Feingold/Specter spat, constitution comment

[e1618978]

What the heck did Specter mean by this?

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/18/senate.gaymarriage.ap/index.html

Is this a glimpse behind the curtain, where both parties know that a lot of the stuff that they do violates the constitution (for example, war on drugs via commerce clause)?

It just seems odd for a Republican to admit that he is not a defender of the Constitution.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
What the heck did Specter mean by this?

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/18/senate.gaymarriage.ap/index.html

Is this a glimpse behind the curtain, where both parties know that a lot of the stuff that they do violates the constitution (for example, war on drugs via commerce clause)?

It just seems odd for a Republican to admit that he is not a defender of the Constitution. It looks like he's saying that he is a defender of the Constitution. :???:

[Chris Cuilla]

It seems that the statement "You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I" Could be read two different ways:

1. You are just as bad as me at (not) protecting the Constitution, or

2. You are not any better than me at protecting the Constitution...implying that he was elevating herself as a greater Constitution defender than him (or others).

I suspect it was meant as the 2nd form.

EDIT: Fixed incorrect gender pronoun. Thought we were dealing with another Senator (that one from CA...cannot recall the name at the moment).

[addabox]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It seems that the statement "You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I" Could be read two different ways:

1. You are just as bad as me at (not) protecting the Constitution, or

2. You are not any better than me at protecting the Constitution...implying that she was elevating herself as a greater Constitution defender than him (or others).

I suspect it was meant as the 2nd form.

Agreed. I think it translates as "Don't you go getting all 'I heart the Constitution more than you', Mr., because I heart the Constitution plenty".

[southside grabowski]

I think its pretty clear what he meant, although his wording was less than stellar. See Allahpundit for more:

http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/05/18/feingold-specter-in-gay-marriage-spat/

[audiopollution]

I think someone's snuck in and replaced our regular Moe with new improved Moe.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by addabox
Agreed. I think it translates as "Don't you go getting all 'I heart the Constitution more than you', Mr., because I heart the Constitution plenty".

I don't think that I would ever read it that way just based on the text, but you are probably right about what he meant to say.

But, still - the truth leaked out. It was probably a Freudian slip.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by e1618978
I don't think that I would ever read it that way just based on the text, but you are probably right about what he meant to say.

But, still - the truth leaked out. It was probably a Freudian slip.

That's just stupid. You know what the guy meant.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by audiopollution
I think someone's snuck in and replaced our regular Moe with new improved Moe.

Don't complement me too much. I might get giddy and start to rap again. No one wants that.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by audiopollution
] think someone's snuck in and replaced our regular Moe with new improved Moe. I think it's all about the dosages.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by SDW2001
That's just stupid. You know what the guy meant.

I'm not stupid, sorry, and it still looks to me like he
was saying "you don't defend the constitution either".

[Outsider]

It isn't exactly clear, but I'd give Specter the benefit of the doubt. A statement like that could go both ways though.

[addabox]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Don't complement me too much. I might get giddy and start to rap again. No one wants that.

The mystery of the two Moes continues.

Robotic talking points Moe, intermittently enlivened by the disconcerting and incongruous witty self deprecating Moe.

Have we ever seen them in the same place at the same time?

[Northgate]

You gotta love the modern GOP. Your polls and approval ratings are in the tank. It's six months from the mid-terms. What do you do?

Racism and extreme prejudice. That's the answer.

Rally the base around Mexican immigration and then circumvent state's rights by adding discrimination against Gays and Lesbians to the Constitution.

Real nice guys. Predictable. You can't win a ideas. You can only win on hatred and fear. Nice.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Northgate
Rally the base around Mexican immigration and then circumvent state's rights by adding discrimination against Gays and Lesbians to the Constitution.

The republican politicians are caught between a rock and a hard place. The future of all pollitical parties lies in non-white people, because they will soon be more than 50% of the population. The Republican party is treading a fine line between losing hispanics and losing their xenophobic white base.

They can't afford to do either, so they muddle up the immegration issue, and try to get a boost by victimising an easy (and low vote turnout) demographic: gays.

If the Republicans can't keep hispanics and rednecks wedded in unholy matrimony, then they are toast. You will see even more desparate measures in the future.

[Northgate]

Of all the things that we need to work on right now, what do our GOP controlled Congress decide to tackle? Wetbacks and Fags.

[addabox]

Certainly it's hard to underestimate the herd-ablity of the electorate, but don't these recent panderings seem overt and desperate and embarrassing, even for this crowd?

I don't mean for people like me, I mean for the very people this stuff is supposed to get riled up.

On the other hand, we know for a fact that Rove calculates these things down to the last man, and if they figure holding on to the House will take parading around the head of a Hispanic gay guy on the end of a cruelly sharpened pike, in order to eke out a win in a state or two, you have to figure they'd do it.

If I were a Republican, right about now I'd have to start wondering how much damage the President's people are going to be willing to inflict on the party in order to avoid, at any cost, a House of Representatives willing to do some actual investigating.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
[B]The republican politicians are caught between a rock and a hard place. The future of all pollitical parties lies in non-white people, because they will soon be more than 50% of the population. The Republican party is treading a fine line between losing hispanics and losing their xenophobic white base. I recently saw David Brooks, the moderately conservative columnist for the Times. He made a comment that the Republican states are the ones that are growing the fastest, and said "Republicans reproduce more," and got a chuckle out of the crowd. But I wonder if that's really true. My guess is that the southern states are getting the most immigration, and that the majority of immigrants are democrats, which is going to put those southern states more and more in play for Democrats.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BRussell
the majority of immigrants are democrats

Are they? Do we have some reasonably reliable number on this?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by e1618978
I'm not stupid, sorry, and it still looks to me like he
was saying "you don't defend the constitution either".

Of course it does. :lol:

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Northgate
You gotta love the modern GOP. Your polls and approval ratings are in the tank. It's six months from the mid-terms. What do you do?

Racism and extreme prejudice. That's the answer.

Rally the base around Mexican immigration and then circumvent state's rights by adding discrimination against Gays and Lesbians to the Constitution.

Real nice guys. Predictable. You can't win a ideas. You can only win on hatred and fear. Nice.

We can't win on ideas? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[e1618978]

Originally posted by SDW2001
We can't win on ideas? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Not when half of your base hates the other half. The immigration issue will tear the republican party apart.

BRussel - remember that most of those hispanics coming into the country are conservative Cathelocs. Unless the republicans crap on them via immigration law, they are unlikely to vote democrat.

[Northgate]

Just because they're Catholic doesn't mean they're conservative.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Northgate
Just because they're Catholic doesn't mean they're conservative.

Hispanic vote elects bush in 2004:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/4/203450.shtml

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
Hispanic vote elects bush in 2004:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/4/203450.shtml If that's accurate, it shows that more hispanics voted for Kerry than Bush by 10%, and that's in an election year where Bush won. After this immigration hoopla by the Republicans, I'd say the baseline for hispanics is 60-40 for Dems at least.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by e1618978
Not when half of your base hates the other half. The immigration issue will tear the republican party apart.

BRussel - remember that most of those hispanics coming into the country are conservative Cathelocs. Unless the republicans crap on them via immigration law, they are unlikely to vote democrat.

I don't think that's the point he was making. You might be right about division affecting Republicans. But the notion that Republicans cannot win on ideas is laughable. It's Democrats that have to run as moderates or conservatives to win in most areas. Run a truly liberal Presidential candidate that runs as such, and see what happens.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by e1618978
BRussel - remember that most of those hispanics coming into the country are conservative Cathelocs. Unless the republicans crap on them via immigration law, they are unlikely to vote democrat.

Just as a side point: I know that most of the folks immigrating into Florida are conservatives (Cubans?), but my sense is that elsewhere this is not the case. Hispanics here, for instance (~30% of the population) are overwhelmingly democrats.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by midwinter
Just as a side point: I know that most of the folks immigrating into Florida are conservatives (Cubans?),

Those from Vietnam too.

There seems to be a correlation of immigrants that come from former (or current) communist countries voting more Republican because (right, wrong or otherwise) they view Republicans as being anti-communist and (perhaps, to some extent) (right, wrong or otherwise) Democrats as being pro-communist.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Those from Vietnam too.

There seems to be a correlation of immigrants that come from former (or current) communist countries voting more Republican because (right, wrong or otherwise) they view Republicans as being anti-communist and (perhaps, to some extent) (right, wrong or otherwise) Democrats as being pro-communist.

Sure. Russian expats in the past have been the same way (e.g. Hannah Arendt).

[pfflam]

Originally posted by midwinter
Sure. Russian expats in the past have been the same way (e.g. Hannah Arendt). Hannah Arendt wasn't Russian and she wasn't a Conservative either . . . that is a misreading of some of her ideas.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by pfflam
Hannah Arendt wasn't Russian and she wasn't a Conservative either . . . that is a misreading of some of her ideas.

D'oh! Did I mean Ayn Rand?