GOP Corruption and Obstruction
 

Well, I thought we needed a thread to balance out the Leftie Corruption thread, just for fun. ;)

Here's a good start. Though I was hard pressed to find a more detailed article, oddly enough…

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/t…_in_the_senate

Now why this hasn't shown up in the mainstream news really makes me wonder.

I noticed that Thrasher's thread was in jeopardy of falling off the front page (draw your own conclusions, folks ;) ), so I figured I could do my buddy a favor.

http://trueslant.com/johnknefel/2010…being-a-state/
I don't know how the political parties lined up on this particular vote, but since the direction is typical of the bible thumper crowd I'll go ahead and tag it as republican even if that's not perfectly accurate. I can't see how this law can be enforced. Too many factors. Only thing I can figure is that it will be a "pile on" charge when they've got other charges against the same woman. Not sure I buy into the "grand conspiracy to undercut Roe v Wade" angle, but I'm not sure I could convincingly prove it false, either. What a mess.

Definitely messy, and hard to prove in court. Could go by the wayside. What about women who are unintentionally reckless? It's seems that intent to be reckless and put the baby at risk would need to be proved. Tough one that.

The hilarious thing is that for all of the Tea Party hysteria over 'Big Brother', many of those same folks are fine with this sort of thing … talk about 'in your face' Big Government, where your lifestyle and actions are regulated by a police state ready to swoop in.

Odd that one, eh? Never really understood that hypocrisy in the Republican hivemind. Maybe someone here can explain it.

You could also hit a conflict between this law and doctor/patient confidentiality.

When my oldest was born, Dr. J (I think Judy adopted the nickname, I thought it was pretty obvious) took one look at the umbilical cord and told my wife, "I'm glad you didn't smoke during your pregnancy." I don't think Mrs dte has smoked a single thing in her whole life, but apparently the evidence is that plain and obvious to a professional. What's a Utah OB to do if some woman has a miscarriage and the umbilical cord shows signs of smoking?

That law's a mess. Obviously, I'm not generally a fan of the ACLU but I hope they kick this one in the nuts.

Look at it this way - the Republicans can toss out 'tax and spend liberal' and it *immediately* sticks. So regardless of anything else, something that can create discord like that is effective political strategy.

Personally I like how that mantra shames many Dems into being more centrist (like slick willie) … I just wish they could find a way to do the same to those nutjob Repubs.

So it's unabashed political cynicism that is totally bogus? The anti-big government mantra is fake, and it REALLY is against specific anti-government regulations that are not liked, not in general. There really isn't a consistent Republican libertarian viewpoint?

"Someone"? Pretty slim pickin's me thinks. Were you looking for me, myself, or I? ;)

I should point out that you're improperly equating the bible thumpers with the tea party folks. There's certainly overlap between the groups, but the tea party folks are primarily libertarians—fiscal conservatives, but actually quite liberal socially. It's like equating some eco-terrorist with John Kerry. Same end of the political spectrum and even have some common themes, but simply not the same folks.

Ron Paul. That's about it.

Ok, thanks guys. I actually liked Ron Paul best out of the GOP from 2008, so that makes sense. :) So Bible Thumpers and Libertarians (anti-government) don't have consistent views yet are in the same party.

Nancy Pelosi and the Blue Dogs? Like I said, both umbrellas house groups with different (or even conflicting) priorities.

Yeah I knew that already. Usually there is SOME common political beliefs, just not seeing any between the bible thumpers and libertarians.

There's not. Also, there aren't very many common beliefs between the more liberal (or potentially "old school" conservatives) like me and the rest of the party.

Fuck, I found myself arguing for an increase in taxes (in addition to a 1-2% "war tax" on all citizens to cover the current conflicts) the other week in class. Of course, I also thought we should cut spending, means test social security, etc, but still.

But despite all the idealogical differences, the congressional republicans are awfully good at circling the wagons and voting in a pack. Although even that is starting to breakdown. Which is a good thing, if they are truly representing their constituents, rather than party tactics.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/…_congress_jobs

It's actually media laziness (or part of the grand liberal media conspiracy, if you lean that way) that lumped the libertarians in with the repubs. They're really off in their own corner of the political spectrum. Because the "current noise" from the tea party folks opposes the democrats, the media automatically pigeonholes them with the repubs regardless of where they really "belong". If you put it on a line fiscally speaking, you'd have the Reaganites, move right to the Tea Party folks, and then move right again to true libertarians.

The term "conservative" itself clearly suits the bible thumpers, even if umbrella isn't a perfect fit for them, either. It seems to me that many groups on both sides of the aisle end up assigned to a side more by deciding where they don't fit than by where they truly do.

They're representing the constituents that get them through primaries. If you can find a way around the "die-hard loyalists vote" primary system (it happens on your side of the aisle as well - the Democrats are shedding moderates as well) then you'd see a more representative Congress.

Just getting more people to vote is always a good thing in my book. Which is why the uproar over ACORN bothers me.

I would term myself a libertarian … just FYI …

But if these folks are genuine, WHY did they suddenly come out within a month of when a Democrat came into office rather than one of the absolute worst tax & spenders in history was in office for 8 years? (i.e. Bush, who is directly to blame for at the very least all of the reasons that a massive bailout and stimulus were needed)

Your question is inaccurate. Dubya wasn't a tax-n-spender. He cut taxes. Remember? That's how he managed that ridiculous deficit y'all love to remind us of every 30 seconds. That is also one of the reasons why Obama set the tea partiers off—he ran his campaign on a planned and unabashed tax increase. Since the election, he's spent more than Dubya ever dreamed. Barack Christ jammed thru congress the biggest deficit budget in history (eclipsing the worst of the great satan, Dubya). THAT is tax-n-spend, Mike.

Actually, if it weren't for a few specific issues (return to the gold standard, extreme isolationist policy), I'd probably be libertarian myself. Because of those issues, I identify as repub like I did under Saint Ron, which unfortunately puts me under the same umbrella as the bible thumpers and Sarah Palin.