All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

When it comes to running-mates, isn't Romney/Perry pretty obvious, a la JFK/LBJ?

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

I'm not sure that Mr. Smith understands what those who support the 10th Amendment really think if he believes that it is a contradiction to support using it to limit federal overreach and at the same time to have a constitutional amendment against Gay marriage or abortion. We don't believe that the federal government shouldn't do anything, just that it should only do things that are specifically enumerated.

BTW, I disagree with the policy of either of those amendments, but I wouldn't claim that those who do are hypocrites for supporting them.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Actually, it is hypocritical. On one hand, Rick Perry demands "states' rights", and even raises the possibility of secession, and on the other hand, he supports two amendments that would limit states' rights even further. It's comparable to advocating "individual rights" in the abstract, and then supporting various constitutional amendments to severely restrict individual rights in an unprecedented manner.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

It would be hypocritical if he were a libertarian; he's not. It's perfectly consistent with what he believes and it's legal to do so if the political will exists; it doesn't.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

It's hypocritical because he's an avowed advocate of states' rights who even threatened to secede over the matter. It's not even consistent with what he believed a few weeks ago. Legality is a red herring, as any amendment to the constitution would be technically legal, even one legalizing slavery, it says nothing about whether or not he's being a hypocrite.

It's comparable to someone advocating "individual rights", while simultaneously supporting measures to trample on them, like an amendment legalizing slavery - also 'legal'.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Evan Smith was quite good. How is this possible, he doesn't write for "Reason" or "National Review Online," why was he even on? Since it sounds like the Republican nominee could very well be Perry, let's have more Evan.

I don't know anything about Perry, I don't even know what he looks like, except that I just looked at a picture. Wow, he's good-looking. People never say this, I guess that's not in good taste. Althouse will say it. This guy looks like James Brolin. If he were not governor, he could either be a country music star or play one in the movies.

It sounds like people are saying he's a right-wing Bill Clinton, without the quasi-intellectual background.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

just a simple-minded, not very clever question. How does one threaten to secede?

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

hmmm

lot's of people say this. he's adorable.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

It's almost a necessity that a president should have above average looks. The days of having a Grover Cleveland president who was overweight with a triple chin are over.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Evan Smith knows his stuff. I've come across several of his interviews online and they're great too. Have him back!

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Well, and being overweight wasn't necessarily a negative back then. So Cleveland doesn't necessarily prove that unattractiveness used to be okay. For that, one has to go back to Abe Lincoln.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

No, it isn't hypocritical. The 10th Amendment/States Rights position is that the Constitution reserves some powers to the federal government and everything else to the states. If the Constitution is amended to add a power to the feds, then it is then amoung its enumerated powers.

You and I may disagree that those powers should be added to the federal government (though if you are pro-choice, you don't, you just disagree with the policy outcome), but Gov. Perry's position is internally consistent.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

he looks good in marble.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

And a true advocate for states' rights would not support depriving states of even more rights, especially when that same person is complaining that the federal government has too much power to begin with. The constant and irrational excuse-making for a miscreant and creep like Rick Perry is not only nauseating, it bodes ill for the future. It is clear that people are preparing themselves to vote for this creature.

Tell me, is someone who believes that states should be abolished as jurisdictions independent from the federal government a supporter of states' rights, if he holds all the other positions of Rick Perry? Does someone who believes that slavery should be legalized again believe in individual rights?

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

so you're saying that? or you're saying Perry is saying that?

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

The 10th amendment acknowledges the primacy of other amendments in the Constitution. To pass an amendment requires a broad national consensus, not a 51% majority. There is no contradiction.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Rick Perry never threatened to secede.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Under ANY circumstances? A belief in state's rights isn't a cult. It's the rational belief in decentralized power being better for liberty. If you believe a fetus is a baby, and dissecting that baby and then throwing it away is a violation of it's liberty to live, then your duty is clear. That is why we have an amendment process.

I think any amendment banning abortion is pie in the sky for right now. Roe, however, is bad law and should be done away with as soon as possible.

There is no one serious who finds the federal government's use of powers as listed in the amendments of the Constitution to be all that onerous. The problem is the federal government's use of clauses in the articles of the Constitution to expand power beyond any reasonable interpretation of the document. The Commerce clause being the biggest problem by far, justifying everything from health care to gun control.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Guess.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

This is like saying that a constitutional amendment establishing monarchy as the official form of government would not be undemocratic, because it would have to be democratically approved by the states.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4945/perish.jpg
(By Driftglass)


http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9...kperrybush.jpg
(By Mario Piperni)

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

They could have fooled me. States' rights have been used to justify everything, from slavery, to segregation, lynching, but now that the descendants of the slaveholders, segregationists and lynchers find themselves on losing ends of debates (note: I am not talking about you here), states' rights suddenly mean nothing. As far as I know, no advocate of states' rights simultaneously advocated for constitutional amendments abridging these states' rights.

I note that you do not defend the marriage amendment, school prayer amendment, and the host of other federal measures demanded by the religious right as being similarly rational.

That's all fun and games, but if someone opposes this sort of thing, it hardly justifies advocating for measures to enhance federal power, especially over areas that have always been under the control of the states.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

I just wanted to say that I don't find him handsome at all. Perhaps when he was younger or photographed from certain angles. But, no, not attractive from my perspective.

And, in order to show that I'm not being partial, if we were talking about other Republican politicians, I wouldn't have the same negative opinion about, for example, Scott Brown. ;)

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

While we're saying things that might not be in good taste, I'll go ahead and say this is good news since it can help close that female gender gap Republicans tend to have.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

But again no one is threatening to secede by saying' who knows what could come of that?' Is that the most emphatic thing he said?

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

So are you arguing that abortion should be back under state control?

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

I am pro-choice, but I would give up abortion for everything else that would come from a strong 10th Amendment -- if that were the choice. True federalism would take us back to state experimentation and smaller government which is crucial for new entrepreneurship and innovation going forward. Besides, it wouldn't make abortion illegal in every state -- just some. You gotta make trade-offs in life.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Besides, it's always nice to have a reason to take a trip. And think of the revenue enhancement for states where abortion is legal. Hotels, restaurants,... in fact some states might see it as detrimental to their budgets to prohibit abortion. There's a lot to consider.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

I can see the abortion vacation ads now.

Re: Good Looks
 

If good looks is a necessary and sufficient condition for political success then I'm a shoo-in for ascension to majesty in the kingdom of the blind.

Itzik Basman

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Well that is functionally true. A properly voted on constitutional amendment establishing monarchy as the official form of government wouldn't be undemocratic, by the definition of each term. Indeed, a limited monarchy need not even rid itself of democracy.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

They "mean nothing" only if we accept your premise that there is a contradiction. We do not accept that premise, that is what we are debating.

Oh? Pro-gay marriage advocates argue for state's rights, and simultaneously advocate for constitutional amendments abridging the rights of the states. The Constitution is the PROPER method of removing state authority, and everyone agrees that this is so.

Moreover, even the "villains" of the narrative have held this position. There was an anti-miscegenation amendment proposed, and of course the infamous Corwin amendment. Everyone knows that the Constitution is the proper pathway for transformative changes in the balance of power.

Can you point me to a state's rights advocate who has said the Constitution is not the highest law?

Those are all pipe dreams. The committed religious voters are making a mistake by aping the left. But let us remember who has warped the fabric of the state; the left. They have used the courts to buy on the cheap what would have been expensive and difficult through law. But PASSING things through the Congress is how law gains legitimacy in the nation.

What is left for the state's to control? Gay marriage and the color scheme of the governor's wallpaper? Why do you care about either of these "powers"? They're phoney. The states are practically nothing more than provinces in the current order.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Also, it helps if you know how to smile: did Abe ever smile?

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Here is what I take to be a recent photo of Perry:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...QEwEA&dur=1331

I'd call this rugged good looks. Got to think this is worth a percentage point or two on its own.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

I am an advocate of liberty, not states' rights. My position is consistent. Rick Perry's is not.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Why would you even bring it up? Do you think that there is a reasonable explanation for this statement, and the other statements he has made about secession.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Yes, but I am not talking about a gutted European-style monarchy, I am talking about the real deal here. You're confusing process and substance here. The process by which a monarchy is established, is not undemocratic. But the substance is. You can't say: someone who favors establishing monarchy is not favoring something undemocratic, because it has to be approved by the people's representatives. Yes, that is the process, but what about the substance? The same thing applies to Rick Perry.

Re: All-Texas Edition (Erica Grieder & Evan Smith)
 

Oh, I totally agree. Maybe 5%. Maybe 10%. There's a segment of the population that can't be bothered to actually know anything about politics or the extremist positions Perry favors, but who will swoon at the sight of him, and his forceful "fuck Washington" style of delivery. Wingnuts are already weak in the knees at the mere sight of him. This is what they respond to: the emotional component of politics, rather than the intellectual substance. And at an emotional level, Perry feels like the kind of leader the wingnut base wants to follow.

I don't know how a guy who looks -- and acts -- like this can lose the election:

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7192/perryt.png

It doesn't matter how extreme he is -- that he thinks that almost the entire federal government is illegal. What matters is the force of his personality.