless there is a last minute agreement, everything is set in stone. I looked at my mid-month pay statement online and I am only getting paid for April 1-8 work. Whereas if you are on welfare you are getting a full check, livin’ the American Dream!
  60. Capt. GeneApril 10, 2011 at 9:30 am
    That’s all fine and good Sue, but I don’t think it is proof that she wants a “Christian federal government”, is it?
  61. 4eyedsueApril 10, 2011 at 10:49 am
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwWfcZTEhA8&feature=player_embedded#at=27 If you don’t see this as strong evidence (if not proof), then we will have to agree to disagree, my friend. from the Washington Independent: “Bachmann and Barton have a long relationship going back to Bachmann’s time as state senator. Barton was invited to Minnesota to help Bachmann with legislation on school history standards, she’s appeared his radio show numerous times, and she and Barton have conducted tours in Washington, D.C., to demonstrate to Tea Partiers how religious the founding fathers were. Barton has said the idea of separation of church and state is a myth and suggested the federal government should regulate homosexuality. His association with reported anti-Semitic groups prompted the Anti-Defamation League to condemn him earlier this year. He has called holding congressional sessions on Sunday unconstitutional and he has stated that United States’ borders were drawn by God.” From the Washington Post: “Recently, WallBuilders, Inc., whose founder David Barton has been a guest on Fox’s “Huckabee,” among other venues, filed an amicus brief in a case in the Ninth Circuit. The brief argues that the religion protections of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be limited to Christians or, at most, monotheists because, in the founding era, the word “religion” meant only Christianity or, at most, monotheism.” My understanding is that Huckabee and Palin dig this guy too. That’s why I question “which” tea party message we are talking about. The one about less government, or the one about less government for white, christian, heterosexual men?
  62. Capt. GeneApril 10, 2011 at 12:01 pm
    That’s funny. “we will have to agree to disagree”, but here’s more circumstantial evidence that makes my case. Still waiting for some actual evidence that there’s a Tea Party faction that has converting our government to a Christian theocracy as a plank in it’s platform. Let me know when you get some.
  63. 4eyedsueApril 10, 2011 at 3:59 pm
    Well- here’s a few possible Tea Party faves for 2012~ Herman Cain: non-religious Americans should submit to Christian control over the government. “Stay out of our way. Too many Americans are guided and implicitly threatened by the misinterpretations of the Constitution’s establishment clause that found a non-existent ‘separation of church and state.’” Newt: “I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.” (Uh, yeah, Newt, that’s why the secular-minded work for separation of church and state- so mosque and state can join) And sweet Mike Huckabee: Americans should be forced to listen to Religious Right activist David Barton “at gunpoint.” *chuckle, chuckle* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mwGYr0OWzw&feature=player_embedded more Huckabee fun: “I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.” 1/08 I’m done doing your homework for you, Capt. If all you want is a smaller federal government check out the Libertarians.
  64. Capt. GeneApril 10, 2011 at 4:12 pm
    So far you’ve listed comments from individuals, none of which say that they want a Christian theocracy. Perhaps you need me to explain what a Christian theocracy is.
  65. 4eyedsueApril 10, 2011 at 4:24 pm
    I never said Christian theocracy. That was you. Whatever. The point remains- tea party shouts “smaller government” and then sneaks in more religion. Why do you have such a hard time acknowledging that?
  66. Capt. GeneApril 10, 2011 at 5:10 pm
    Actually, you indicated that there is some Tea Party that wants a “Christian federal government”, if that’s not the same thing as a Christian theocracy (it is) then I stand corrected. So far you have failed to present any “Tea Party” that wants a “Christian federal government”, why do you have such a hard time acknowledging that?
  67. Mr PerezApril 14, 2011 at 7:26 pm
    I don’t think the Tea Party wants a Christian government since so many I have seen don’t believe in living real Christian values the way Jesus preached them. Instead they focus more on being American and the focus of less government in a citizens life.
  68. 4eyedsueApril 14, 2011 at 9:00 pm
    less government like the Defense of Marriage Act?

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support